Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Plaintiffs Fail to Satisfy Standing Requirements in
Challenge of Tolerance Levels

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. EPA, No. C 05-04093 CRB, 2006 WL 3000657 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2006), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the plaintiffs, various non-profit organizations, lacked standing to bring the instant suit. The plaintiffs claimed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to implement a pesticide testing program. After hearing oral arguments and considering the evidence, the court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Background

In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which "'increas[ed] the number of factors that the EPA must consider in establishing a tolerance or exemption" for pesticide chemical residues in or on food." Id. at *1 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 346(b)(2)(A)(ii)). The FQPA required the EPA to "'develop' a pesticide screening program by August 3, 1998 to 'determine' whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect, and to 'implement' the program by August 3, 1999." Id. (internal citations omitted).

The plaintiffs brought suit in August 1999 claiming that the "EPA had failed to meet the [program's] tolerance-reassessment deadlines." Id. at *2. Thereafter, more organizations intervened as plaintiffs. Id. Following the interventions, the original plaintiffs and the EPA entered into a settlement agreement. Id. The settlement bound the EPA to a consent decree in exchange for the original plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss their causes of action. Id. Although the intervening plaintiffs objected to the consent decree, the court rejected their opposition and approved the agreement. Id. Pressing forward, the intervening plaintiffs continued their complaint-in-intervention. Id. In response, the original plaintiffs moved to dismiss the claims on the merits, which the court granted. Id. The intervenors did not appeal; instead, they "filed a rulemaking petition with the EPA under section 533 of the [APA] . . . [alleging] that the EPA had failed to 'implement' the [program] as required by 21 U.S.C. § 346a(p)(2)." Id. While their rulemaking petition was pending, the intervening plaintiffs filed the instant action. Id. Shortly thereafter, the EPA denied their rulemaking petition; therefore, the intervening plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the rejection as an additional claim. Id. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Id. at *3.

Arguments

The plaintiffs argued "that the EPA ha[d] failed to 'implement' the [program] by the statutory deadline," and "that the EPA's denial of their rulemaking petition was arbitrary and capricious." Id.

The EPA argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, their claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the agency had implemented the program. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court first discussed whether the plaintiffs had established "a genuine question of material fact as to the standing elements." Id. at *4. Attempting to establish an injury in fact, the plaintiffs cited "a quote in the EPA's cross-motion for summary judgment," which read,

Recent scientific research indicates that synthetic chemicals may disrupt the human endocrine system, possibly causing decreased fertility, malformed reproductive organs, increased levels of cancer in reproductive organs, impaired fecal development, and neurological, thyroid, and immune disorders. These endocrine disrupting chemicals . . . , which mimic, block, or otherwise interfere with normal hormonal signals, are found in pesticides. Id.

Based on that quote, the plaintiffs claimed "that pesticides pose[d] an endocrine risk to humans." Id. The court was not satisfied, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their evidentiary burden "to create a genuine dispute as to whether they ha[d] suffered an injury in fact." Id. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to "submit[] evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute as to a causal connection between their alleged injury and the EPA's alleged failure to implement the [program]." Id. at *7. Finally, the plaintiffs had failed to "satisf[y] the redressability element of standing." Id. Ultimately, the court held that the "plaintiffs' standing evidence ha[d] too many missing links to pass constitutional muster." Id.

The case was decided on October 20, 2006.