ML20125B233
| ML20125B233 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261F168 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910250474 | |
| Download: ML20125B233 (35) | |
Text
.
. l ATTACHMENT 5 L.EBo tu r, LAu e, L Cf GY & M ACRAE 1333 Ncw HmpsMu:,c Avct4v c, N. W.
. '.*/AS H itioT o ta, D. C. 2 0 0 0 8 I Lb5>h6R12 03.a & F.f t e e CADL C 492R E S S O N A. A L L C M. J R. CAMC EON F. wag A A C 4 M A h CALL J. L2 f C C WF. J 4 r f. 6 1975
- 1. L 7 M* C.Sace.ELDC8.2C C a ** C S O N P. ms e m A C, ZC & L C t em.1Pa s Mah G TO N. D. C.
8
. " . . . P a L L A PP. s e. P. C M A ft D A , M Aes C m g g u ,, 4 ;;p. ,
A p a r/. M C.iCast n W r,3.ia r g .
t . *' L
- r 4 S C ' G C M e SHCf k A M. u AH &at ALL
,C.1 T ?a JAMC5 9.MCCLMOV vtLECCPICR: =
. D P. S*CS.AC.SDCST J A M C S P. WC G A& M C e v. JM.*
- 4 .",3 3. D AIC O S Puiksp P.t L ad C m Mc G u aG AN gga.ast.Fs42 4 4 0 k m cac wAf
> # '. C G N . C w 4 0 C N C. CL LC Wom T M n.g w C C w,C:! g g.4 f * '* WDP Cmas C. Cu mm C wt L LsA M g. u o n tes son
- a4 B. Cwa 5C =ARvCvA. HAP *Cm T ELCPmC N C Sf 3 3 4 3.g C OCR O F CL PH AN
- e Jawt3 0'wALLCf.Ja. .. pg,ggoggggg C C = C C. 8 4 L C L E
- a J. wsCM ACL PARIS M CCS F2stose=OCe JC M m C. e C W Ah cr.O N a LC9wlN,NCW 'CSE, or d eC sio m Cs No w e i, L l a M w. mo E CH E LATT TE LCA. 4 2 J ele
% AL O J . C M C CN C JCmW A.SuDY u C S A . G Gs C C R. X e DAT A4 CE J . SC OG N A Wl4 LIO MN L . (i, P C 3 C a M A ROL 0 M. 5 EtDCL 41 O C R P tLCV 'ItllPs*PT L . o CLwam 05 CPM S C R W85 kOM" *" E EI* I"O b# f E
- CWChaO $AMUCL TE LCPHC as t Ot 4 0 3 73:in
- .C td A.C F.Jan L Co 4. S UC
..T o-AD.C.N J a. -
.. 6 o C ao C . N. A ~ CvC 6Co~ C. .Co u.-acCTL,,
M A/:R T H. vCIO T
- a
.. Sec ter.b er 12 , 1979 T c ta css
- sic 3 A. 6 A#CN N *'
% h. L A9 hC N
- R CSIDE NT PAATNC AS WASMitaGTON CrFICC
- RC5 UCw? PAsTNCR$ LONDON OF FIC C e A*,malTTt 3 TO Ta C OtSf alCT OF C O Lu>*stA san Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
Director, Office o,f Inspection and Enforcer.ent United States Nuclear Regulatory l
Co:= tis sion Washington, D.C. 20555 l 1
Re: Docket Nos. 50-546, 50-547
Dear Mr. Stello:
On September 10, 1979, we were advised that the Sassafras Audubon Society ("SAS") had sent you a request for a hearing concerning the validity of your " Order Confi =ing suspension of Construction" issued August 15, 1979. Since we had not received a copy of the SAS request for a hearing, we made inquiry of your office and, on September 11, were supplied with a copy of the hearing request dated Septe::tber 1 addressed to you. It apcears that copies of said request were not served either en us or on Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. (" PSI").
s As attorneys for PSI and Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc. in this proceeding, we wish to respond briefly to the SAS hearing request.
