FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 05 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK No. 14-71514
NORTH AMERICA; et al.,
Petitioners,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Environmental Protection Agency
Argued and Submitted May 9, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Pesticide Action Network North America, United Farm Workers, and
Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (“Petitioners”) petition for review of
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) partial denial of their
administrative petition, “Pesticides in the Air – Kids at Risk: Petition to the EPA to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Protect Children from Pesticide Drift.” We have jurisdiction under 7 U.S.C.
§136n(b). The EPA’s order “shall be sustained if it is supported by substantial
evidence when considered on the record as a whole.” Id.
Substantial evidence supports the EPA’s decision to deny Petitioners’
request that the EPA “immediately adopt interim prohibitions on the use of toxic
drift-prone pesticides such as organophosphates and n-methyl carbamates near
homes, schools, parks, and daycare centers or wherever children congregate.”
Viewed as a whole, the record adequately supports the EPA’s conclusion that the
imposition of uniform buffer zones is not the most “scientifically appropriate”
method for mitigating the risk of exposure to pesticide drift.
The record generally suggests that the risk of exposure to pesticide drift
depends on a number of factors, including pesticide toxicity, the method of
pesticide application, the size of pesticide droplets, and weather conditions. Based
on this evidence, the EPA could reasonably conclude that Petitioners’ proposal of
uniform buffer zones for a large number of pesticides would not adequately
address the variable risk of exposure to pesticide drift without unnecessarily
curtailing some safe pesticide use. Petitioners did not request any interim relief
tailored to prevent demonstrated drift by specific pesticides, and thus Petitioners’
evidence that some unsafe pesticide drift occurs does not establish that the EPA’s
-2-
order was unsupported by substantial evidence. Moreover, to require the
immediate imposition of uniform buffer zones would likely divert limited agency
resources from the risk assessment process and disrupt the EPA’s established
process for evaluating the safety of pesticide registrations and tolerances.
Therefore, substantial evidence supports the EPA’s determination that, as a matter
of science and policy, the immediate imposition of interim buffer zones is not an
appropriate means of mitigating the risk of children’s exposure to pesticide drift.1
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 required the EPA to determine
each food-use pesticide’s eligibility for reregistration and to review the safety of all
food-use pesticide tolerances or exemptions by August 3, 2006. See 7 U.S.C.
§ 136a-1(g)(2)(A)(i); 21 U.S.C. § 346a(q)(1)(C). We lack jurisdiction to review
these reregistration and tolerance determinations, as any challenge to these
determinations would be time-barred. See 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b); 21 U.S.C.
§ 346a(h)(1). In addition, this petition is moot as to any pesticides for which the
EPA has already made final reregistration review determinations and to any
pesticides for which the EPA has already imposed interim no-spray buffer zones,
such as chlorpyrifos.
-3-