Pesticide Action Network North America v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
798 F.3d 809
9th Cir.2015Background
- EPA is required under the Food Quality Protection Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to ensure registered pesticides are "safe" and to reassess tolerances periodically.
- Chlorpyrifos: EPA banned residential uses in 2000 but kept agricultural tolerances after interim/final decisions; environmental groups challenged continued agricultural uses.
- Pesticide Action Network North America and NRDC filed an administrative petition in Sept. 2007 seeking revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances; EPA published notice but provided no final response for years.
- After missed deadlines and a partly stayed New York suit, petitioners sought mandamus in the Ninth Circuit (2012); the court denied mandamus then because EPA had given a "concrete timeline" to act by Feb 2014.
- EPA again missed that timeline, issued only a preliminary denial in Jan 2015, and later proposed (but did not commit to) a proposed revocation rule by Apr 2016; petitioners renewed their mandamus request.
- The Ninth Circuit found EPA’s multi‑year delay (nearly eight years at that point), repeated missed deadlines, and EPA’s own recent statements about health risks made mandamus relief appropriate and ordered EPA to issue a final response or proposed/final revocation rule by Oct 31, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s delay in responding to the 2007 administrative petition is unreasonable and warrants mandamus | Delay is egregious, harms human health, and violates APA §§ 555(b), 706(1); mandamus appropriate | EPA argued complexity, competing priorities, and represented timelines (earlier concrete timeline and later proposed rulemaking) justified more time | Court granted mandamus: EPA must issue a final response or a proposed/final revocation rule by Oct 31, 2015 |
| Applicability of TRAC factors to compel agency action | TRAC factors favor judicial intervention given prolonged delay and health stakes | EPA contended TRAC factors previously weighed against relief and complexity still justified delay | Court applied TRAC and found factors (rule of reason, health risk, missed timelines) support mandamus |
| Whether a proposed rule timeline satisfies requirement for a "final ruling" | Petitioners: proposed rule is not a final response and does not cure unreasonable delay | EPA: proposed rulemaking to revoke tolerances is forthcoming (Apr 2016) and may resolve petition | Court held a promise to propose a rule (and possible settlement) is insufficient; ordered a firm deadline for a final action |
| Whether extraordinary remedy (mandamus) is justified | Petitioners: extraordinary relief justified by exceptional circumstances of delay | EPA: mandamus extraordinary and inappropriate given administrative complexity and prior representations | Court found circumstances exceptional and granted mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2001) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; delay must be egregious)
- Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271 (1988) (mandamus reserved for extraordinary circumstances)
- Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (articulates six‑factor TRAC test for unreasonable agency delay)
- In re Pesticide Action Network N. Am., 532 F. App’x 649 (9th Cir. 2013) (prior denial of mandamus based on EPA’s then‑concrete timeline)
- Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Brock, 823 F.2d 626 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (courts skeptical where agency timetable has a history of optimism)
- United Farm Workers v. Administrator, EPA, 592 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional prerequisites for challenging EPA pesticide safety determinations)