90019271 POOROR M
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
September 12, 1979 Page 2 Your# August 15 Order permits the filing of a request for a hearing by a person "whose interest may be affected by this Order". SAS has ccmpletely failed to identify what interest it has in the matters covered by. your Order and has failed to specify how that interest may be affected.
On page 3 of the SAS hearing request, SAS does refer to its .
" firm belief" that its interest would be adversely No affected were certain parts of the Order as to be sustained.
further noted belew, furthcr SAS specificity is provided, and, SAS never asserts that the Order should not be sustaincd.
therefore has failed to demonstrate that it has any interest that may be adversely affected by your order. ,
Even assuming that SAS possesses the requisite in-terest, it has f ailed to demonstrate any necessity for a public hearing. After careful review of all 16 pages of SAS's hearing request, we find no allegation that the facts set forth in parts II and III of the Order are not true.
Thus, SAS has not demonstrated any need for a hearing concerning the facts.
Similarly, there is no assertion To the by SAS that contrary, the your ;
Order should not be sustained. ;
whole tenor of the SAS pleading is that the Order was I properly issued and should be sustained and implemented.
SAS therefore cannot be adversely affected by the Order.
In su.dary, SAS has failed to demonstrate its interest and has failed to establish that there is any ,
issue concerning the validity of the Order that neces- '
sitates a hearing. Therefore, the SAS hearing request should be denied.
' Respectfully submitted, i b 5' ,
fC.cr h , Y J- Y b<fd b'4 1
s cca Mr. Harold R. Denton I Mr. John A. Eyed
! Thomas M. Dattilo, Esq.
Secretary, USNRC i Att'n: Cochstir.g and Service Section i
l PDDR ORIGINAL
$ s 4
ATTACHMENT 6 2.r.;O
. R.e . _ = AA,.. w \...s- .s.A. n.R Lt . O . sG . .., .y 05v..re =,. .. s. . g .p.Ca.;r
. . ..m.. AG;u.-v..m
..A3 W c. 3.w., . Ch. , D.C.
In Re* )
)
Environ =en:al Defense Fund, e: al. ) F:7RA Decke: Nos. 411, e: al.
)
,e..a.a.
. .. . ne ... . )
)
)
- r. ,. . 1., ,e <s.
.a
his case involves separa:e appeals by :he Envir:n= ental Oef ense Fund
("?.0F") and Ficrida 01::us .w.a aal f := an Accelera:ed Cecision of :ne C'..ief Ad-'-ist:stive 1.aw .Iudge (issued May 22, 1979) dismissing :hei: respec:ive obj ec:icns to a Notice of In:en: :o Cancel Reg:.s::ations and Ceny App'.ica-tices f or Regis :a:icn of Pesticide ?::due:s Cen:aining Chloroben:ila:e. _/
-~
ne nc:1:e was issued pursuan: :o $6(b)(1) of :he Federal Insec:i::.de, i 1
1 Tungicide, anc Redenticide A::, as a: ended ("?!?2.A") , v..:.:h provides f.:: !
4 4
1 the issuance c:. sucn a notice I
"[i}f 1: appears :: :he Ac= nis :ato :ha: a pesci ide or 1:s labeling :: c her nate:121 recuirac :o be sub=1::ed does no: ::::17 wi:h :he p :v:.siens ci :his Ac: :: when used
. z..c.a
- . z .-.. _. . ., .. .a. . .aeg r.. .. ,gs. g a. e
. . ._,n, .,
...%.,_a..e s .,._,..a . .. .,
generally causes unreasenable adverse effec:s :n :he env:.::n-nen:. . . ." _2/
1
'. _ 1/ 44 FR 9548 _e: sec. (Feb ruarv, 13, 1979). ' '
E
,,, 1/ he :er.. ". unreasonable
. . adverse effec:s en :he env.::n=en " is :ne s ' . .
e . c .~ _~ ..~ ~. . un e . .. e . a ,. a '- . "_.. a. - " . e . .=. , es:,_' .. _' .. e
- 1. u . .*.~. . ,- .1 ~ 1 .. .- .
