Nrdc v. Usepa, 956 F.3d 1134

NRDC filed an administrative petition in April 2009 asking EPA to cancel registration of tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) in household pet products due to organophosphate neurodevelopmental risks to children.
A 2008 study and EPA’s 2016 revised risk assessment identified exposure pathways from treated pets and concluded risks to children exceeded the Agency’s level of concern.
EPA gave no substantive response for years, denied the petition after NRDC sued in D.C. Circuit (2014), and then sought voluntary remand in Ninth Circuit litigation (2016), promising a final response within 90 days after completing a revised risk assessment.
EPA completed the 2016 risk assessment but failed to issue the promised final response; instead it sought additional data from the sole registrant (Hartz), and did not compel studies until days after NRDC filed the mandamus petition in 2019.
NRDC petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to compel EPA to issue a final response; the Ninth Circuit found EPA’s multi‑year delay egregious and granted the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EPA unreasonably delayed responding to NRDC’s administrative petition to cancel TCVP in pet products	Delay exceeded a reasonable time (over a decade); risks to children warrant prompt action	EPA had made progress, needed more data, and had competing regulatory priorities	Court found delay egregious and unreasonable; mandamus warranted
Application of TRAC factors to the delay	TRAC factors (especially rule of reason and health stakes) favor compelling action quickly	EPA: nearly all EPA work implicates health; prioritization among many reviews is required	TRAC analysis tipped sharply in favor of mandamus (rule of reason, human health, prejudice factors decisive)
Whether EPA’s asserted uncertainty (liquid/dust ratio; need for torsion study) justified further delay	EPA already concluded collars are of concern regardless of ratio; further study does not excuse inaction	EPA argued it needed registrant data to refine risk assessment before final decision	Court rejected uncertainty as a justification for years of delay; cannot defer action pending speculative future evidence
Appropriate remedy and timing	NRDC sought an order requiring a final agency decision	EPA argued it must fit within broader registration review schedule and statutory priorities	Court ordered EPA to issue a full final response within 90 days; if cancellation initiated, bimonthly status reports and expectation of completion within one year

In re Pesticide Action Network N. Am., 798 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2015) (mandamus granted for long EPA delay on organophosphate pesticide)
In re A Community Voice, 878 F.3d 779 (9th Cir. 2017) (mandamus granted after multi‑year EPA delay where children’s health at stake)
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wheeler, 922 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2019) (mem.) (compelled EPA action on organophosphate pesticide after extended delay)
Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (establishing TRAC factors for reviewing agency delay)
In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (six‑year plus delay held unreasonable)