N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ASHINGTON STATE DAIR Y FEDER ATION; e t

a l., Pe t i tione rs,
v. U.S. ENVIR ONM ENTAL PR OTEC TION AGENC Y; ANDR

EW W HEELER , Ac ting Adm inistra

tor of the Unite d State s Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y ,

R e sponde nts. No. 20-70331 EPA No. SDWA-10-2013-0080
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the Environm e nta l Prote c tion Age nc y Argue d and Subm itte d M ay

6, 2021 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s , a nd KOB AYASHI, * ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
MAY14 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Le slie E. Koba

y a shi, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ha

w a ii, sitting by

de signa tion.Pe titione rs, the W a shington Sta te Da iry Fe d e ration (W SDF), Adam Dolse n, C ow Pa la c e , LLC , and the Dolse n C om pa nie s, c ha lle nge an

Adm inistra

tive Orde r of C onse nt (AOC ) and a

n unde rly ing re port (the R e port) issue d by the EPA in 2013 pursua

nt to its e m e rge nc y

a uthority unde r the Sa fe Drinking W a te r Ac t (SDW A ), 42 U.S.C . § 300i(a ). The R e port a n d AOC c onc e rn nitra

t e
c onta m i nation in the

groundwa

te r of the Yakim a

Va lle y in c e ntra l W a s hington Stat e . Pe titione rs a

rgue the EPA fra

udule ntly induc e d a

group of da irie s to a gre e to the A OC by m isre pre se nting theR e port a s “ influe ntia l sc ie nc e .” Pe titione rs a lso
c onte nd the c onc lusions re a c h e d in the R e port a nd AOC are “ arbitra

ry an d
c a pric ious” for purpose s of the Adm inistra tive Proc e d

ure Ac t, 5 U.S.C . § 706(2). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 300j-7. W e dism iss the pe tition a s untim e l y . 1 1. As a thre shold m a tt e r, the EPA a rgue s W SDF la c ks sta

nding. An orga niz a tion m ay

c o m m e nc e an a c tion in fe de ra l c ourt ba s e d on injurie s to itse lf or to its m e m

be rs. Am. Unite

s for K ids v . Rousse au , 985 F.3d 1075, 1096 (9th C ir. 2021) (c iting W

a rth v . Se ldin , 422 U.S. 490, 511 (1975)). In orde r for an orga niz a tion to ha

ve sta nding to sue on be ha lf of its m e m be rs, it m ust e sta b lish: (1)

1 The pa

rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c t s a

nd we re c ite only

those ne c e ssa ry to de c ide the issue s on a

ppe a l. 2its m e m

b e rs would othe rwise have sta nding to sue

in the i r own right; (2) the inte re s ts it se e ks to prote c t are ge rm ane to the orga

niz a t ion’ s purpose ; a

nd (3)
ne ithe r the c l a im

a sse rte d nor the re lie f re que ste d re quire s the pa rtic ipation of individua l m e m

b e rs in the la

wsuit. Id. (c i ting Hunt v . W ash. State Apple Adv e rt. C omm’n , 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). The a dde n dum to pe titione rs’ re ply brie f c onta ins a

de c la ra tion by the Dire c t or of the W SDF, Danie l W ood, tha t a ddre sse s W SDF’ s inte re s t in this litiga tion. W ood a

ve rre d tha t W SDF’ s m i ssion sta

te m e nt is to “ de ve l op[] and prom ote [] initia

tive s dire c te d towa

rd the fina

nc ia l stre ngth, politic a l support, a nd public aware ne ss of [the da iry ] industry to a c hie ve a

suc c e s sful busine s s c lim a te for da iry farm e rs in W a shington Sta te .” W ood furthe r a sse rte d tha t som e of the pa rtie s to the AOC are m e m be rs of the W SDF and we re injure d by the obliga

tions im pose d by the AOC . W e c onc lude pe titione rs ha v e a lle g e d fa c t s suffic ie nt to show tha t W SDF’ s m e m

b e rs would ha

ve sta nding in the ir own right, the inte re st in pre v e n ting burde nsom e re s tric t ions on the da iry industry is ge rm ane to the W SDF’ s purpose , and the pa rtic ipation of the individua l m e m be rs is not re quire d. Se e id. 2. The EPA c onte nds the pe tition is tim e ba rre d be c a use it wa s file d y e ars
a fte r the date the R e port wa s issue d a nd the AOC be c am e e ffe c tive . The SDW A
3provide s tha t a pe t ition for re vie w “ sha l l be file d within the 45-da y pe riod be ginning on the

date of the prom

u lgation of there gula

tion or a ny othe r fina l Age nc y a c t ion with re spe c t to whic h re vie wis sought or on the date of the de te rm i nation with re spe c t to whic h re vie w is sought.” 42 U.S.C . § 300j-7(a )(2). A pe t ition “ m ay

be file d a fte r the e xpira

tion of suc h 45-da

y pe riod if the pe t ition is ba se d sole ly

on grounds a

rising a fte r the e xpira

tion of suc h pe riod.” Id. The R e port a

nd AOC we re issue d in 2013. The pe tition for re v ie w wa s file d in Fe brua ry 2020. To e xpla in this se ve n y e ar de la y , pe titione rs re ly