,. . p ., ., e s .... .. . h . ., ,,.. A m. . .. < a ,
,. . .. .s o e. es .. 3.- ( .. ., ) as " a .,. . .. . . e.,.s v. a , ,. .34
- e nan or :he environment, :aking in:: ace:un: :he ec:ne :.:, sec:.al, an:
e ..,a-.
. - . e .g, .s.. a s ,ene.44.s
.. .. . . : .ge ..se
.. - ...y
. s... ,es..
r .. .. a.e." . ..e. . . .
vords, -his standard recuires :ha: :he benefi:s :f each use Of a pes::.:ide (Con:inuec :n Mex: Page).
P00R BRIGINAL
The ac:1c proposed in the notice bec =es final and effe::ive a :he and of :hi :7 (30) days f:: receipt by :he registras:, 0; publica:10 , of :he notice, w 1 hever occurs la:ar, unless :he regis::an: =akes :he ecessary cc rec:icas (if pcssible), c: a hearing is requested by a perse: " adversely affected" by :he actice. If a hearing is reques:ed, 56 (d) cf ?!?RA provides :ha:
"such hearing shall be held after due actice for the purpose Of receiv =g evidence relevant and =acer al :: :he issues raised by :he obj ec: ices filed by :he applican: 0:
other interested parties. . . ."
In :his case, che notice was issued by the Assista:: Ar d-is::a:::
f or Toxic Subs:ances ("Raspondent") pursuan: :o a delega:i Of au:hcri:y.
The sc: ice p;cposed := uncenditionally cancel the regis::a:10:s (and deny applica:10:s for regis::aci ) of chlor: ben:ila:e pr:due:s for all uses
- her than ci: us uses in F10 ida, Texas, Caliic ia and Ari:::a. Wi:h respec: :: :he lat:e: uses, :he sc: ice proposed :o cancel -he regis::s:10:s (and deny applica:1: s for registration) unless regis::an:s (and appli-cands) =cdified :.5e terns and condi: ices of registra:ie :o reflec:
s s y. e. .4 . 4.e. . w.a.e, es a ;... es . ..s. .. ... a. .-.. .s .
. su
_aa . .a....
.... a ._.. .- 4.s .. . .s........ ..
as c.o..s.a.a.
. . . . . ,a, .. a.-. . . _5 _, a . _a t (? : note 2 Cen:inued).
6 be balanced agains: 1:s ris.ts . , . . . .
- c. R. .sep. No. sa-: _, ... v.
w0ng., .s: sess..
a: la (Ecuse C ==1::ee Agricui:ure) (hereaf:e: he "Heuse Espor ") .
in.
s . . [v.]he e. __a..ae see.n .,a..a
.. .. ... - . .._,a.e ._e . .....
. .. ..r. .u.a.
.. . . . . ux ..aa..
. e .e ...
Of using pes:icides should be bala:ced agains: :he : .sks ei using N. ") ;
- 5. Rep. No.92-338, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. a: 4 (Sena:e Cc==1::ee :: Ag: cul-
- ure and .~eres: 7)(hereaf:e :he Sena:e Agricul:ure Repert) ("?es: :idas
'e c.'o.e 's".e _d r o.._'_ e-vd.-. e .1_' e.# .# e c . s , 's o . .' '. e - a..' .' .." 1_~ s ". .e.' +
- ericus. Their vise :::::e1 based c a careful ba12 :::; cf beseii: versus risk :o decer:1:e wha: is bes: for sa: is essen:ial. ")
?00R ORIGINAL " "
3
~Jichi :hirty days of publica ice of :he sc: ice, OF requesced a hearing and filed obj ecticns alleging in effec: ha: :he condi:10:a1 cancella:1cn ac:1c did to: go far enough, :ha: :he p;cposed res:rictions were inadecus:e, and tha: the citrus uses should have been uncondi:icnally cancelled. Florida Ci:rus i:ual, as c:gani:a:icn representing regnents of :he ci:rus industry which use chlor benzi". ate, also requested a hearing and filed obj ections, allegi=g in efiec: :ha: :he :: di:1::a1 :ssealla:ie '
1 ac:1cn wen: co far in i= posing res::1::1:ns c :he ci::us uses; hcwever, I l
- he organiza:icn's obj ec: ices and request for a hearing were ::: filed i withi thir:7 days of ' publication of :he notice. Ne request f:: a hearing l
l l
c: obj ec:1ces were filed by regis :ancs =f hicr:benzilace; hewever, :he l l
l principal manufacture and regis:: ant, Ciba-Geir/ Corpora:ics, Oe:1:10:ed for leave to in:ervene for he ' d-4:ed purpose of opposing the Obj ec: .: s filed by D F c the g:cunds tha: they wen: beycnd ha scope of the p :-
caeding. ~he Secre:ary of Agricul:ure of the Uni:ed Sta:es alse Opposed DF's obj ec: ices c s' '1ar g:cunds and pe:1:icted f0: leave :: intervene.
