good morning welcome to then i started the case that we're arguing this afternoon is national family farm coalition versus u s environmental protection agency and  ten minutes and minutes is that correct that's correct your honor and good and good afternoon for you have you made your appearances at home of i just want to get that i may correct in damaging nearly five millions of acres in soybean a low not to mention countless acres of specialty crops fruits and vegetables and ornamental plants as well as putting at risk hundreds of endangered species and their critical habitat statutorily required findings before conditionally extending these registrations now under fire for an e p a is required to show that it has satisfactory data pertaining specific to these posted margin over the top use specifically for these over the top uses indeed i made it that it didn't even have enough information to support its regular tories decisions through the two year term period of its current registration expansion  these are not the type of study that confirms anything in fact e p a is calling for the st time a non target plan of the study that would measure harm both in terms of yield and hype and also across all directions fun are actually original data that was not supplied in the st or that's correct e t a doesn't have any study i was about to go on on trees and shrubs for example e p a is asking for a study  they said they are not represented and that you are nineteen so without study a fact of studies on the safety of five some trees and shrubs which the record shows there were numerous incident reports of harm in the real world in the i'd like to move on to the nd factor e p a was also required to find that the registration would not significantly increase the risk of any and reasonable adverse effects on the environment this is usually consider responded that analysis to can't be supported with substantiated substantial evidence when consider on the record as a whole st of all the record indicates that e p a didn't determine the level of that camber drew in the last two actions in this current registration extension to quote some rather minimize offside movement still thought there was room to reduce offside movement yet even his conclusion at your eighteen was that quote when the requested mitigation measures were these uses are applied the benefits of the use of the pesticide outweigh the risks so it isn't a higher finding of no significant increase of and reasonable adverse effect rests on violated the endangered species act a number of ways but today i'm just going to focus on three for their blood and i'm also standard throughout their assessment nd they use that standard to improperly exclude hundreds of endangered species from the action area and finally are returning concern standard into the e p a context now that standard looked at whether harm is unreasonable or not or at st it doesn't look for any possible effect the e s a is very different as this court has explained and wasn't talk counted five hundred and eighty seven endangered species are ignoring the actual area and two hundred and sixteen critical habitat and yet it is either that action could have absolutely no effect on any of those whatsoever when it made no effective terminations and that  record showed that with the level of concern standard look for is adverse effects you can see that they are two to nine among other places in e p a believes that effects below the level of concern are discountable or indign in the definition of a not likely to adversely effect position which is step two of the consultations dander and requires at least informal consultation and written to the vision while a service they can't merge those steps they cannot aggregate that authority recovery in fact if asked the national academy of sciences how to do this after struggling with it for years and disagreeing with the expert wildlife agencies about how to do it they went to the national academy is that how do we do the mean two thousand and thirteen in the report and told them the way you're doing it this level of concern standard is quote not scientifically defensible and that was five years before this registration is in and e p a used the same s to the action area in two thousand and sixteen e p a limited and just the feel themselves because the so that the sides wouldn't leave the field in two thousand and eighteen we know that they were grossly wrong about that decision and then we have massive amounts quote limit drift below their risk triggers now e p a cannot limit the action areas to where they find no adverse effects the services define the action area all areas directly or indirectly effected not just those areas if you change it's ermine's or acted at a level of concern i mean in fact there are numerous may have affected missions in this record for hundreds of endangered species you can see that in your three hundred and thirty six among other places where you said that endanger explain how you have decided to divide your time i see on the scene that we would have six minutes actually six minutes for m discussion of the label issue that argument yes your honor and i'd be happy to address your i think that the fundamental point on the label is that the label which is you're saying that the label is designed with such specificity and to make sure that there's not misuse but there is a lot of evidence on the record that you can't follow the label  use a no act no observed adverse environmental effect concentration or a one in a one million chance of the fact they call this a negligible risk standard d but the centrally the same would be focusing on those areas where it could make no effect that's exactly what they did so they weren't fully aware how easy it was going to be by another and the vast majority of pesticide interim if you had to look at reliability and had to look comparability and to look at consistency with these i had to make judgement calls when weighing the best available science and then had to relate we're not hearing mr pre great great art will make it please the court i'd like to address today primarily jurisdiction and remedies if i may as to jurisdiction i didn't expect eighteen months ago that i'd be back before this court talking about jurisdiction again but petitioners one cig and waited more than seventy days after the order registration order was entered in order to file their petition for review that's sixty days interested in the limits of their jurisdiction the out time the facts are not really in dispute on rise you were explaining why an order was issued and would take and the fact and then you may proceed from there thank you so the order to confect on specific issue the issue in this case what happens if we make an order effect of the media and what it said is if we make an order effect immediately it is entered immediately for purposes of our rule and the clock starts  resist the petitioners call for an immediate national big change or at least not without some briefing your own or camping has already started if this court were to vacate in the middle of planting season it was water yes your honor the risk to endangered species is that farmers would scramble and many would undoubtedly choose other pesticides to use in the middle of the growth season aside from him less there are some all girl turned against but those other alternatives are not equally effective when used over the top farmers may use them those include some that are undoubtedly more toxic than i gamble and don't come with the same conditions i'm using they're legal to use but they can cause more harm to the environment what we respectively were drawn hers is we can't address what the more narrow better remedies might be without knowing more about what this court billeted to use the service like all of the other counties and it's unnecessary because even in the counties that are implicated larger buffers could be the same goes largely print danger animals i don't think very many of those are issue in fact thank you well now i go to the i robot all for the petitioner affected for review two weeks after it is signed unless the administrators or otherwise explicitly provide in a different order there is no such explicitly provide other orders here e t a has consistently agreed with our interpretation of the timing of jurisdiction and courts have held that quote it is not a principle of law that all agency actions must be reviewable as soon as it is affected and right indeed he has countless similar jurisdiction order or portion of the order has no impact on the jurisdiction no that's part of the p s regular practice e p a signs signs the order and e t a has agree with us in the predecessor of this case as our position if i'm understanding your question correctly is that the application of the regulation forty c f r twenty three point six means that the effective means that the date for judicial review of the clock would you do through review starts two weeks after that except to date on the notice of registration ok that's your position but i don't think you really answered my question with respect to the order some of the way i can take a look at that please proceed sure and  just a few points i'll start with the remedy question raised by montana so there is absolutely no record of evidence that there would be worse for the environment that it is not more environmentally safe to vacate the pesticide british ration and it's farmers can use pre emergent versions of this as they had for many years d before two thousand and sixteen when these were registered there is also less toxic version we cited those are very so the burden year was on the responded and there is no evidence in light agency we shouldn't be asked to do or the courts in b s do saying analysis of the expert agency needs to be done during consultation so that's what happened after wagner the california regions case among others from this court support that for nation of this magnitude or using this level of concern method because the proper standard mandates consultation this may affect standards have to be kept sufficiently low that the court doesn't screw drive in order to insure  than in that case you had water that was being deposited into a river that had a copper concentration that was already below the level of the background levels of copper that were in that river is the looted the copper in that river which actually lowered the risk for endanger in five year or this registration even though in that report they say we're going to buy this from a day forward well it's been five years forward they haven't applied it these reasons we have this court vacate the registration and do so before the planting season thank you thank you thank you to counsel for the extensive briefing and your argument while i would have preferred to see when person in san francisco we've been able to really have very effective arguments today so i