Court Opinion

ID: 9909547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 18:00:56.819183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:39.327359
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION

   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
        FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGRANT CLINICIANS                 No. 21-70719
NETWORK; BEYOND
PESTICIDES; CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY;
ENVIRONMENTAL                       OPINION
CONFEDERATION OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA;
FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF
FLORIDA; FARMWORKER
JUSTICE; NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL; UNITED
STATES PUBLIC INTEREST
RESEARCH GROUP,

                 Petitioners,

 v.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY;
MICHAEL REGAN, in his official
capacity as Administrator of the
United States Environmental
Protection Agency,

                 Respondents.
2            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

          On Petition for Review of an Order of the
             Environmental Protection Agency

           Argued and Submitted January 23, 2023
                 San Francisco, California

                   Filed December 13, 2023

    Before: Ronald M. Gould, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and
              Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

                    Opinion by Judge Bress

                          SUMMARY*

    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act /
                  Endangered Species Act

    The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for
review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s amended
pesticide registrations of streptomycin sulfate for use in
combating citrus diseases, vacated the EPA’s amended
registrations, and remanded to the agency to comply with its
statutory obligations.
    Before a pesticide can be distributed and sold in the
United States, the EPA must satisfy the requirements of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On

*
 This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             3

January 11, 2021, the EPA issued a Final Registration
Decision, which unconditionally amended the registration of
streptomycin for use on citrus crop group 10-10.
    Petitioners argued that substantial evidence did not
support the EPA’s determination, as required by FIFRA, that
registration of streptomycin for use on citrus would not
cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”
See 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C), (D).
    The panel held that substantial evidence supported the
EPA’s assessment of the risk that the registration of
streptomycin, which is used as a human antibiotic drug,
would lead to antibiotic resistance. However, the EPA’s
assessment of the risk that the registration poses to
pollinators (bees) was incomplete—or, at the very least,
inadequately explained.       Further, although substantial
evidence supported the EPA’s determination that
streptomycin was effective at treating Huanglongbing
disease and citrus canker, the EPA failed to provide a
sufficient explanation for the registration labels’ suggestion
that streptomycin could be used to prevent either disease.
Accordingly, the panel granted the petition for review as to
the pollinator and disease prevention issues so that the EPA
could provide either additional support or a more cogent
explanation of why the current record was adequate to
support the registration, or both.
    The EPA conceded that its amended registrations failed
to comply with the ESA but argued that the equities weighed
against vacatur. Given the seriousness of the EPA’s failure
to comply with the ESA, as well as its failure to fully comply
with FIFRA, the panel held that remand without vacatur
would not be an appropriate remedy. Accordingly, the panel
vacated the EPA’s amended registration of streptomycin for
4          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

use on citrus group 10-10, and remanded so that the agency
could address the defects in its FIFRA analysis and conduct
an ESA effects determination.

                       COUNSEL

Margaret T. Hsieh (argued), Natural Resources Defense
Council, San Francisco, California; Sarah V. Fort, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.; Francis W.
Sturges, Jr., Natural Resources Defense Council, Chicago,
Illinois; Hannah Connor, Center for Biological Diversity,
Washington, D.C.; Carrie Apfel, Earthjustice, Washington,
D.C.; Dominique Burkhardt, Earthjustice, Miami, Florida;
for Petitioners.
Daniel R. Dertke (argued) and Robert M. Norway,
Attorneys, Environmental Enforcement Section; Todd Kim,
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural
Resources Division; United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.; Erin S. Koch, Assistant General Counsel;
Jori Reilly-Diakun, Attorney-Advisor; United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.; for
Respondents.
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             5

                         OPINION

BRESS, Circuit Judge:

    We consider a petition for review of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s amended pesticide registrations of
streptomycin sulfate for use in combating citrus diseases.
The EPA concedes that its amended registrations failed to
comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We also
conclude that some aspects of the EPA’s registration
decision contravene the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). We grant the petition for review
in part, vacate the EPA’s amended registrations, and remand
to the agency so that it can comply with its statutory
obligations. Although we do not vacate EPA’s amended
registrations lightly, the EPA’s statutory violations coupled
with its own concessions make this the required course.
                              I
                              A
   Before a pesticide can be distributed and sold in the
United States, the EPA must satisfy the requirements of
FIFRA and the ESA. See, e.g., Ctr. for Food Safety v.
Regan, 56 F.4th 648, 652–53 (9th Cir. 2022).
    FIFRA “is a comprehensive regulatory scheme”
governing “the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides.” Nathan
Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco, 275 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.
2002). Under this scheme, manufacturers are required to
“register a pesticide with the EPA before introducing it into
the market.” Id. The registration, once granted, “functions
as a license setting forth the conditions under which the
pesticide may be sold, distributed, and used.” Nat’l Res. Def.
6           MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

Council v. EPA, 38 F.4th 34, 40 (9th Cir. 2022); see also 7
U.S.C. § 136a(a).
     Under FIFRA, the EPA may not register a pesticide (or,
as here, amend an existing pesticide registration) unless the
pesticide, “when used in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice,” will perform its intended
function without causing “unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C), (D); 40 C.F.R.
§ 152.44. FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment” to include “any unreasonable risk to man
or the environment, taking into account the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any
pesticide.” Id. § 136(bb). When the EPA grants an
unconditional registration, as it did here, it must “review[]
all relevant data in [its] possession n” and “determine[] that
no additional data are necessary to make the determinations
required by FIFRA.” 40 C.F.R. § 152.112(b)–(c); see also 7
U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5); Pollinator Stewardship Council v.
EPA, 806 F.3d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Unconditional
registration necessarily requires sufficient data to evaluate
the environmental risks.”).
    Once the EPA grants a pesticide registration, the
pesticide must undergo a broader registration review at least
every 15 years “to determine whether the pesticide continues
to meet the statutory standard for registration under FIFRA
section 3(c)(5)”—i.e., that it will not “generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”
Pesticides; Procedural Regulations for Registration Review,
65 Fed. Reg. 24586, 24587 (EPA 2000) (to be codified at 40
C.F.R. pt. 152); see also 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(i). If the
EPA determines upon review that the pesticide no longer
satisfies this standard, it can cancel the registration or take
other appropriate action. 7 U.S.C. § 136d(b).
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA              7

