Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

EPA's Compliance with Procedures and Substantive Requirements
of FIFRA Is a Constitutionally Protected Interest

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. EPA, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006), the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted in part and denied in part the motions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and two defendant pesticide manufacturers. The plaintiff, a pesticide manufacturer, brought claims against the EPA and its competitors for late cancellation of its pesticide registration and the consequences that resulted thereafter. The court dismissed each of the plaintiff's claims except for the plaintiff's equal protection argument.

Background

The plaintiff, a manufacturer and distributor of pesticides, produced and registered metolachlor at a cost millions of dollars. Id. at 440. In 1996, the plaintiff produced a new version of metolachlor designed to be more environmentally friendly and more efficient. Id. Because the new metolachlor posed a reduced threat to the environment, the EPA gave it an expedited review and issued a conditional registration under FIFRA § 3(c)(7)(C), 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F). Id. at 441. When the EPA registered the new pesticide "it requested that [the plaintiff] voluntarily cancel its [original] metolachlor registrations in order to motivate consumers to use the new, less harmful pesticide." Id. The plaintiff complied with the EPA's request in September 1999, and three months later, the EPA publicly announced "that the cancellation [of metolachlor] would be effective June 26, 2000." Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff stopped paying registration fees for metolachlor; however, the EPA failed to immediately cancel the registration according to agency protocol. Id. In January 2000, defendant Cedar Chemical Corp. applied for a "me-too" registration of a metolachlor-type product, and in October 2000, defendant Sipcam Agro USA notified the plaintiff that it was seeking the same. Id. Then, in September 2001, defendant Drexel Chemical Corp. also sought a similar registration. Id. at 442. The EPA granted all three defendants' registrations, and the plaintiff filed suit. Id. Makhteshim Agan, Inc. was substituted for Cedar Chemical. Id. at 443. After filing its initial complaint, the EPA continued issuing "me-too" registrations to the plaintiff's competitors. Id.

Arguments

In the instant action, the plaintiff alleged the following: (1) the EPA violated its right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by refusing to cancel its metolachlor registration for failure to pay annual registration maintenance fees, while canceling other registrations when registrants had failed to pay the same fees; (2) the EPA's action in grating me-too registrations violated its substantive and procedural due process rights because the plaintiff identified a "constitutionally protected interest in EPA's compliance with the procedures and substantive requirements of FIFRA" as well as a "constitutionally protected interest in its exclusive use data"; and (3) the EPA's registration procedures were not in compliance with FIFRA and other applicable law. Id. at 444-50. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(c), the EPA moved for summary judgment on the pleadings. Id. at 443-44.

Defendants Makhteshim Agan and Sipcam Agro USA moved for summary judgment for failure to state a claim. Id. at 444 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(c)).

Analysis and Holdings

The defendants' burden under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c) is the same: "dismissal is appropriate only where it is clear, taking the nonmoving party's allegations as true, that the non-moving party can prove no set of facts sufficient to support its claims for relief." Id. To determine the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence regarding each claim, the court used this standard.

The court first addressed the defendants' contention that the plaintiff's "due process claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Id. Although the plaintiff showed that it had a property interest in its exclusive use data and its facts were "sufficient to state a claim for a deprivation of its property interest in the 'exclusive use data,'" the plaintiff had "ample opportunity to be heard" regarding the me-too registrations. Id. at 444-47. For this reason, the court held that the plaintiff failed to state a procedural due process claim. Id. at 447.

The court then addressed the plaintiff's contention that the defendants violated its substantive due process rights. Id. The court stated, "a substantive due process claim is warranted only where no process could cure the deficiencies in the governmental action." Id. In the instant case, the plaintiff "failed to allege facts sufficient to suggest that the EPA's actions were 'so arbitrary and irrational' that they [were] incapable of remedy," and "[p]rocess capable of curing any deficiencies in the EPA's actions [was] available within the procedures afforded by FIFRA, the APA, and this [c]ourt." Id. at 447-48. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to establish a factual record "sufficient to give rise to a claim for a violation of substantive due process." Id. at 448.

Next, the court addressed the plaintiff's equal protection claim. Id. The plaintiff claimed that the "EPA violated its right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment by refusing to cancel its metolachlor registration for failure to pay annual registration maintenance fees, while[] cancelling other registrations where registrants had failed to pay the same fees." Id. Once again the defendants motioned to dismiss the plaintiff's claim pursuant to Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6). Id. The court held, "the allegations contained in [the plaintiff's] Amended Complaint [were] sufficient to state a claim that EPA's actions were intended to discriminate against [the plaintiff] in violation of the equal protection clause." Id. at 459. For this reason, the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's equal protection claim was denied. Id.

Finally, the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus "directing the EPA to (1) provide advance notice to [the plaintiff] of and explanation of any registrations such as those at issue here, (2) deny any registration application that relies upon exclusive use data, and (3) deny pesticide registrations that do not meet the environmental and health standards set forth in FIFRA." Id. at 450. The EPA moved for judgment on the pleadings. Id. The court held that the mandamus requested by the plaintiff could only be ordered if the plaintiff had "no other adequate remedy for the relief sought." Id. at 452. In this case, the plaintiff was not without adequate remedies. Id. For instance, judicial remedies were still available. Id. For this reason, the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's writ of mandamus request was granted. Id.

The case was decided on August 8, 2006.