N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; SYNGENTA HAW AII, LLC ; PIONEER

HI-B R ED INTER

NATIONAL, INC ., a n Iowa c orporation; AGR IGENETIC S, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; B ASF PLANT SC IENC E LP, a De l aware lim ite d pa

rtne rship, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. C OUNTY OF KAUAI,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and KA M AKANI HO’ O PONO; C ENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; PESTIC IDE AC TION NETW ORK NOR TH AM E R IC A; SUR

FR IDER FOUNDATION,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

nts. No. 14-16833

D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00014-B M K
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

N OV 18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; SYNGENTA HAW AII, LLC ; PIONEER

HI-B R ED INTER

NATIONAL, INC ., a n Iowa c orporation; AGR IGENETIC S, INC ., a De la ware c orporation; B ASF PLANT SC IENC E LP, a De l aware lim ite d pa

rtne rship, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. C OUNTY OF KAUAI,

De fe nda n t,
and KA M AKANI HO’ O PONO; C ENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; PESTIC IDE AC TION NETW ORK NOR TH AM E R IC A; SUR

FR IDER FOUNDATION,

Inte rve nor-De fe nda

ntsAppe lla nts. No. 14-16848 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00014-B M K

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii B arry M . Kurre n, M a g i strate Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 15, 2016 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii

2B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd C ALLAHAN a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . In this a c tion, Pla intiffs-Appe lle e s c ha lle nge Ka ua i C ounty

Ordina nc e 960, whic h re gula

t e s pe stic i de s a

nd ge ne tic a lly

e ngine e re d (GE) pla

nts. The distric t
c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in Pla intiffs’ fav or, finding tha t Ordina n c e 960 is im plie dly pre e m p te d by Ha wa ii la ws a ddre ssing pe stic ide s and pote ntia lly ha rm ful pla n ts. De fe nda

nt the C o unty

of Ka ua i (C ounty ) and Inte rve nors Ka M aka ni Ho’ opono, C e nte r for Food Sa fe ty , Pe stic ide Ac tion Ne twork North Am e ric a , a nd Surfride r Founda

tion (c olle c tive ly , De fe nda nts) a ppe a l e d. Our c onc urre n tly

file d opinion in Sy nge nta v . C o unty of K auai , Nos. 14- 16833, 14-16848, addre sse s a nd de c i de s a ll issue s on a

ppe a l e xc e p t for one : whe the r Ordina

nc e 960's ge ne tic a lly

m o d ifie d orga

n ism (GM O) 1 re porting provision is im

plie dly pre e m pte d by sta te la w. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t it wa s. W e a ffirm
. I. The purpose of Ordina

n c e 960 “ is to e sta

blish provisions to inform the public , a nd prote c t the public from any dire c t, indire c t, or c um

ulative ne gative im pa c ts on thehe a lth a

nd na tura l e nvironm e nt of the pe ople an d pla c e of the

1 The te rm s “ GE pla

nt,” “ G E c rop,” and “ G M O” are use d inte rc h an ge a

bly
. 3C ounty

. . . by gove rning the use of pe stic ide s a nd ge ne tic a l ly

m o difie d orga nism s.” Ka

ua i C ounty

C ode (KC C ) § 22-23.2. The Ordina n c e ’ s GM O notific a tion provision re q u ire s c om m e rc ia l a g ric ultura l e ntitie s (C A Es) “ that inte ntiona lly

or knowingly

posse ss a ny ge n e tic a lly

m odifie d orga

nism ” to submit
and post online

annua l re ports to theC ounty Offic e of Ec o nom ic De ve lopm e nt (OED) disc losing the

growing of GM Os. KC C § 22-23.4(b). There p orts m ust

“ inc lude a

ge n e ra l de sc ription of e a c h ge ne tic a lly m odifie d orga

nism . . . , a ge ne ra l de sc ription of the ge ogra phic loc ation . . . a

nd da t e s tha t e a c h ge n e tic a lly
m odifie d orga

n ism wa s first introduc e d to the la nd in que stion.” KC C § 22- 23.4(b)(2). A. O r dinanc e 960's r e por ting r e quir e m e nt is im plie dly pr e e m pte d by state law . As se t forth m o re fully