    In addition to FIFRA, the EPA’s pesticide registration
decisions must also comply with the ESA. See Ctr. for Food
Safety, 56 F.4th at 657. The ESA requires federal agencies
to ensure “that any action authorized, funded, or carried out
by such agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered species or threatened species”
or damage its habitat. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). Thus, “at the
earliest possible time,” the EPA must determine whether its
proposed pesticide registration decisions “may affect listed
species or critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). This
process is generally called an “effects determination.” Ctr.
for Food Safety, 56 F.4th at 657.
     Should the EPA determine that a pesticide registration
will have no effect, “further action is unnecessary.” Id.
(citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(b)(1)). But if the EPA determines
that a pesticide registration “may affect” an endangered
species or critical habitat, it then must consult the
appropriate wildlife agency to analyze the potential impacts
of the proposed action. 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.14(a), 402.40; see
also Ctr. for Food Safety, 56 F.4th at 657; Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. EPA, 861 F.3d 174, 178 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The
consulted agency must then provide a written statement
setting forth its opinion. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3). “The
threshold for triggering” this consultation requirement is
“relatively low.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., 575 F.3d 999, 1018 (9th Cir. 2009).
                              B
    Streptomycin sulfate (streptomycin) is an antibiotic that
has been used in agriculture, animal husbandry, and human
medicine for several decades. It has been used commercially
to control bacterial plant diseases in the United States since
the 1950s. Streptomycin has been approved for use on,
8           MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

among other things, apples, pears, beans, peppers, celery,
and tomatoes, as well as in residential ornamental gardens.
    Streptomycin is also considered “highly important” in
human and veterinary medicine. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has approved streptomycin for use on
humans and animals to treat various ailments, ranging from
urinary tract infections to tuberculosis to plague. For several
decades, streptomycin has been used as a human antibiotic
drug “without significant incidents” raising concerns for
human health. More recently, though, clinical use of
streptomycin has diminished due to the development of
resistance in many human pathogenic species and its higher
toxicity relative to other antibiotics. For these reasons,
streptomycin is typically prescribed as a “second line agent”
in combination with other antibiotics.
    In 2015, pesticide manufacturers proposed another use
for streptomycin: the management of Huanglongbing
disease and citrus canker in oranges and other citrus crops.
Huanglongbing or “HLB,” also known as “citrus greening,”
is an incurable and often fatal plant disease spread by the
Asian citrus psyllid, an invasive insect. Since it was first
detected in the United States in 2005, HLB has devastated
domestic citrus production. In Florida, which contains most
of the citrus crop in the United States, HLB affects over 90%
of citrus acres, and the disease has led to a 42% reduction in
citrus acreage in the state. Researchers have estimated that
HLB cost Florida citrus growers $4.5 billion in lost revenues
and led to the loss of 8,000 jobs. HLB has also affected
citrus operations in Texas and California.
   American citrus groves have also suffered from citrus
canker disease. Citrus canker is caused by the bacterium
Xanthomonus citri subsp. Citri (Xcc), and is spread by wind,
           MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             9

rain, irrigation, and human contact. Despite citrus growers’
considerable eradication efforts, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) determined in 2006 that citrus canker
had spread in Florida citrus groves to such a degree that
eradication was not possible. The consequences for growers
have been severe. Between 2004 and 2016, it is claimed that
citrus canker reduced citrus acreage in Florida by 30%.
Together, citrus greening and citrus canker have seriously
harmed citrus crops, affecting fruit size, health, and
numbers, and leading to premature tree death.
    Citrus growers historically struggled to find effective
treatment methods for citrus greening and citrus canker.
There is currently only one registered pesticide that targets
the specific bacteria that causes HLB disease. And although
there are other pesticides designed to manage infestations
from the insects that spread HLB, they have not proven
successful at preventing HLB transmission. Citrus canker,
meanwhile, has been managed using copper-based
pesticides, but these can be harmful to citrus fruits when
applied frequently. As these two citrus diseases continued
to spread, pesticide manufacturers and citrus farmers sought
alternative treatment methods.
                             C
    In November 2015, Geo Logic Corporation and
AgroSource Inc. submitted applications to the EPA to amend
the pesticide registrations of streptomycin for use on citrus
crop group 10-10, which consists of lemons, limes, oranges,
and grapefruits, as well as other less common citrus fruits,
such as the pummelo. See 40 C.F.R. § 180.41. While these
applications were pending, the EPA granted several
emergency exemptions for use of streptomycin on citrus in
California and Florida. See 7 U.S.C. § 136p; 40 C.F.R.
10          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