Both pe:1:icas wen: unopposed and were subsequently gras:ed.
Cn April 11,1979, :he Chief Ad '-is :a:ive
- aw Judge :.ssued sua seoste a Notice :c S~now Cause why an accelerated decis10: should =c: be entered agains: DF pursuan: :o $164.91(a)(6) of the Agency's rules of practice and agains: Florida Ci::us 5: a1 pursuan: :: 51%. 91(a) (1)_,,3_ /
- m. a.
3./ See:icn 164.91(a) prev des, is rer::.nen: rart, as f:llows:
(a) General. ~he Ad-d dstra:ive '_aw Judge, in his discre:icn, say a: any :_=e render an accelera:ed decisi (C ::inued :: Se:ct ? age).
?00R ORIGINAL
- '5
___ __. __ ~. . . ..
4 -
of the same rules (40 CFR 5164.91(a)) . Aizer receiving briefs f:0= :he parties and i=:erve: ors, the Chief Ad-d d st:stive lav Judge a :ered his Accelera:ed Decision dismissing :he proceedings and :he ebjec:icas filed by DF and Florida Ci::us Mu ual: EF's objecticas were i=p Oper because the relief it sougn: vas ou: side :he secpe of :he p;cceeding and :herciore could to: be gran ed; and Florida Ci: us hutual's obj ec:1ces were us:i=ely.
EDF's A0 teal Respcuden:'s decisic =c: to i= pose a 00:21 ba (uncendi:10:21 cancel-la: ice) on :he ci:rus uses of chic benzila:e was : de f olleving a :hree-year review of :he risks and benefi:s of ch10 cben:11a:e. The review was condue:ed in acec dance wi:h :he Agency's Rebu::able ?:esu=ptic: Aga"-=:
Risk (EPAR) regula:d ens (40 CFR $162.11) , which, a==n; c her :hings ,
invi:ed and :cok i== accous: ce==en:s (both oral and wri::es) f = inter-ested groups such as EDF in c da: : assis: Responden: in de:er d ":g whether :he statu:: 7 standard f or issuing a cancella: ion no: ice had been ze:. _i/ 3ased ce :ha: review, he concluded :ha: ccedi:icnal cacella:10:
(Foo: note 3 00::::ued) in favor of Raspenden: as to all 0: any portion of :he proceeding, including dis =issal withou: further hearing c:
upc such lidited addi:icnal evidence such as affidavi s t as he =ay receive, u= der any of the f:11:ving ccedi:icas :
k (1) C :i=ely Or insufficies: coj ecticus filed pursuas: to $164.20; a , ,
(6) Failure :c s: ace a clai= upc which relief can be ;; anted, 0; direc: : 00112:eral es: ;pel. . . .
L/ The RFAR ::ccess, des: ibed i: :he Shell decisi:n (discussed su::a a: 6),
p :vides for :he ":cre finely :: ed ::::::1 of pes: : des" as envisi:ned by Congress when i: :ev ::e FITRA in 19~;. See 3e=a:e Ag:' - * -- -= le;c:: a: f.
300R ORlGlNAL 90o19276
~
3 for all ci::us uses would achieve :he s:a:u: cry mda:e ci 56(b) that a pesticide no: cause " unreasonable adverse effects :: :he envi:::=en:."
