Opinion ID: 150232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plant Protection Act

Text: The PPA was enacted to detect, eradicate, suppress, and prevent the spread of plant pests and noxious weeds. See 7 U.S.C. § 7701(1). Under the PPA, it is the responsibility of the Secretary [of Agriculture] to facilitate exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural products and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant pests . . . in ways that will reduce, to the extent practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests. . . . Id. § 7701(3); see also id. § 7702(16). The PPA vests the Secretary with authority to issue regulations to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States, id. § 7711(a), and to prohibit or restrict the importation ... of any ... plant product,... article, or means of conveyance, if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction [of a plant pest] into the United States, id. § 7712(a); see also id. § 7754. The Secretary shall ensure that phytosanitary issues involving imports and exports are addressed based on sound science and consistent with applicable international agreements. Id. § 7751(e). The Secretary has delegated his authority under the PPA to APHIS. See Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2749-50, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010) (citing applicable regulations).
We agree with the district court that the Defendants did not violate the PPA by failing to elevate environmental concerns over other legitimate factors when formulating the final SWPM rule. See Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 2007 WL 1610420, at -5. The Secretary's decision to require either heat treatment or fumigation with methyl bromide was not an abuse of discretion given his dual responsibility to protect plants by reducing plant pest risk and to facilitate commerce by avoiding unduly burdensome trade restrictions. Because the record is clear that the Secretary considered the relevant environmental and commercial concerns when deciding on a final SWPM rule, the Secretary cannot be said to have abused his discretion in ultimately concluding that adopting the measures specified in the IPPC Guidelines best accomplished these dual objectives. Finally, Plaintiffs' argument that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious because he failed to adequately consider a phased-in substitute-materials-only requirement, and the magnitude of the impact on trade from such a requirement, echoes the argument advanced in Plaintiffs' NEPA challenge and it fails for the same reasons.