§ 166.2. In December 2018, the EPA submitted for public
comment its proposed decision to grant the amended
registrations. After receiving over 4,700 unique substantive
comments, the EPA addressed concerns raised by
stakeholders, but it did not alter its proposed decision.
    On January 11, 2021, the EPA issued a Final
Registration Decision, which unconditionally amended the
registration of streptomycin for use on citrus crop group 10-
10. The registration amendments—set for a 7-year term—
will expire automatically in January 2028, thus “allow[ing]
for an additional reevaluation of the resistance risk” for the
expanded use of the antibiotic. The EPA’s decision also
required the manufacturers to submit yearly reports
describing the implementation of plans to monitor soil and
citrus for incidents of antibiotic resistance.
    In amending the streptomycin registration, the EPA
attempted to comply with FIFRA. But it admits it did not
comply with the ESA. Indeed, the EPA acknowledged that
in the thousands of pesticide registrations it has approved in
the past decades under FIFRA, it has met its ESA obligations
for less than 5% of those actions. The EPA attributes this
“multifold” failure to the high volume of pesticide
applications, “the unusual complexity” of ESA pesticide
reviews, and the proliferation of lawsuits challenging
pesticide products. See also In re Ctr. for Biological
Diversity, 53 F.4th 665, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (describing the
EPA’s “fraught relationship with the ESA”). To right the
ship, the EPA has promulgated a workplan to “improve the
efficiency and timeliness of the ESA-FIFRA process.” Still,
the EPA faces a considerable backlog of other ESA effects
determinations (some court-ordered) which it represents it
must complete before it can perform an effects determination
for streptomycin. Even under the new workplan, the EPA
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             11

does not anticipate being able to complete the effects
determination for streptomycin any sooner than fall 2026.
     In March 2021, petitioners—a consortium of
environmental advocacy groups and other public interest
organizations (including those representing agricultural
workers)—filed a petition for review asking us to set aside
EPA’s amended registrations of streptomycin for use on
citrus. In February 2022, the EPA filed a motion to remand
to the agency without vacatur of the pesticide registrations.
The EPA acknowledged that it had violated the ESA by
failing to make an ESA effects determination before
approving the new uses of streptomycin, but argued that the
equities weighed against vacatur. Petitioners cross-moved
for remand with vacatur. A motions panel of this court
denied both motions without prejudice and set a briefing
schedule.
                              II
    We have jurisdiction to review the EPA’s registration
decision under 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b). See Nat’l Fam. Farm
Coal. v. EPA, 960 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th Cir. 2020).
Petitioners have Article III standing based on their
organizational purposes and because their members would
have standing to sue in their individual capacities. See, e.g.,
Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal. v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893, 908–910 (9th
Cir. 2020) (holding that environmental groups satisfied
Article III standing requirements for FIFRA and ESA
challenges to EPA pesticide registrations); Nat’l Res. Def.
Council, 38 F.4th at 54–55 (same).
   We review the EPA’s compliance with FIFRA for
“substantial evidence when considered on the record as a
whole.” 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b); Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., 966
F.3d at 914. Under this deferential standard, we will affirm
12          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

the EPA’s decision when there is “‘such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion’ even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence.” Nat. Res. Def. Council v.
EPA, 857 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Nat. Res.
Def. Council v. EPA, 735 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 2013)). As
for the ESA, that statute “does not specify a standard of
review,” so “we review EPA’s compliance under the
[Administrative Procedure Act] and uphold agency action
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
contrary to law.” Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., 966 F.3d at 923.
Although an agency decision may be upheld even if it is of
“less than ideal clarity,” it does not pass muster if the
agency’s path cannot “reasonably be discerned.” Bowman
Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S.
281, 286 (1974).
    Because the EPA concedes that it failed to comply with
the ESA, we will address the ESA only in the context of
determining the appropriate remedy. Before we do that,
however, we address whether EPA complied with FIFRA.
                             III
    As FIFRA requires, the EPA determined that registration
of streptomycin for use on citrus would not cause
“unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 7
U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C), (D). Petitioners argue that this
determination was not supported by substantial evidence.
Specifically, they contend that the EPA (1) did not fully
assess the risk that the streptomycin registration would lead
to antibiotic resistance, posing a threat to human health; (2)
failed to evaluate the risk that the registration poses to
pollinators (bees); and (3) credited streptomycin with
providing benefits absent evidentiary support.
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             13

    We agree with the EPA on Point 1, with petitioners on
Point 2, and with a little from both sides on Point 3. We
conclude that substantial evidence supports the EPA’s
assessment of the risk of antibiotic resistance and deny the
petition of review as to this issue. The EPA’s assessment of
the amended registrations’ risk to pollinators, however, is
incomplete—or, at the very least, inadequately explained.
We also conclude that although substantial evidence
supports the EPA’s determination that streptomycin is
effective at treating HLB disease and citrus canker, the EPA
failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the registration
labels’ suggestion that streptomycin can be used to prevent
either disease.
    We therefore grant the petition for review as to the
pollinator and disease prevention issues so that the EPA can
provide either additional support or a more cogent
explanation of why the current record is adequate to support
the registration, or both. In the sections that follow, we
explain our reasoning as to each of petitioners’ three
challenges under FIFRA.
                              A
    In its Final Registration Decision, the EPA concluded
that streptomycin is not toxic to humans—unsurprisingly so,
considering that streptomycin has long been prescribed for
use in humans as an antibiotic drug. Petitioners do not
dispute this conclusion. Rather, their marquee argument is
that the widespread use of streptomycin on citrus crops will
increase antibiotic resistance, thereby undermining the
effectiveness of streptomycin and other antibiotics in the
same class.
    The EPA did specifically evaluate the risk of antibiotic
resistance as part of the registration process and concluded
14          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

that the risk was not unreasonable. But petitioners argue that
the EPA’s analysis was defective in failing to account fully
for all the potential vectors by which antibiotic resistance
could spread. We conclude, however, that substantial
evidence supports the EPA’s assessment of the risk of
antibiotic resistance. EPA sufficiently evaluated this risk
and put in place measures to mitigate it.
    To evaluate the risk of antibiotic resistance, EPA adapted
the analytical approach from FDA Guidance for Industry
#152. See U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Guidance For
Industry #152: Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New
Animal Drugs with Regard to Their Microbiological Effects
on Bacteria of Human Health Concern (2003). The FDA
uses this framework to assess “the effect of the transmission
of foodborne bacteria of human health concern through the
consumption of animal derived food products.” FDA
Guidance for Industry #152 assesses the risk of antibiotic
resistance by evaluating the probability of resistance
developing in the target organism (here, citrus fruit), the
exposure of antibiotic resistant bacteria to humans through
consumption of treated food products, and the importance of
the antibiotic to human health. Applying a modified version
of this risk analysis methodology, the EPA determined that
the risk of adverse human health effects from streptomycin
resistance resulting from its use on citrus was “medium.”
    Petitioners argue that FDA Guidance for Industry #152,
as adapted by EPA, does not fully account for the risks posed
by the amended registration because it was designed to
evaluate the spread of resistance through farm animals fed
or injected with antibiotics, which, petitioners allege, has a
lower risk profile than spraying the antibiotic on crops.
According to petitioners, agricultural use of streptomycin is
more likely to expose the antibiotic to human pathogens
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA            15