In other words, con::ary :o DF's wishes, he refused :o i= pose a :c:a1 bas (cacondi:10:a1 cancella:1ce) on :he ci: us uses of chicrobensilate.
I: is tha: refusal .which is the undispu:ed sour:e Of DF's cbjectic=s.
Such a refusal.once finali:ec (ai:e enhausting available ad-"'stra:1ve recedies) , a=ounts :c "fd"1 agency ac ica" vi:hi :he :erms of :he i
Administrative ?:ccedure Act (3 U.S.C. 5704.) and is judicially reviewable l l
under 516 of FIF2A. -
5/ "he issue :hus raised by :he dis =1ssal of DF's l 1
i objections centers c ' wha; avenue of administrative relief DF is enci led 1
to pursue in order :o have :he requested relief ei:her granced : denied )
(and :hus finalized). Is 1: by filing obj ec :10:s in the adjudica: cry hearing forum es:ablished by 56(d) of FIFEA, or is i: by inveking the less for:a1 ad=inis::a:1ve procedures which have evolved by regula:ic:
and prac:1ce under FIFRA?
_5/ See: ion 16 p cvides in per:1:ent part, as fc11cus :
(a) Distrie: Cour: Review - Ixcep: as is c:he: vise p cv.ded i: :his Act, Agency refusals :o cancel :. suspend regis::a:1c:s or change classifica:icus no: fo11 ewing a hearing. . . . are T judicially reviewable in the dis::ic courts.
E (b) Review Sv C ur: ef Acceals - :: :he case of ac ,f.a1 00ct cversy as :o :he validi:7 of any ::dar issued by :he Ad-" 's -
- a:Or following a public hearing, any perses who will be acveg ely affected by such order and who had been a party :: :he pr:ceedings
=ay Obtain judicial revieu by filing in :he Unt:ed Sta:es Cour:
Of Appeals . .
. a petition pray 1:3 :ha: he 0:dar be se: 1 side in whole or in part. . . .
90019277
?00R ORIGlWam I
_. __ ... . . - +_ . . _ = --- .-
o The effec: of the Accelera:ed Decis1== vas :o rule :ha: :he $6(d) hearing forum is no: available :o IDF. The Chief Ad-d-istra:ive 'av Judge reached this resul: by folleving :he preceden: es:ablished in a very recen: decisics of the Judicial Officer in ano:her preceeding (invcivtag a differe:: pescicide) which dis =issed obj ectices s" ar :
those voiced by EDF. != Re : Shell 011 Ceccanv. e: al. ?!??.A Docke: Nes.
401,.e__t _a_l_., April 9, 1979 (Decisics On 13:e:10cu orv. Ac. c. eal) . The appli-cabili:7 of the _5 hell decisic: :: :he f ac:s in :his case is ::: dispu:ed by EDF; ins:ead,1: argues :ha: :he Shell decisien is er:: ecus and should
- herefore be reversed.' __6/
1: Shell, the Judicial Officer reversed an interlocu:: 7 ruling of the presiding Ad-d"ds::a ive lav Judge which alleved Carlos A=aya, al al.,
representing a coalition of far= workers, Oc be heard :: ebj ec:icas :: a condi:icnal cancellatica preposal. A=aya sough: :o e:cpand :he sc pe of -he hearing :o include considera:ics of relief b:cader (i.e., :::e restrie:1ve)
- han :ha: prop 6 sed in the 56(b)(1) co:1:2. 1: allowing A=aya 's obj ec:i:ss ,
- he presiding officer relied principally ce :he language in 56(d) which
_.6./ Lei:ially there is :he sues:1:n of vne:her :he Shell decisi::
I shculd be recensidered in view of its undispu:ed applicacili:y :: :his k
ase and :he f ac: :ha: no is:ervening even:s have Occurred :: veaken 1:s preceden:ial value. 1: vas rendered by :he .~udicial Officer pur-suant :o a delega:10: of au:hori:y f c: =e and therefere has :he sa,=g au:hority and finali:7 as if penned under =y Own name. Severtheles h upon :he Judicial Officer's rec ==enda:10 , have decided -a -"'= ::
- he seri:s of EDF's claims. EDF's sugges:icns :ha: :he Shell decisic:
unf airly deprives organica:10:s such as i:s Own of zeasingful par ::1-pa:10: righ:s in =a::ers raising serious heal:h and env :::: ental ques: ions are ce: 11gh:17 taks: a:d - ~ presume -- ::: lightly ade.
