In rе PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defеnse Council, Inc., Petitioners, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, United States of America, Real Party in Interest.
No. 12-71125
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2013. Submission Withdrawn Feb. 6, 2013. Re-submitted July 10, 2013.
532 F. App‘x 649
Michael J. Byars, U.S. Department of Justice, New York, NY, David Aiken Carson, Esquire, Senior Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Denver, CO, Mark Dyner, Attorney Advisor, Lisa P. Jackson, Esquire, Usepa-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, Melinda Haag, Esquire, U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM *
Pеsticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (collectively “PANNA“) petition this court for a writ of mandamus requiring the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA“) to respond within 60 days to its September 12, 2007 petition (“2007 Petition“) asking EPA to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Because this court would have exclusive jurisdiction to review any final аction taken by EPA in response to the 2007 Petition, we have jurisdiction to review a challenge to EPA‘s failure to act. Seе In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d 1110, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition.
I.
EPA has a statutory duty to respond to PANNA‘s petition in one of three ways, by issuing: a final regulation, a proposed regulation, or an order denying the petition.
“While agencies cannot insulate their decisions from Congressionally mandated judicial review simply by failing to take ‘final action,’ our authority to issue mandamus relief from agency inaction is narrow indeed.” In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d at 1124. “Nevertheless, when as here an agency has a statutory duty to avoid ‘unreasonable delay,’ we must review the ongoing proсeedings to determine ‘whether the agency‘s delay is so egregious as to warrant mandamus.‘” Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783, 797 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (”TRAC“)).
II.
Applying the six-factor test set forth in TRAC for determining whether to comрel agency action on the basis of unreasonable delay, we deny the petition. See In re Cal. Power Exch. Corp., 245 F.3d at 1124-25
1. The time EPA has taken to consider the 2007 Petition is not unreasonable in light of the complexity of the issue. “There is no per se rule as to how long is toо long to wait for agency action.” In re Core Commc‘ns, Inc., 531 F.3d 849, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers United, 372 F.3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). PANNA argues that there is “no clear end to the delay in sight.” Yet EPA‘s subsequent response in this court has set forth a concrete timeline for final agency action that would resolve the 2007 Petition by February 2014. Moreover, EPA has pointed to concrete steps that it has taken from 2007 to the present to work toward resolving the complicated scientific questions posed by the 2007 Petition, including convening four Scientific Advisory Panels, and issuing a preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment, an updated evaluation of pesticide spray drift risk, and a partial response to the 2007 Petition.
2. The relevant statutes regulating chlorpyrifos—the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FFDCA“),
3. & 5. PANNA forcefully argues that human hеalth and welfare are at stake and therefore delay may be particularly unreasonable. However, this factor is not dispositive here. First, EPA found current chlorpyrifos exposures “safe” in 2006, and EPA does not presently believe that currеnt levels of exposures result in serious harm. Second, EPA, by its nature, regulates almost entirely in the realm of human health and welfаre. In such circumstances, we agree with the D.C. Circuit‘s observation that “whether the public health and welfare will benefit or suffеr from accelerating this particular rulemaking depends crucially upon the competing priorities that consumе EPA‘s time, since any acceleration here may come at the expense of delay of EPA action elsewhеre.” Sierra Club, 828 F.2d at 798. Therefore, neither the fact that EPA‘s decision concerns human health nor the scope of the potentiаl harm justifies issuing a writ of mandamus at this time.
4. The fourth TRAC factor requires that we “consider the effect of expediting delayed action оn agency activities of a higher or competing priority.” Independence Min. Co., Inc., 105 F.3d at 507 n. 7. EPA argues that its proposed time frame for resolving the petition is reasonable in light of its other statutory obligations. We agree. Among other priorities, under FIFRA, EPA must make registration decisiоns on pesticide applications on time frames running from three months to two years; and EPA has received 1,500 such annual applications over the last three years. This factor therefore weighs against granting the petition.
III.
“In the final analysis, we weigh all the relevant factors and determine whether they point in favor of сourt intervention.” Id. at 512. Balancing the competing interests, we conclude that a writ of mandamus is not warranted at this time.
Although it is well еstablished that we may retain jurisdiction over the 2007 Petition to ensure that EPA acts expediently, we decline to do so herе. See TRAC, 750 F.2d at 80. However, our denial of the petition is without prejudice to seeking the same relief at a future date in the event EPA fails to act.
PETITION DENIED.