F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

I N R E P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N O R T H A M E R

I C A ; N A T U R

A L R E S O U R C E S D E F E

N S E C O U

N C I L , I N C

. ,

P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N O R T H A M E R I C A ; N A T U

R A L R E S O U

R C E S D E F E N S E C O U

N C I L , I N C ., Petitioners
,

v

.

U.S. E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R

O T E C T I O N A G E N C Y , Respondent

. N o. 14-72794

ORDER

F iled J uly 18, 2017

B efore: Diarmuid F . O’Scannlain, A. W allace Tashima, and M. Marg aret McKeown, Circuit Judg es.I

N R E P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N. A M

. 2

SUMMARY *

M a ndam us

The panel denied the motion for further mandamus relief filed by Pesticide Action N e twork North America and Natural Resources Def

e n se Council, which alleg ed that the United States E nvironmental Protection Ag e ncy (“EPA”)’s d e nial o f the Council’s administrative p etition, s eeking to revoke all food tolerances and cancel all reg istration of a pesti c i de called chlorpy

ifos, was inadequate.

I n a published o rder on Aug ust 10, 2015, the panel ordered EPA to r espond to t he Council’s administrative petition. I n a subseq uent published order, the panel directed EPA to take “final action” b y March 3 1, 2 0 1 7

. The EPA denied the Council’s petition on March 29, 2017.

The Council filed the present mandamus motion asserting that EPA’s denial was inadequate because it containe d no

new safety finding s, and made no final determination as to whether chlorpy

ifos food tolerances must be revoked.

The panel h eld that EPA had c omplied w ith the panel’s previous orders by

issuing a “final response to the petition.” The panel further held that the Council’s mandamus motion

was premature, a

nd its substantive o b

j e c t i o ns to the E PA’s denial must first be made throug h the administrative process mandated by

statute.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.I

N R E P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N. A M

. 3

COUNSEL

Patti A. Goldman and Kristen B o y les, E arthjustice, Seattle, W a shing ton, for Petitioners.

Erica M. Z ilioli, Environmental Defense Section; J effrey H

. W o od, Acting Assi s t ant Attorney General, E n vironment & Natural Resources Division; U nited States Department o f J ustice, Washing ton, D.C.; Mark Dy n er, Office of General Counsel; U nited States Environmental Protection Ag en c y , W a shing ton, D.C.; for Respondents.

Stanley H. Abramson, Donald C. McL ean, Kathleen R. Heilman, a

nd Sy lvia G. C o s t e l loe, Arent F ox L L P, W a shing ton, D .C., for Amici Curiae Dow Ag rosciences L L C.

ORDER

I n 2007, Pesticide Action Network North Ame r i c a a nd N a t u ral Resources Defense Council (collectively
, “ P A N N A ” ) filed a n a dministrative petition with the United States Environmental Protection Ag e n cy (“EPA”). The petition soug h t to revoke all food tolerances and cancel all reg istration of a pesticide called c hlorpy ifos. I n 2014, h aving grown frustrated with EPA’s inertia, PANNA p e t itioned this court for a writ of mandamus to fo r ce t h e ag ency to issue a response, which PANNA acknowledg ed could incl ude “a final denial order

. . . if that is how EP A d e c i d es to resolve [ it] .”

On Aug ust 10, 2015, we ordered EPA to “issue either a proposed or f

inal revocation r

ule or a full and final response” to P A NNA’s administrative petition. In re Pesticide A ctionI

N R E P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N. A M

. 4

Network N. Am.
, 798 F .3d 8 09, 814 (9th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added). W e later directed EPA to “take final action” on the petition b y

March 31, 2017. In re Pesticide Action Network N. Am. , 840 F .3d 1014, 1015 (9th Cir. 2016).

EPA denied the petition o n March 29, 2017. See 82 F ed. Reg

. 16,581 ( Apr. 5, 2 017). PANNA promptly filed a motion for “further mandamus r elief,” a sserting that EPA’ s denial

was inadequate because it contained “no new safety finding s” and n o “final determination as to whether chlorp y ifos food tolerances must be r evoked.” I n sh o r t

— a nd in its o wn

w o r ds—PANNA’s motion faulted EPA for “fail[ ing ] to a ct on the substance of the petition.”

PANNA’s complaints arr i v e a t our doorstep too soon. Althoug h we p reviously c ondemn e d E P A ’ s “ e g reg ious” delay in responding to PANNA’s petition, t h e ag ency has n ow complied with our orders by issuing a “final respons e t o t h e petition.” See In re Pesticide Action Network N

. Am.
, 798 F .3d at 811; see also 21 U.S.C. § 346a ( d ) ( 4)(A)(iii) ( p r oviding that one v alid ag ency response to a petit i o n challeng ing a pesticide’s tolerances is to “issue an order deny ing the petition”).

These mandamus proceeding s have addressed the timing , not the substance
, of EPA’s resp o n se. See In re Pesticide Action Network N. Am.
, 798 F .3d at 813 (“The only question before us is whether EPA’s d e l a y i n responding to the administrative petition warrants the ex traordinary remedy o f mandamus.”). Now that E PA has issued its denial, substantive objections must first be made throug h the administrative process man d ated by statute. See 21 U .S.C. §§ 346a(g )(2), (h)(1); 40 C.F .R. §§ 1 7 8

. 65, 180.30(b). PANNA implicitly r e co gn i z es a s much by acknowledg ingI

N R E P E S T I C I D E A C T I O N N E T W O R K N. A M

. 5

that “[ f] iling objections and awaiting t h e i r resolution by the EPA Administrator is a p r erequisite to obtaining judicial review” o f EPA’s final response to the p etition. Only at that point may we consider t h e m e r its of EPA’s “final ag ency action.” See 5 U.S.C. § 704. Althoug h EPA drag g ed its heels for nearly a decade, it has now done what we ordered it to do.

PANNA’s motion for further mandamus relief i s DENIED

.