" '8 P00R ORIGINAL
._ ~ s.....----...n- . . , - . . - .. - .-:--.
e *
[
provides cha:, a: :he c1:se ci he hearing, :he Ad d-is::a::: "shall issue ,
an order either cancelling the registracion, changing the classifica:ics, denying the regis::a:100, or recuiring =edifica:i of :he labeling or packaging of :he article." _J/ *de concluded :ha: =c:hing in :his language indic.ates -ha: the Ad-d ds:ra::: is list:ed to wha: has been p posed is '
the $6(b)(1) actice and tha 1: grancs :he Ad d-istra::: bread au:hority
- o :ake any re=edial ac:ics appropria:e :o :he f ac:s which have been found. The Judicial Officer rejec:ed :his analysis : he basis cha: i:
usurped the Ad d-istra:Or's au:hori:y :: define :he scope of :he pre-ceeding; it ignored :he : Ole of :he $6(b)(1) =ctice in se::ing :he fra=e-verk fo: :he re=ainder of :he proceeding.
"! procedural ter s, the so: ice serves =uch :he sa=a l functics as a ec=clain in any c:her proceeding, and as '
such, 'se:(s] a scandard of relevance which shall gover :he j proceedings a: :he heart:g.' [Ci:aciens :=1::ed. ] ~hus , l
=a::ers falling ou: side the scope of :he notice ci intent ::
1 l
l l
7/ See:'ic: 6(d) provides, in relevan: part, as f=11 vs: I (d) Public F.earines and Scientific Eaview. - *: the even: l a hearing is requested pursuan :o su=sec:10: (b). . .,
such hearias shall be held af:er due ac: ice f:r :he purpcse !
of receiving evidence relevan: and ma:erial to :he issues l raised by :he obj ec:icas filed by :he applican: er other in:eres:ed parties . . . . As soca as prac:icabia af ter
,- ::=ple:ics of the hearing. . ., :he Ad=inistrator shall evaluate :he data and repor:s ~ before h = and issue an L
- dar ei:her reveking his ::: ice of in:en:::: issued pursuan: :: :his sec:ics, :: shall issue an : dar ei:ber cancelling the regist:stics, cha=ging :he classii'ea:ic y--
denying :he regis::a: ion, c: rec,uiring odift:a:1:n f :h==
labeling or packaging of :he article. Such ::e shal' be based :17 := substantial evidence ci rece:: of such hear :;
and'shall se: forth de: ailed findings :f fac: upen vai: :he order is based.
l ?DDR ORlGlNAL 90o19279 1
. . + - . - - . . . . . . - _: -. . -- . . . .-
3 cancel are of no relevance :o the proceeding. A=aya's objec:1cus belong in :ha: ca:egory :o che ex en: tha: : hey are directed a: arpanding the scope of the hearing :o include za::ers not con:a1:ed in the so:1ce ci inten: to cancel.
A1: hough the language of Sec:1on 6 doe :o: erpressly previde cha: che parties ' objec: ions =us: be relevan: to :he =a::ers raised i :he notice of incen: :o cancel, such a id-d:a:ics on the righ: to file objec:icnc ic necessarily inplied.
"The AA-d'dstra:1ve Law Judge's ruling, on the other hand, allows :he parties , by : heir ov objections, to sa: :he scand-a:d of relevance for -he condue: of :he proceeding. This resul: is contrary :o :he sta:ucory schs=e. Under Section 6(b), the.au hori:y to issue a no: ice of L :ent :o cancel, and hence, se: the standard of relevance, is expressly reserved :o the Ad=inistra:or. The Ad=inistra:or =ay , of I I
course, delega:e :ha: au:hori:7 :o another Agency official, as he did in :his case by designa:ing the Assis: ant Ad d "s-
- ator; however, there is no pr: vision La che Ac: autho icing such notice to be issued by private parties." Shell decision a: 10-11. ,
1
'de also noced tha: 11=i:1:g :he scope of relief :o wha: vas con:ained in )
~
the $6(b)(1) condi:1enal cancellation preposal did no: preclude A=aya fron pursuing other viable avenues of ad=icis::ative relief in c:de :: i perstade :he Agency :o consider initiating p::ceedings f or the purpose Of 1
establishing more s: ingen: res:ric:icns or ancendi:icnal cancella:icn.