through either direct contact with farm workers or indirect
exposure through air, soil, or groundwater. Because the risk
of antibiotic resistance increases with exposure of the
antibiotic to human pathogens, petitioners maintain that the
EPA underestimated the risk of antibiotic resistance by
applying a framework that did not sufficiently account for
significant vectors of exposure.
    The record shows, however, that the EPA adequately
accounted for the various pathways by which antibiotic
resistance might spread following streptomycin’s
application to citrus groves. And the agency sufficiently
explained why the risk of increased resistance was not
unreasonable based on defined mitigation measures.
    First, the EPA explicitly recognized that the
“agricultural use [of streptomycin] has a much greater
environmental exposure due to the application by air blast or
other spray technologies,” and it took into account that the
registration would likely lead to an 18-fold increase in the
use of streptomycin in agriculture. Though this increase in
use is not without risk from an antibiotic resistance
standpoint, the EPA explained that overall exposure of the
antibiotic to the environment is only one piece of the puzzle.
For human bacteria to develop resistance to streptomycin,
they must first be exposed to it. When antibiotics are used
on livestock meant for human consumption, there is likely a
more direct effect on potential antibiotic resistance in human
pathogens because bacteria of human health concern are
often present in the treated animals.
    In plant agriculture, however, the EPA explained that the
risk of exposing human bacteria to streptomycin is lower
because “human pathogens are a relatively minor component
of the general agricultural environment.” Indeed, the EPA
16          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

emphasized that “there is no data that antibiotic use in
agriculture leads to the presence of antibiotic resistance in
bacteria of human health concern,” and that “[a]t the present
time, there is little evidence for or against the presence of
microbes of human health concern in the plant agricultural
environment.”        Under these circumstances, and in
combination with the mitigation measures that we discuss
below, the EPA could reasonably rely on the fact that after
many decades of using streptomycin in agricultural
applications, there is no indication it has led to antibiotic
resistance that poses a concern to human health.
    Petitioners argue that the EPA’s focus on human bacteria
within the agricultural environment ignores the potential
that, through the “air blasting” of streptomycin onto citrus
groves, humans (and human pathogens) may be exposed to
streptomycin through drinking water, “off-field” spray drift,
and contact with workers’ boots, clothes, and tools. But the
EPA adequately addressed these vectors of contamination.
See Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., 966 F.3d at 922 (holding that
EPA’s registration decisions were “supported by substantial
evidence because the record evidence was of the type that ‘a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate’” (quoting Nat.
Res. Def. Council, 857 F.3d at 1036)).
    As part of its decision-making process, the EPA
consulted with the Center for Disease Control (CDC), FDA,
and USDA on how to protect the public from streptomycin
residues on food or in water. Based on these discussions,
EPA developed several mitigation requirements to reduce
off-field exposure to streptomycin. These requirements are
not merely pro forma. Pesticide registrants are obligated to
educate growers on mitigating antibiotic resistance and to
monitor soil and citrus fruit for any incidence of resistance.
The EPA’s registration label also requires applicators to
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA            17

spray the streptomycin pesticide directly into the orchard
canopy and to “turn off outward pointing nozzles at row
ends” “to help reduce off-target drift.” The EPA’s
registration further prohibits using the product through “any
type of irrigation system” or through “aerial application.”
    The record thus demonstrates that the EPA considered
the risk of antibiotic resistance spreading through
environmental pathways, and that it took steps to mitigate it.
Petitioners’ theory that these measures are insufficient lacks
factual support. See Ctr. for Cmty. Action & Env’t Just. v.
FAA, 61 F.4th 633, 640 (9th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he burden is on
petitioners to demonstrate that the [agency’s] ultimate
conclusions are unreasonable.” (quoting City of Olmsted
Falls v. FAA, 292 F.3d 261, 271 (D.C. Cir. 2002))).
    Second, substantial evidence supports the EPA’s
determination that human bacteria exposure to streptomycin
can be reduced through mandatory use of personal protective
equipment (PPE) by agricultural workers. As part of its
Final Registration Decision, the EPA instituted requirements
for PPE. At a minimum, workers applying streptomycin—
who cannot reenter treated areas at all for 12 hours—must
wear protective eyewear, coveralls, chemical-resistant
headgear and gloves, socks and shoes, and an approved
respirator. According to the EPA, this PPE use “will reduce
the contribution of occupational exposure to the overall risk
estimations.”
    Petitioners are not satisfied that these PPE requirements
will mitigate the development of antibiotic resistance in
human pathogens. Because FIFRA requires the EPA to
evaluate risks posed by a pesticide “when used in accordance
with widespread and commonly recognized practice,” 7
U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D), petitioners argue that the agency
18          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

