Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05132/USCOURTS-caDC-06-05132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Appellee
Stephen L. Johnson
Appellee
Natural Resources Defense Council
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 4, 2007 Decided May 25, 2007

No. 06-5132

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,

APPELLANT

v.

STEPHEN L. JOHNSON,

ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 05cv00340)

Benjamin H. Longstreth argued the cause for appellant.

With him on the briefs was Aaron Colangelo. 

Alisa B. Klein, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued

the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S.

Attorney, Jonathan F. Cohn, Deputy Assistant Attorney

General, and Mark B. Stern, Attorney. Angeline Purdy, Michael

T. Gray, and Teal L. Miller, Attorneys, entered appearances.

USCA Case #06-5132 Document #1042761 Filed: 05/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

Before: RANDOLPH, TATEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: The Natural Resources Defense Council sued

the Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that the Agency

violated statutory and regulatory reporting requirements in its

registration of two pesticides. One of NRDC’s claims was that

the Agency had not complied with the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 1-16. The district

court dismissed NRDC’s FACA claim for lack of standing

because, the court found, NRDC had not filed a formal request

with the Agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

5 U.S.C. § 552. NRDC v. Johnson, 422 F. Supp. 2d 105, 116

(D.D.C. 2006). NRDC appeals that judgment, and we are

presented only with the question of standing. We hold that the

district court erred and therefore reverse.

The dispute arose out of the Agency’s registration

proceedings for pesticides containing atrazine. The Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C.

§§ 136-136y, requires the Agency to administer a pesticide

registration regime. The Agency first registered atrazine under

the statute in 1958. An amendment to FIFRA required the

Agency reregister atrazine. See id. § 136a-1(a). The

reregistration process involves several phases. See id. § 136a1(b). As relevant here, the Agency first determines whether an

active ingredient is “eligible” for reregistration, id. § 136a1(g)(1), (2)(A), and then decides on a product-by-product basis

whether to reregister the particular pesticide product, id. § 136a1(g)(2)(B), (C).

The Agency issued an Interim Reregistration Eligibility

Decision (IRED) in January 2003, announcing that products

containing atrazine would be eligible for reregistration if, among

other conditions, the registrants were able to provide data

confirming that atrazine did not cause unreasonable adverse

USCA Case #06-5132 Document #1042761 Filed: 05/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

effects. The Agency promised to work with the registrants to

help develop a monitoring program to collect the relevant data.

In a later IRED, the Agency described the monitoring program

it had developed along with the primary atrazine registrant,

Sygenta Crop Protection.

NRDC sued the Agency in district court, claiming the

committees that developed the ecological monitoring program

were “advisory committees” within the meaning of FACA and

therefore subject to FACA’s disclosure requirements. FACA

requires that advisory committees covered by the statute file a

charter, hold their meetings in public, and make committee

documents available to the public subject to the exemptions of

FOIA. 5 U.S.C. App. 2 §§ 9-10. Committee membership must

also be fairly balanced. Id. § 5(b)(2).

The district court held that in order to have standing, a

FACA plaintiff must show that “[it] sought and [was] denied

specific agency records.” Johnson, 422 F. Supp. 2d at 116

(alteration in original) (quoting Public Citizen v. Dep’t of

Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989)). It was not enough that

NRDC wrote to “complain that the agency was violating

FACA”; it needed to “submit a FOIA request for documents.”

Id. (quotation marks omitted).

We held in Food Chemical News v. Department of Health

and Human Services, 980 F.2d 1468, 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1993), that

the government’s obligation to make documents available under

FACA does not depend on whether someone has filed a FOIA

request for those documents. FACA incorporates the FOIA

exemptions, see 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 10(b), but the government’s

duty to disclose is otherwise independent of FOIA. We think it

follows that a plaintiff does not have to file a formal FOIA

request before bringing an action seeking a remedy for alleged

USCA Case #06-5132 Document #1042761 Filed: 05/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

FACA violations, including violations of the statute’s disclosure

requirements.

We decide nothing beyond this. Whether NRDC’s alleged

request that the Agency comply with FACA, see Compl. ¶ 54,

suffices to establish standing notwithstanding the Agency’s

release of the documents NRDC requested under FOIA is a

question for the district court on remand. We also do not

resolve the dispute between the parties about whether the

alleged FACA committee still exists and what the legal

consequences would be if it does not. See generally Byrd v.

EPA, 174 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The district court’s

judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further

proceedings.

So ordered.

USCA Case #06-5132 Document #1042761 Filed: 05/25/2007 Page 4 of 4