312 F. Supp. 3d 884
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (California citrus growers and an industry association) challenged USDA/APHIS Final Rule lifting a long‑standing ban on imports of lemons from northwest Argentina; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- APHIS promulgated the Final Rule after notice and comment, relying on a Pest Risk Assessment and a “systems approach” (SENASA oversight, grower/packer measures, APHIS audits); an Operational Work Plan (OWP) was finalized after the rule.
- Plaintiffs alleged procedural and substantive defects under the Plant Protection Act, APA, NEPA, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): failures to disclose a 2015 trip report, to publish the OWP for comment, arbitrary reliance on SENASA, improper treatment of Citrus Black Spot (CBS) science, inadequate RFA analysis, and NEPA violations.
- The court previously found Plaintiffs had standing for several claims; Defendants supplied an administrative record including later trip reports, risk analyses, and the OWP; APHIS limited initial imports geographically for 2017–2018.
- The court reviewed the rule under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard, applying Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedents and deference to agency scientific expertise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (economic & environmental) | Growers will suffer price/market injury from Argentine imports; pests pose environmental risk | Any harms are speculative/attenuated | Court upheld prior finding: plaintiffs have competitor and environmental standing based largely on APHIS’s own risk/economic estimates |
| Non‑disclosure of 2015 trip report | Failure to disclose a report until after comment deprived public of meaningful comment (report was "critical") | Report was not unique or critical; similar 2016 trip report and other documents were disclosed | Disclosure not material; report largely duplicated other disclosed material so no reopening of comment period required |
| Operational Work Plan (OWP): notice & rule type | OWP contains critical, unique implementation details and conflicts with Final Rule; it is a legislative rule requiring notice | OWP is interpretive guidance consistent with Final Rule; Proposed Rule identified OWP scope; no critical unique information withheld | OWP characterized as interpretive (not legislative); no material inconsistencies; notice and comment not required under Idaho Farm Bureau standard |
| Reliance on SENASA & CBS science | APHIS irrationally relied on SENASA before full OWP/site verification and ignored EU study showing CBS transmissibility | APHIS retains oversight, conducted site visits, reviewed evidence including EU study, and reasonably relied on its own peer‑reviewed science | Court found APHIS’s reliance and scientific judgments reasonable and entitled to deference; not arbitrary and capricious |
| RFA (zone of interests & analysis adequacy) | RFA review required because Rule will economically harm small domestic growers; agency underestimated import volume | RFA applies to small entities to whom a rule ‘‘applies’’; indirectly affected growers fall outside the RFA zone of interests; APHIS’s economic assumptions reasonable | Court held indirectly affected growers are outside RFA zone of interest; even if applicable, APHIS’s regulatory flexibility analysis was not arbitrary |
| NEPA (EIS/EA required) | Lifting an 80‑year ban could significantly affect environment; EA/EIS required | Action fits APHIS categorical exclusion for actions where means to avoid impacts are built in (routine measures); Cactus Corner controls | Court applied Cactus Corner and deferred to APHIS: categorical exclusion appropriate; no NEPA violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlan Land Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Ag., 186 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (prior vacatur of APHIS rule lifting Argentine lemon ban for faulty pest risk assumptions)
- Kern County Farm Bureau v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (agency must disclose technical studies used in rulemaking unless information is merely supplementary and not prejudicial)
- Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (undisclosed material that is critical and unique requires reopening of comment period)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard: agency must consider relevant factors and connect facts to decisions)
- Cactus Corner, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (APhIS may apply NEPA categorical exclusion where rule’s builtin measures prevent significant environmental impacts)
- Rybachek v. U.S. EPA, 904 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1990) (agency may add supporting documentation in final rule so long as not critical and unique)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requirements for environmental plaintiffs)
- Lands Council v. McNair, 629 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts defer to agency scientific and technical analyses within expertise)