must account for “real-world” (i.e., non-compliant) PPE use
by workers handling streptomycin. According to petitioners,
the fact that PPE is costly and cumbersome will discourage
full compliance among workers. Petitioners also argue that
the PPE requirements, even when followed, do not go far
enough because they only apply when workers are actively
spraying the pesticide and not when they reenter previously
sprayed groves.
    The EPA acknowledged that it did not account for non-
compliance with PPE requirements in its risk assessment. It
emphasized, however, that the PPE requirements were not
mere suggestions. Pesticide labels are legally enforceable
and carry the statement: “It is a violation of Federal law to
use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.”
Cf. 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G). Petitioners correctly note that,
in certain circumstances, the EPA must account for non-
compliance with pesticide labels in conducting its risk
assessments. See Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., 960 F.3d at 1139–
41. They rely in particular on National Family Farm
Coalition, in which we held that the EPA erred in failing to
account for regulatory non-compliance because there was
“substantial evidence that even conscientious applicators
had not been able consistently to adhere to the label
requirements,” which in that instance were “complex and
onerous.” Id. at 1140.
    Here, there is no evidence that it is “difficult or
impossible to comply with” the labels’ PPE requirements, id.
at 1141, which include such standard measures as wearing
gloves, coveralls, and respirators. Petitioners cite surveys
indicating that non-compliance with PPE requirements is
common. But these surveys are not specific to the PPE
requirements for streptomycin or citrus growers, nor do they
involve use labels akin to the one here. Petitioners have not
             MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA                    19

demonstrated material flaws in the EPA’s determination that
mandatory PPE use will reduce direct contact between
streptomycin and human bacteria.1
    In sum, in its risk assessment, the EPA acknowledged
that resistance to antibiotic pesticides “can be spread by
resistant species in or on food, the skin of workers, or
indirectly through the environment or clothing.” For the
reasons we have explained, we conclude that the EPA’s
antibiotic resistance assessment was based on “reasonable
inferences,” and that petitioners have presented us with
insufficient reason to “question the agency’s well-
considered conclusions.” Protect Our Communities Found.
v. Jewell, 825 F.3d 571, 583–84 (9th Cir. 2016). To the
extent petitioners disagree with the EPA on the merits of its
scientific analysis, “[m]ere differences in opinion . . . are not
sufficient grounds for rejecting the analysis of agency
experts.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land
Mgmt., 833 F.3d 1136, 1148 (9th Cir. 2016).
                                  B
    We turn next to petitioners’ argument that EPA failed to
evaluate the risk that streptomycin will pose to pollinators—
e.g., bees. FIFRA’s implementing regulations set forth
requirements for how the EPA must evaluate the effect of
any pesticide registration on pollinators. See 40 C.F.R.

1
   Petitioners argue that the registration labels’ requirement that
agricultural workers not reenter sprayed groves for 12 hours does not
reduce the risk of exposure, especially if workers are not wearing PPE.
This argument was not raised before the agency during the notice and
comment period and is therefore forfeited. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000). Regardless, for the reasons
discussed above, we conclude that the EPA adequately addressed the risk
of streptomycin exposure through human and environmental pathways.
20          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

§ 158.630(d). We have previously recognized that bees in
particular are “essential to pollinate important crops” but “in
recent years have been dying at alarming rates.” Pollinator
Stewardship Council, 806 F.3d at 532 (vacating pesticide
registration due to “the absence of sufficient data
documenting the risk to bees” and noting the “precariousness
of bee populations”). As the EPA has said in its own internal
pollinator guidance, “[t]he scientific community is in general
agreement that a multitude of factors contribute to potential
adverse impacts on bees, including . . . pesticides.”
     Under FIFRA, the EPA may approve a registration only
if it has “reviewed all relevant data in [its] possession” and
“has determined that no additional data are necessary” to
assess whether the pesticide will perform its intended
function without “unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment.”      40 C.F.R. § 152.112(b)–(c) (emphasis
added); 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5). In addition to these general
requirements, EPA regulations require applicants to provide
specific data on the pesticide’s effects on pollinators. 40
C.F.R. § 158.630(d). For any pesticide registration or
registration amendment, EPA requires at a minimum that
applicants submit a honeybee acute contact toxicity study,
though other studies may be conditionally required. Id.
Furthermore, under the EPA’s current internal guidance,
additional studies can be required to “identify whether
potential risks to bees exist.” Pollinator Stewardship
Council, 806 F.3d at 524.
    Under its internal guidelines, if the EPA identifies any
concerns based on these studies, it will further evaluate the
likelihood and extent of the potential exposure to bees,
focusing on “whether the registered uses involve bee-
attractive crops,” whether the pesticide would be applied
“when bees may be present,” and whether “measures can be
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             21

identified to mitigate exposure.” The EPA’s own guidance
makes clear that when the required data “are not available to
evaluate potential exposure and effects to bees, it may be
difficult to develop suitable mitigation measures for some
[pesticides].” In such cases where the studies specifically
required by the regulations are “not sufficient to evaluate the
potential of the product to cause unreasonable adverse
effects on man or the environment, additional data
requirements will be imposed.” 40 C.F.R. § 158.75.
    In this case, and as part of its FIFRA analysis, the EPA
was thus required to analyze whether the amended
registration of streptomycin would have an unreasonable
adverse effect on pollinators. Based on our review of the
record, we conclude that the EPA’s evaluation of
streptomycin’s effects on bees does not pass muster. The
EPA’s own statements indicate that it lacked “sufficient data
to evaluate the environmental risks” of streptomycin
registration for use on citrus. Pollinator Stewardship
Council, 806 F.3d at 523. Further, the EPA’s statements on
this issue point in different directions, and its path thus
cannot be reasonably discerned. See, e.g., Crickon v.
Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Motor
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto
Ins., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).
    Here, there is no dispute that the EPA received and
reviewed the pollinator acute toxicity data required by 40
C.F.R. § 158.630(d). That honeybee contact study reported
“no effects.” The EPA in its Final Registration Decision
therefore classified streptomycin as “‘practically nontoxic’
to honey bees on an acute exposure basis.” And overall, the
EPA considered the streptomycin database “to be complete
to assess risk to the environment and human health, when
using the Agency’s standard processes.”
22          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