The validi:7 of IDF's clai: :ha: Shell is incorrec: as a =a::e: of l
law is erecised on 1:s assertion tha: i: is a person " adversely affected" I by :he 56(b)(1) =c:1ce, _3/ a s:a: :ory prerec,uisi:e :s s:anding ::
I l
L 3/ Exceo:1ons of I:viren=en:al Defense Fund :c accelera:ed Decisi:n l a: 1 June 0, 1979, and see re=erallv 3:1ef of Envire--an:a1 Oeiensa.I d in Support of Ixceptions and Appeal f::= Accelerated Oecisien, da:e3[
June 11, 1979 ("207 3:1ef").
~
P00RBRIGINAL
.-.. n = -...- -.v.-.- -
9 reques: a hearing and file objecticas. _2/ his asser icn was challenged by the S:c s:2ry af Agriculture, Ciba-Geigy and, an particular, by Responden:
in his reply brief, where, based upon an analysis of :he statu:e and 1:s legisla:1ve history, Raspondent argued tha: a person, such as IDF, vn'ese prinary obj ective is no: :o s ce a condi:icnal cancella: ice crocesal f cm becom::.ng final and effective (bu: rather is :o force nore restric ive action, such as unconditional cancellation), is no: " adversely affected" 9/ See:1cn 6(b) of FITRA provides:
"(b) Cancellatien and Chance in Classification. - If 1:
appears to :he Ac=1nts:: ster tha: a pes:1 cide c: 1:s labeling or c:her nacerial required to be subnic:ed does not ec= ply vi:h the provisions of :his Act or when used La accordance vi:h vide-spread and coc=enly recognized prac: ice, generally causes unreason-able adverse effects on M <>viren=ent, the Ad=inis::stor nay issue a notice of his in:< ". n-her -
"(1) :c cancel its m ca:ic :: :o change 1:s classifica:1cn together with c .) reasons (including ,
13e f actual basis for his actics, or !
"(2) :o hold a hearing to de:ernine whether or no:
1:s registrati n should be cancelled or 1:s classifica:icn changed. 1 1
"Such notice shall be sen: :o :he registran: and nade public l I
. . . . ~he erecosed action shall beeene final and effective a:
- he end ef 30_ davs fren receiet bv the recistran:. or ou'elica:icn, of a notice .t3ued under paragraph (1), which ever occurs later, t
unless within tha: ti=e ei:her (1) :he registran: nakas the neces-i .sary cc: rec:1ons, if possible, or (ii) a recuest for hearinz is nade bv a eersen adverselv affee ed bv :ne net ce. In the even: a hearing is held pursuan: :o such a :eques or to the Ad '- s-
- ator's determina:icn under paragraph (2), a decisi:n pertaining to regis::ation or classifica:1on issued af:e: c =pletien of ~== l such hearing shall be final.
"!n :sking any final ac:1cs' under this subsec:icn, :he Ad=inistrater shall censider :es: icting a pesticide's use 0:
uses as an alterna:ive :o cancellati:n. . . ." (E=phasis adcec.)