on the
a ffidav it of Ada

m Dolse n , the owne r of one of the da irie s tha t e n te re d into the AOC
. Dolse n c la im s the EPA m isre p re se nte d the R e p ort a s “ influe ntia l sc ie nc e ” during the ne gotia

tions le a ding up to the

c onsum m a tion of theAOC
. Dolse n a lso
ave rs tha t pe t itione rs we re first inform e d tha t the EPA did not c o nside r the R e port to be “ influe n tia l sc ie n c e ” a t a Fe brua ry 2019 m e e ting. Eve n a ssum ing the 45-da y tim e lim it is not jurisdic

t iona l a nd the pe riod be twe e n 2013 a n d the Fe brua

ry 2019
m e e ting is subje c t to e q

u ita ble tolling, the

pe tition wa s file d m ore tha n 45 da y s
a fte r pe titione rs a l le ge the y disc ove re d the fa c t s on whic h the ir pe t ition is ba se d. 3. Pe titione rs a

rgue tha t the ir “ pe tition is ba se d sole ly on grounds a

rising
a fte r the e xpira

tion of” the origina l 45-da y pe riod a nd c onte nd the SDW A doe s not im pose a lim ita

tions pe riod for pe titions for re vie w tha t a re ba se d on ne w
4inform a t ion. In thea lte rna tive , the y urge us to “

borrow” the six y e ar statute of lim ita tions a pplic a ble to APA c la im s. S

e e 28 U.S.C . § 2401(a ). W he n no sta

tute of lim ita

tions is e xpre ssly

a pplic a ble to a fe d e ra l sta

t ute ,

“ we do not ordina

rily a ssum e tha

t C ongre ss inte nde d tha

t the re be no tim e lim it on
a c tions a t a ll.” De lC

oste llo v

. Int’l Brothe r

hood of Te amste rs , 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983). Inste a d, we ty

pic a lly “ borrow” a

lim ita tions pe riod from an a

na l ogous sta te c a use of a c t ion a

nd a pply it to thefe de ra l c la im
. Hoang v
. Bank of Am., N

.A. , 910 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting One i da C ty ., N .Y. v . One ida Indian N ation of N e w York State , 470 U.S. 226, 240 (1985)). We m ay “ de c line to borrow
a sta te s tatute of lim ita

t ions only whe n a rule from

e l se whe re in fe de ra l la

w c le arly provide s a

c l ose r ana logy

tha n ava ila ble sta te sta tute s, a nd whe n the fe de ra l polic ie s at sta

ke and the pra c tic a litie s of litiga tion m ake tha

t rule a signific a n tly
m ore a ppropria te ve hic le for inte rstitia l la wm a k ing.” Re e d v . Unite d Transp. Union , 488 U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). He re , the m ost a

na logous c la im

to a SDW A c la im ba se d on ne w inform a tion is a c la i m brought pursua

nt to theSDW A ba se d

on inform a tion a

va ila ble at the tim e of the a ge nc y

a c tion. Se e 42 U.S.C . § 300j-7(a )

. Our c onc lusion is supporte d by the Ninth C irc uit’ s de c ision in C he v ron U.S.A., Inc . v . U.S.E.P.A. , 908 F.2d 468, 470 (9th C ir. 1990). The re , pe titione rs sought re vie w of a fina l orde r the EPA
5issue d pursua nt to theC le an W a te r Ac t (C WA). Id. The re le va nt C W A provision gove rning judic ia l re v ie w provide d a n a pplic a t ion for re vie w “ sha ll be m a de within nine ty da y s from the dat e of suc h de te rm inat ion, a pprova l , prom

ulga tion, issua

nc e or de nia l, or a fte r suc h date only if suc h a pplic a tion is ba s e d sole ly

on grounds whic h a rose a fte r suc h nine tie th da y .” Id. a t 469 (quoting 33 U.S.C . § 1369(b)(1)) (e m pha sis om itte d). In C h e v ron U.S.A. , we c o nc lude d tha t the “ m ost a

na logous fe d e ra l sta

tute of lim ita tions is the

one c onta ine d in the [C WA] itse lf, but e xpre ssly m a de a pplic a ble only to suits not ba se d on ne w inform a tion.” Id. a t 470. Although we did not de finitive ly

de c ide the issue in C

he v ron U.S.A. , we indic a te d tha t “ [w] e re we to
a pply fe de ra l la w in de te rm ining thea

pplic a ble sta tute of lim ita

tions, wewould borrow [the C W A’ s ] 90–da y lim it.” Id. Ac c ordingly , e ve n if the pe tition “ is ba se d sole ly on grounds a

rising a fte r” the i nitia l 45 da

y s de sc ribe d in the SDW A, 42 U.S.C
. § 300j-7(a ), pe titione rs ha d 45 da y s to bring a

pe tition for re vie w a fte r the y be c am e aware of ne w grounds to
c ha lle nge the R e port a

nd AOC
. As e xpla ine d, pe titione rs a sse rt tha t the y we re
a le rte d tha

t the EPA did not c onside r the R e port a n “ influe ntia l sc ie ntific ”

6doc um e nt in Fe brua ry 2019. B e c a

use pe t itione rs did not file a pe tition for re vie w until a y e ar late r, the i r pe tition is tim e -barre d. 2 PE T IT IO N DISM ISSE D

2 Pe titione rs’ m otions to supple m e nt the re c ord on a

ppe a l , EC F 32 a

nd 55, a re DENIED a s m oot. 7