     But the EPA also stated in its Final Registration Decision
that its “pollinator data are incomplete” and that
“[a]dditional pollinator data, in accordance with the recent
pollinator guidance . . . [,] are not available for streptomycin
at this time.” Moreover, the EPA conceded elsewhere that it
based its risk assessment on “limited pollinator data” since
“the full suite of data now being required for pollinators is
not available for streptomycin.” These statements suggest
that the EPA has not, in fact, concluded that “no additional
data are necessary to make the determinations required by
FIFRA.” 40 C.F.R. § 152.112(c).
    On this point, the EPA in its Answering Brief concedes
that some of the language in the Final Registration Decision
is “admittedly unclear.” That is an understatement. On its
face, the Final Registration Decision confusingly states both
that the streptomycin database is “complete” (and thus
sufficient to conduct a pollinator risk assessment) yet that its
“pollinator data are incomplete.” These statements stand in
apparent opposition to each other. The EPA nevertheless
argues that these Janus-like pronouncements are
reconcilable: in its view, the Final Registration Decision’s
statement that “pollinator data are incomplete” refers to data
the EPA might require as part of its ongoing registration
review process for all streptomycin products and uses, but
for the purposes of the amended registration at issue here,
the pollinator data are “complete.”
    We recognize that, as part of the broader registration
review process, the EPA may evaluate additional data to
ensure that a pesticide registration “reflect[s] advances in the
science of hazard characterization or exposure assessment.”
Procedural Regulations for Registration Review, 65 Fed.
Reg. at 24588; see also 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(2). Here,
however, the Final Registration Decision does not limit its
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             23

statement that “pollinator data are incomplete” to only the
data required for registration review. As petitioners note, the
statement comes from a section discussing the risk of the
registration for citrus group 10-10. Absent a better
explanation (or any explanation) in the Final Registration
Decision, we must take the Final Registration Decision at its
word: the pollinator data are “incomplete” with respect to
this amended registration. The EPA’s FIFRA analysis was
therefore deficient, for “[w]ithout sufficient data, the EPA
has no real idea whether [streptomycin] will cause
unreasonable adverse effects on bees.”              Pollinator
Stewardship Council, 806 F.3d at 532.
    But even if we were to brush aside this confusion and
assume that the EPA never intended to suggest that the
pollinator data was incomplete for the purposes of this
amended registration, the EPA fails to explain why the
specific data it has identified as necessary for registration
review is not also necessary here. Under FIFRA, the EPA
cannot unconditionally approve or amend a registration until
it has “reviewed all relevant data” and “determined that no
additional data are necessary.” 40 C.F.R. § 152.112(b)–(c);
see also Nat’l Fam. Farm Coal., 966 F.3d at 912. EPA
regulations also provide that “[r]egistration review is the
periodic review of a pesticide’s registration to ensure that
each pesticide registration continues to satisfy the FIFRA
standard for registration.” 40 C.F.R. § 155.40(a) (emphasis
added).
    Here, the Final Registration Decision explained that
“[a]dditional pollinator data” from studies that would
“examine potential toxicity to larval and adult honey bees”
could be “necessary to help make a final registration review
decision for streptomycin.” In its guidelines for assessing
pollinator risk, the EPA explains that these studies “are
24          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

necessary to more fully evaluate the potential exposure and
effects to bees for various pesticide use patterns,” and that
without these additional data, “risk assessors may not be able
to fully determine the potential for exposure and effects to
bees.” But in its final decision approving the amended
registration of streptomycin, the EPA admitted that such
“[a]dditional pollinator data, in accordance with the recent
pollinator guidance . . . are not available for streptomycin at
this time.”
    The EPA argues that, although its own internal
guidelines emphasize the general importance of these
additional pollinator studies, the guidelines do not require
any additional data for this registration because it involved
an “existing pesticide” with a “new outdoor use.” In such
cases, the guidelines recommend that the EPA conduct its
review “with existing data,” with additional data to “be
called in under registration review criteria.” But the EPA’s
claimed compliance with its own internal non-binding
guidelines does not absolve it of its obligation to provide a
“reasoned explanation” for its decision. Ass’n of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, 10 F.4th 937, 945 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 45 (2011)). Because the
EPA never explained how it complied with its internal
guidelines in its registration decision, or how compliance
with the guidelines would be sufficient for present purposes,
the EPA cannot rely on these guidelines to justify its
conclusion that no additional pollinator data was necessary.
After all, “judicial review of agency action is limited to ‘the
grounds that the agency invoked when it took the action.’”
Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 140
S. Ct. 1891, 1907 (2020) (quoting Michigan v. EPA, 576
U.S. 743, 758 (2015)).
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA             25

    As it stands, the EPA has not explained how additional
data that it has deemed essential for assessing the risk of
streptomycin on registration review are not also necessary to
conclude, under this amended registration, that streptomycin
poses no unreasonable risks to pollinators. See Nat. Res.
Def. Council, 38 F.4th at 46 (granting petition for review
when agency’s conclusion was “in tension with parts of [its]
own analysis and with the guidelines it purports to follow”).
And even if the EPA’s conflicting statements are
reconcilable, we are not permitted to make a “best guess as
to what reasoning truly motivated” the agency’s decision.
Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 475
F.3d 319, 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006); see also State Farm, 463
U.S. at 43 (“We may not supply a reasoned basis for the
agency’s action that the agency itself has not given.”
(quotation omitted)).
    For these reasons, we grant the petition for review with
respect to this issue so that the agency can either solicit the
additional pollinator data necessary to evaluate whether use
of streptomycin on citrus poses any unreasonable adverse
effects to bees, or else sufficiently explain why no further
data are needed at this time.
                              C
    We now turn to petitioners’ final argument under
FIFRA. FIFRA requires the EPA to determine whether
registration of a pesticide would pose any “unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment,” “taking into account
the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits
of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb) (emphasis
added). Though the EPA’s Final Registration Decision
described how streptomycin would benefit citrus growers
struggling with HLB disease and citrus canker, petitioners
26          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

