Pesticide Action Network North America & Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
532 F. App'x 649
9th Cir.2013Background
- PANNA petitioned EPA in 2007 to ban chlorpyrifos and sought mandamus relief for EPA to respond within 60 days.
- This court has exclusive jurisdiction to review final EPA action or failure to act on the petition under 21 U.S.C. § 346a(d)(4)(A).
- EPA owes a statutory duty to respond by final regulation, proposed regulation, or denial order, or risk APA review for unlawful withholding or delay.
- The court applies the TRAC six-factor test to determine if agency delay is unreasonable and warrants mandamus.
- The court concludes the six-factor analysis does not support mandamus and denies the petition, though allows future relief if EPA fails to act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is EPA's delay unreasonable under TRAC? | PANNA argues delay is unreasonable and warrant mandamus. | EPA argues complexity and competing priorities justify the delay. | No; delay not unreasonable under TRAC. |
| Should the court compel action given statutory deadlines? | PANNA seeks a timely response per petition duty. | FFDCA/FIFRA do not fix a deadline; prioritization allowed. | No; statutory timelines do not compel immediate action. |
| Do health and welfare concerns compel mandamus? | Human health stakes make delay unreasonable. | Health concerns are weighed against other EPA priorities; not dispositive. | No; not dispositive, and acceleration may impact other actions. |
| Does expediting this petition harm higher-priority agency work? | Expediting would benefit public health immediately. | Expediting would interfere with numerous FIFRA pesticide registration workloads. | No; weighs against mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2001) (adopts TRAC six-factor test for agency delay and mandamus standards)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (agency delay must be egregious to warrant mandamus)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (TRAC factors guiding reasonableness of delay)
- In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (no per se rule for how long is too long to wait for agency action)
- Independence Mining Co., Inc. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 1997) (factors weigh competing priorities in mandamus analysis)