in our c onc urre ntly

issue d opinion in Atay

v . C ounty of Maui , Nos. 15-16466, 15-16552, Ha wa ii c ourts a

pply a “ ‘ c o m pre he nsive sta tutory sc he m e ’ te st” to de c ide fie ld-pre e m ption c la im s unde r HR S § 46-1.5(13),
suc h a s tha t m a de by Appe lle e s he re . Unde r this te st, a loc a l la w is pre e m

pte d if “ it
c ove rs the sa

m e subje c t m a tte r e m

bra c e d within a

c o m pre he nsive sta

te sta tutory
sc he m e disc losing a

n e xpre ss or im

plie d inte nt to be e xc lusive and uniform throughout the

sta te .” Ric hardson v . C

i ty & C t y . of Honolulu , 868 P.2d 1193, 1209

4(Haw. 1994). C o urts fre que ntly tre at this te st a s involving se ve ra l ove rla

pping
e le m e nts, inc l u ding showings tha t (1) the sta

te an d loc a l la

ws a ddre ss the sa

m e subje c t m a tte r; (2) the sta te la w c om pre he nsive l y

re gula te s tha t subje c t m atte r; a

n d (3) the le gisla

ture inte nde d the sta

te la w to be uniform

and e xc l usive . Ultim ate ly , howe v e r, the “ c ritic a l de te rm i nation to bem a de ” is “ whe t he r the sta

t utory sc he m e
a t issue indic ate [s] a

le g i sla t ive inte ntion to be the e xc lusive le gisla t ion a pplic a ble to the re l e va

n t subje c t m a tte r.” Pac . Int’l Se r v s. C o r p. v . Hurip , 873 P.2d 88, 94 (Haw. 1994) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). The H awa ii le gisla

ture ha s se t forth a

c om p re he nsive , uniform , a

nd
e xc lusive sta

tutory sc he m e to a ddre ss the thre at pose d by pote ntia lly

ha rm ful pla n ts— inc luding GE c rops— a nd ha s de le g ate d a

uthority to the Ha wa i i De pa rtm e nt of Agric u lture (DOA) to e na c t rule s to tha

t e nd. S e e , e .g. , HR S §§ 141-2, 141-3, 150-22, 150A-6.1(b), (c ), (d), 152-3, 194-2(a), 194-3, 150-27(a)(2); HAR §§ 4-72-6, 4-72-9–4-72-12. First, a s m ore fully

la id out in Atay , the sc he m e c om pre he nsive ly

re g ulate s pote ntia l ly

ha rm ful pla n ts by gove rning the ir im

porta tion, sa le , tra

nsporta tion,
c ontrol, a nd e ra dic a t ion. The sc he m e a l so a d dre sse s re s e arc h a n d propa gation of pote ntia l ly

ha rm ful pla n ts, HR S § 150A-6.1(d), a n d a re a s within the

State whe re
re stric te d pla nts m ay not be introduc e d , id. § 152-3. W hile the DOA ha s not
5prom

ulga te d rule s spe c ific a lly

re gula ting c onc e rns a s soc iate d

with GE c rops, suc h
a s ge ne tic c onta

m i nation of c o nve ntiona l c rops a nd wild pla

n t spe c i e s, the State ha s la ws to c om

bat a ny suc h c rops should they prove “ de trim e nta l or pote n tia lly ha rm ful to a g ric ulture , hortic ulture , the e nvironm e nt, . . . or public he a lth.” Id. § 150A-6.1(b). Se c ond, we find tha

t the sta tutory sc h e m e for pote ntia lly

ha rm ful pla nts disc lose s a

c l e ar infe re nc e tha

t the le g isla

ture inte n de d for the Stat e ’ s re gula tion of pote ntia l ly

ha rm ful pla n ts to be e xc lusive of loc a l supple m e ntation. W e find pre e m

ptive inte n t “ a

ppa re nt from the pe rva sive n e ss of the
. . . sta tutory sc he m e .” In reApplic ation of Anamizu , 481 P.2d 116, 119 (Ha w. 1971)