argue that the EPA’s benefits assessment was not supported
by substantial evidence. We agree with the petitioners in
part.
    As previously discussed, HLB disease and citrus canker
have devastated citrus crops, resulting in substantial
reductions in the overall citrus acreage in the United States.
Citrus growers currently have few options for mitigating
damage from either disease. The EPA concluded, based on
evidence from expert reports and scientific studies, that
applying streptomycin to citrus trees infected with HLB
disease increased tree height and fruit load and reduced
branch dieback and fruit drop. It further found that, when
used alongside existing copper treatments, streptomycin
reduces the incidence of citrus canker and associated
defoliation and fruit drop. Studies indicate that using
streptomycin to treat citrus canker can also reduce the
amount of copper spray that needs to be applied, which
ultimately results in healthier trees because copper itself has
adverse effects.
    Petitioners contend the EPA’s benefits assessment was
not supported by substantial evidence, for three reasons:
    First, petitioners argue that the studies finding
streptomycin to be an effective treatment for citrus canker
were flawed because they lacked a proper control group. We
disagree. The EPA’s conclusion that streptomycin is an
effective treatment for citrus canker is reasonable,
notwithstanding the fact that the studies it relied upon
compared trees treated with streptomycin and a “low rate of
copper” to “untreated” trees, without using a streptomycin-
only or copper-only control group. Petitioners view the lack
of a single-chemical control group as significant because
they believe it means the EPA could not discern which
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA            27

chemical—streptomycin or copper—was producing the
observed benefits. But the lack of a control group that tested
streptomycin or copper on their own does not undermine the
EPA’s registration decision because EPA expects
streptomycin to be used in a mixture with other currently
registered products, including copper.
    When copper is used alone, it typically requires several
sprays throughout the season. Because copper is phytotoxic
(poisonous to plants), heavy spraying can cause blemishing
on the fruit and ultimately lead to the development of copper
resistance in bacteria. Data submitted by the applicants
indicate, however, that streptomycin combined with copper
reduces the number of copper sprays needed to improve
yields. The absence of a streptomycin or copper-only
control therefore does not detract from the EPA’s conclusion
that streptomycin is a beneficial treatment for citrus canker.
    Second, petitioners contend that the EPA ignored
scientific evidence in the record suggesting that
streptomycin is ineffective at treating HLB disease.
Specifically, they allege that the agency failed adequately to
address a single study (the “Zhang study”) that the Center
for Biological Diversity (CBD) cited with limited
elaboration in a footnote to a public comment that CBD
submitted during the notice and comment period. The Zhang
study evaluated 31 antibiotics for effectiveness in managing
HLB disease. It found that streptomycin, along with several
other antibiotics, was “not effective in eliminating or
suppressing” the HLB-causing bacteria. In its response to
comments, the EPA briefly addressed the study, noting that
it was conducted on “newly grafted citrus scion on root stock
under laboratory conditions.” The EPA did not comment
more broadly on the study’s claim regarding the supposed
ineffectiveness of streptomycin.
28          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

     Though the EPA is obligated to “respond to comments
received on the notice of application,” 40 C.F.R. § 152.102,
it is expected to focus its consideration and response on
“significant comments.” Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575
U.S. 92, 96 (2015). This does not necessarily include every
minute point, however obliquely raised. Cf. Altera Corp. &
Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.3d 1061,
1081 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n agency need only respond to . . .
comments . . . which raise relevant points and which, if
adopted, would require a change in the agency’s proposed
rule.” (quotations omitted)); Covad Commc’ns Co. v. FCC,
450 F.3d 528, 550 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explaining that the
agency “need not address every comment, but it must
respond in a reasoned manner to those that raise significant
problems.” (quoting Reytblatt v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
105 F.3d 715, 722 (D.C. Cir. 1997))). Since the Zhang study
was raised in a footnote, with minimal elaboration, the
EPA’s brief response to that study was commensurate. The
EPA did not ignore the study, but instead explained that the
study was based on laboratory conditions. This was a
sufficient response.
    Third, petitioners argue that the EPA registered
streptomycin for “use[] to treat or prevent infection” without
providing any evidence in support of streptomycin’s
preventative capacity. At the outset, we question whether
petitioners have correctly characterized the Final
Registration Decision. Taken in context, it is not clear that
the EPA is, in fact, recommending that streptomycin be used
to “prevent” infection in the full sense of that term. Rather,
in the final decision EPA is cautioning applicators that to
“delay antibiotic . . . resistance,” “[t]his product should be
used to treat or prevent infection that are proven or strongly
suspected to be caused by the indicated target bacteria.” In
            MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA              29

context, “prevent infection” could simply mean “prevent the
further spread of infection” or its harmful effects.
    But the EPA does not make these arguments and instead
appears to concur in petitioners’ reading of the relevant
language. Indeed, the EPA in its Answering Brief “agrees
that the registrants did not submit any data to support a claim
that streptomycin prevents infection,” but argues it
committed no error since it did not itself consider disease
prevention as a benefit of streptomycin during its review
process. The EPA suggests that it would need to determine
if streptomycin prevented HLB or citrus canker only if a
manufacturer made such a claim on its registration label.
But the EPA does not cite any authority for the proposition
that it could include an unsupported use in a registration
decision and then police the issue on a back-end review of
pesticide labels.
    Thus, to the extent that the Final Registration Decision
determined that streptomycin can be used to prevent
infection, we grant the petition for review so that the EPA
can provide a more coherent and detailed explanation of
whether it understands disease prevention to be a benefit of
streptomycin, and, if so, to provide sufficient support for that
conclusion. We note, however, that our determination here
does not materially undermine the EPA’s bottom-line
conclusion about the benefits that streptomycin will
otherwise provide in treating trees infected with citrus
greening and citrus canker.
                              IV
    At this point in our analysis, we have now concluded that
the EPA did not fully comply with FIFRA because it (1)
failed to include additional data in its pollinator risk
assessment or explain why such data was not necessary and
30          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

