No ORAL ARGUMENT HELD JUNE 1, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Similar documents
No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 08/28/2018 Page 1 of 15 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case 2:07-cv RSL Document 51 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Case 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. SIERRA CLUB; and VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellants, Defendants - Appellees.

Case 2:16-cv NDF Document 29 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 9

ORU l;~]i ^i^totestodhhfw^

NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, et al., STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 09/09/2011 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED] Nos , STB No. FD IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015 Page 1 of Constitution Avenue,

Tel: (202)

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petition for Review

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al.

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:16-cv SWS Document 218 Filed 04/06/18 Page 1 of 4

Case , Document 1-1, 04/21/2017, , Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 19, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT SCHEDULED] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT : : : : MOTION TO GOVERN

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,

Case 2:10-cv TSZ Document 174 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY

Office of the Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Post Office Box San Francisco, California

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD APRIL 12, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

March 11, Re: Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. LSI Corp. et al., No Panel: Judges Farris, Reinhardt & Tashima

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

Case: Document: 17 Page: 1 05/13/ Eastern District of New York, Korman, J.

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 07/19/2011 Page 1 of 8 [NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] No

Case: , 02/06/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 26-1, Page 1 of 9. No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 2:17-cv RAJ Document 36 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Appellants-Cross-Appellees. Nos , ,

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:16-cv JEB Document 64 Filed 11/22/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR APPEAL APPLICATION UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION CODE APPEALS BOARD

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ILSA SARAVIA, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

USCA Case # Document # Filed: 10/23/2015. DISTRICT OF COWMBAaijh 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE APPELLEE DOES NOT REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants.

Case: Document: Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. This Settlement Agreement is made by and between: 1) Sierra Club; and 2)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO CP COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Case No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,

Transcription:

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 1 of 6 No. 14-72794 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD JUNE 1, 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN RE PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, and NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. STATUS REPORT Respondent United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) respectfully submits this Status Report pursuant to this Court s June 10, 2015 Order [Dkt No. 17]. In the course of reviewing the public comments on the December 29, 2014 Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos ( Assessment ), EPA has concluded that it intends to partially grant the 2007 Administrative Petition submitted by Petitioners Pesticide Action Network North America and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (collectively Petitioners ) by proposing to

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 2 of 6 revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances. This position is based on several considerations, including the risks arising from exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos in drinking water identified in the Assessment and initial exchanges with the registrants of chlorpyrifos pesticides regarding needed risk mitigation. The Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires EPA, when making determinations regarding the safety of tolerances, to consider the contribution of consumption of pesticide residues in drinking water to overall exposure. The Assessment concluded that, in certain watersheds through the United States, the use of chlorpyrifos may result in residues in drinking water that, together with other exposures, preclude a determination that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to people who would be drinking such water. See EPA Status Report, Attach. 1 at 84-96 (Jan. 7, 2015, Dkt. No. 8-2). This would apply to the determination for every chlorpyrifos tolerance. In its March 26, 2015 provisional response (the Provisional Response ), EPA indicated that it agreed with Petitioners that some additional risk mitigation action was necessary to reduce risks from exposure to chlorpyrifos. At that time, however, EPA expressed its expectation that it was likely to be able to address these risks through means other than either revocation of all tolerances or cancellation of all registrations. Therefore, EPA proposed a complete denial of the petition. While EPA still hopes that registrants will agree to make all the necessary changes, EPA is now less 2

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 3 of 6 confident that it can achieve necessary risk mitigation outside of formal regulatory proceedings. Although EPA now intends to grant the petition by seeking revocation of all tolerances, EPA continues to believe that it is important to further determine, as much as possible, where at-risk watersheds are located throughout the country. As explained in the Provisional Response, EPA is currently working on a refined water assessment that, when completed, should allow for the identification of these at-risk watersheds. EPA expects to complete that assessment later in 2015. With such information, EPA can develop appropriate risk mitigation for these watersheds, such as prohibiting all use or changing the way chlorpyrifos is allowed to be used in a watershed. Further, EPA notes that its Assessment also raised concerns about the risks to farmworkers and other agricultural employees occupationally exposed to chlorpyrifos (which is an issue not raised in the Petition). EPA also believes that additional restrictions are needed to mitigate these risks, but, like the risks from drinking water, may require complex regulatory proceedings. In order to accommodate completion of the drinking water assessment, negotiations with registrants to achieve necessary changes outside of a formal regulatory proceeding, and the development of a proposed revocation rule 3

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 4 of 6 appropriate for Federal Register publication if needed, EPA proposes the following schedule: EPA intends to grant the Petition by publishing in the Federal Register not later than April 15, 2016, a proposed rule pursuant to 21 U.S.C. section 346a(d)(4)(A)(ii) to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances to address drinking water exposure concerns in small sensitive watersheds throughout the country. If, prior to April 15, 2016, the chlorpyrifos registrants do agree to take necessary action, i.e., amending the product labeling of chlorpyrifos products, to address unsafe drinking water exposures, EPA will submit to the Court within 10 days of any such agreement a status report outlining the registration changes and how such changes obviate the need for further regulatory action under the FFDCA. EPA shall then publish a final order denying any remaining portions of the petition not later than 30 days following the submission of the status report outlining why registration changes have rendered a tolerance revocation action unnecessary. Dated: June 30, 2015 Respectfully submitted, JOHN C. CRUDEN Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources Division s/ Erica M. Zilioli. ERICA M. ZILIOLI U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Defense Section 4

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 5 of 6 Of Counsel: MARK DYNER Office of General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency William Jefferson Clinton Building North 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 P.O. Box 7611 Washington, DC 20044 Phone: (202) 514-6390 Fax: (202) 514-8865 Erica.Zilioli@usdoj.gov 5

Case: 14-72794, 06/30/2015, ID: 9594168, DktEntry: 20, Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on June 30, 2015. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. s/ Erica M. Zilioli. 6