. The le g isla

ture ’ s broa d c onfe rra l to the DOA of powe r to re gula te pla nt pe sts a nd inva sive spe c ie s a lso supports a n infe re nc e of pre e m

ptive inte nt. Sim ila

rly , in C itize ns Utilitie

s C o. v . C ounty of K auai , the Hawa ii Supre m e C ourt found a
c ounty la w re gula t ing the he ight of utility

pole s wa s pre e m

pte d by sta te la w tha t

“ e xpre ssly

a uthoriz [e d a

sta te a ge nc y ] to supe rvise and re g ulate public utilitie s,”
e ve n though the sta

t ute did not a ddre ss the spe c ific subje c t of pole he ights. 814 P.2d 398, 400 (Ha

w. 1991). As e xpla i ne d in Atay , se ve ra l spe c ific provisions in the State ’ s sta

tutory sc he m e furthe r e vide nc e an inte nt for the State ’ s re g ulatory

6ove rsight of potentia lly ha rm ful pla nts to beuniform

an d e xc lusive
. Se e HR S §§ 141-3, 194-3, 150A-6.1. The re m a i ning im

plie d pre e m

ption e l e m e nt is whe the r Ordina nc e 960's GM O re porting re quire m e nt a ddre sse s the sa m e subje c t m atte r a s the State ’ s
c om pre he nsive and e xc lusive sta tutory sc h e m e . It is true tha t the sta tutory sc he m e doe s not spe c ific a l ly

a ddre ss GE c rops, whic h is the foc us of Ordina nc e 960's
re porting re quire m e nt. Howe ve r, a s we e xpla in in Atay , the fa c t tha t ne ithe r a sta t e sta tute nor DOA rule m e ntions GE c rops spe c ific a l ly doe s not fore c lose a

finding of im plie d pre e m ption. Thesa

m e a uthority supporting DOA’ s re stric tions on
se ve ra l non-GE c om

m e rc ia l c rops, se eHAR §§ 4-72-6, 4-72-9–4-72-12, a l so give s DOA a uthority to re gula te GE c rops a s pote ntia lly ha rm ful pla nts due to risks suc h
a s ge ne tic c onta

m i nation of non-GE c rops. Ordina nc e 960's GM O re porting re quire m e nt a lso ta rge ts pote ntia lly ha

rm ful pla n ts. The re quire m e nt is in furtheranc e of the C o unty ’ s goa l to “prote c t the public from

any dire c t, indire c t , or c um

ulative ne gative im

pa c ts on thehe a lth a

nd
natura l e nvironm e nt of the pe ople and pla c e of the C ounty . . . by gove rning the
use of . . . ge ne tic a lly

m odifie d orga

nism s.” KC C § 22-23.2. In other words, Ordina nc e 960 provide s for loc a l ove rsight of pla nts the C ounty

de e m s ha rm ful— the sa m e ove rsight c o m

m itte d by the State le g i sla ture to DOA.
7Ac c ordingly , the State ’ s sta tutory sc he m e and Ordina

nc e 960 a d dre ss the sa

m e subje c t m a tte r. Having de te rm i ne d tha

t the le gisla

t ure inte nde d to c re at e an e xc lusive , uniform , and c o m

pre he nsive sta

te sta tutory sc he m e for pote ntia lly

ha rm ful pla nts,
we hold tha

t Ordina nc e 960's GM O re porting re quire m e n t im pe rm i ssibly intrude s into a n a re a of e xc lusive State re gula tion a nd is be y ond the C ounty ’ s a uthority unde r HR S § 46-1.5(13) a nd pre e m pte d. I I. The distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e s is AFFIRM E D
.

8