(2) suggested that streptomycin could be used to prevent
disease without providing evidentiary support for such a
claim.
    We have not discussed the Endangered Species Act in
any measure because there is little to say: the EPA admits it
failed to abide by that statute. We have previously found
“troubling” the “EPA’s apparent habit of ignoring ESA’s
effect determination and consultation requirements” in its
pesticide registration decisions. Ctr. for Food Safety, 56
F.4th at 658. And we have explained that the EPA may not
avoid compliance with the ESA merely because of its own
internal regulatory priorities. See id. It is Congress that
required the EPA to comply with the ESA when making
pesticide registration decisions, and it is our duty to enforce
Congress’s command. Id. at 658–59.
    This brings us to the question of the appropriate remedy
given the EPA’s several statutory violations. Specifically,
we must determine whether to vacate the registration
amendments or remand to the agency to address the above
errors while leaving the registrations in place (so-called
“remand without vacatur”). The traditional remedy for
erroneous administrative decisions is vacatur, but we will
“leave invalid agency action in place ‘when equity demands’
that we do so.’” Id. at 663 (quoting Pollinator Stewardship
Council, 806 F.3d at 532).
    To determine whether an agency’s action should remain
in effect on remand, we apply a two-factor balancing test:
“We weigh the seriousness of the agency’s errors against
‘the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may
itself be changed.’” Id. (quoting Cal. Cmties. Against Toxics
v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2012)). When weighing
the seriousness of the agency’s errors, we look to whether
           MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA            31

the agency could, “by complying with procedural rules, . . .
adopt the same rule on remand,” and whether “vacating [the]
faulty rule could result in possible environmental harm.”
Pollinator Stewardship Council, 806 F.3d at 532.
    In balancing these equitable considerations, we are not
working off a blank slate. In Center for Food Safety, decided
in late 2022, we held that remand without vacatur was
appropriate even though there, as here, the EPA failed to
comply with FIFRA in some respects and failed entirely to
conduct an ESA effects determination for a pesticide
registration. 56 F.4th at 663–64. Though we expressed
“serious concern that EPA has continued to flout the ESA,
we ultimately conclude[d] that EPA could maintain the same
registration decision once it makes an effects determination
and engages in any required consultation.” Id. at 664. We
thus “reluctantly remand[ed] without vacatur” of the
pesticide registration. Id. at 668. And we did so in part
“because a vacatur would likely harm the environment more
and disrupt the agricultural industry,” facts that we
characterized as “unique.” Id. at 668 & n.15. However,
based on our concern that the EPA on remand would not, as
required by the ESA, make its effects determination “at the
earliest possible time,” we directed the EPA to “act
immediately” and “to address the[] deficiencies” in its
FIFRA analysis and abide by its ESA obligations “within
180 days of the mandate being issued.” Id. at 657, 669.
    As in Center for Food Safety, the EPA contends that the
balance of equities in this case favors remand without
vacatur. The EPA attempts to downplay the seriousness of
its wholesale failure to comply with the ESA by arguing that
its FIFRA analysis was sufficient to demonstrate that
streptomycin use on citrus is unlikely to threaten any
endangered species or its habitat. The EPA thus maintains
32          MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA

that it would, after complying with the ESA, still be able to
“adopt the same rule on remand.” Pollinator Stewardship
Council, 806 F.3d at 532. The EPA also argues that vacatur
would have considerable disruptive consequences for citrus
growers who have few alternatives for managing HLB and
citrus canker.
    We are sympathetic to the EPA’s equitable concerns and
to the plight of citrus growers, whose products contribute to
our food supply. But under our decision in Center for Food
Safety, a blank check remand without vacatur would not be
an appropriate remedy in this case. Given the seriousness of
the EPA’s failure to comply with its congressionally
mandated ESA obligations, Ctr. For Food Safety, 56 F.4th
at 657, as well as its failure to comply fully with FIFRA, any
remand without vacatur would at least require as a condition
a mandatory timetable for compliance similar to the 180-day
deadline that we imposed in Center for Food Safety. See id.
at 669. The EPA has not explained how the equities here
would justify a more lenient remand than we ordered in
Center for Food Safety.
    But we do not need to decide whether to impose any
timing requirement here. When asked at oral argument
whether it would prefer a time-limited remand to outright
vacatur of the amended pesticide registration, counsel for
EPA explained that the agency would request the latter. The
reason: the EPA knows it cannot complete an ESA effects
determination for streptomycin until at least the fall of 2026.
In other words, the EPA does not want a court-ordered
deadline that it recognizes it cannot meet.
    Although the EPA’s assertion that it cannot complete an
ESA effects determination until the fall of 2026 is itself
troubling, we appreciate the agency’s candor in alerting us
           MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA           33

that a time-limited remand without vacatur would not be a
sensible remedy. Between our governing law and the EPA’s
concessions, we thus have no choice other than to vacate the
EPA’s amended registration of streptomycin. The EPA has
provided no argument as to why we should be willing to
allow a longer timeframe to complete the ESA analysis (and
revised FIFRA analysis) when we only permitted the EPA
180 days in Center for Food Safety. And since the EPA has
acknowledged that any deadline sooner than the fall of 2026
would be unworkable, the tighter leash that we imposed for
remand without vacatur in Center for Food Safety is simply
not available in this case.
    We therefore vacate the EPA’s amended registrations of
streptomycin for use on citrus group 10-10 and remand to
the agency so that it can address the above-noted defects in
its FIFRA analysis and conduct an ESA effects
determination.
  PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART; VACATED AND
REMANDED.