P00R ORlGlNM
4 30 vi:hin the neaning of $6(b) of FIFRA. _Of DF responds : this argn=en: by centending tha: Responden:': posi:10: is er :neces, :ha: 1: consci:utes a reversal of a long-standing Agency cons: ue:1:n of " adversely affe :ed,"
- ha: 1: ignores :he plain vords of $6(b), :ha: 1: nisreacs the legisla:1ve history, and tha: 1: is not def ensible as a na::er of pub 11: policy. M/ l No vi:hstanding ET's argn=en:s :o :he cen:rary, I a= persuaded tha:
1 Respondent's reading of FIFRA is cor ac:. ~he con:roversy surr:unding :he- )
l neaning of " adversely aff ected" ceder $6(b) arises a: :his la e da:e l l
l because, in :he past, :here has never been any neec or occasi:n :o address '
the issue head-en in an ac:ual centroversy. ~n is case and Shell nu=cer a=ong the first instances in which the Agency has sough: :: inple=en: 1:s 1
authori:7 :o issue condi:ional cancella:1:n notices. n/ Pri r :: :his ti=a :he Agency has had :o : nfine 1:self :o issuing uncondi:icnal cancel- 1 la:icn no: ices. As a consequence, as was ccted by the C".ief Ad ' 's::a:1ve I
Law Judge, OF has here: f:re participa:ed in FIFRA cancella i:n pr:ceedings
_1_0) Respondent's Reply :o ?.xcep:icts and Appeal by Inv ::: ental Def ense Fund fre= Accelerated Oecision, da:ed July 9,1979 (" Respondent's 3r ef") .
_1_/ Response of Peti:1oner Envirennen:al Def ense Fund :: Respondent's t Reply to Pe:1:1:ner's Appeal f c= Accelera:ed Decisi:n, da:ed July 30, i 1979 ("DF Response") .
M/ ~he origin of the Agency's'- authori:7 :o issue condi:1:nal canel li a:ic notices is. discussed in deta -"e Shell decisi:n (pp. 11-13) anf vill no: be repea:ed here. OF d:es no: ::n=es: :he legali:7 o# --"-T
cancella:1:n, bu: ra:her ppcses 'd d d g :he scope Of :he proceeding to consider:atien of condi:1:nal :ancellati:n (as opposed :: including un:Ondi:icnal cancellation as well) .
P00RORGlNAl. 90o19282
_e . -
....r-.. , - . . . . ... .
_1_1 as an intervenor, cc: as a par:7 who t: i.11egedly adversely aff ec:ed by :he cancellation notice. 13/
The "in:ernal logic" of ?!72A is s:ructured so as :o confer s:anding to reques: a hearing and file objec:1:ns en : hose persons who was: :o s:op the Agency's proposed action from going into effect. " der $6(b),
the proposed action is self-execu:ing: 1: becc=es " final and effective" unless :he regis::an: =akes :he necessary correcticas (if possible) or a reques: f or a hearing is =ade by a person " adversely affected" by :he proposed action. EDF ebviously has no interes: in s:cpping :he pr: posed ac:1cn from going 1 :o'effect, and 1; is clear tha: i:s obj ec:icns were cc: filed for :ha: purpose. Ra:her, EDF's grievance w1:h the p : posed action is tha: the cenditic a1 cancella:1cn pr:posal for :he ci:rus uses did no: go far en_ough; in other words, EDF c = plains, no: of the ac:icn proposed, bu: of :he ac:1:n =c: proposed. Fu: still differe::1y, i: is
- he Agency's refusal :o p = pose action (uncondi:1cnal cancellati:n cf :he citrus uses) tha: is :he sburce of ED7's cbjec:icns. Hewever, ?!?IA has never provided for a for=al adjudica:: 7 hearing under $6(d) in such circu=s:ances. Instead, i: expressly c:n=e=pla:es in 516 :ha:
unresolved cen::cversies over Agency " refusals" :o pr: pose such acti:n are :o be heard in the Federal cour:s. :: is clear, :heref:re, :ha:
FIFRA is ac: s:ructured for the purpose of en:ertad ' g =bj ecti:ns by w
-.o 13/ Accelera:ed Decision a: f, n. 4 (continued).
P00RORICINAL
9
_t _o persons, such as DF, who have no real in: ares: is stopping :he cancel-la: ion proposal f: m going in:o effect. If DF's obj ections were :o be en ertained in :his proceeding, : hey would au:::a:ically preven: :he proposed ac:ica from going into effec: even : hough no :i=ely objec:1cas were filed by persons such as, regis::an:s and users, who presu=pcively have a legi:1= ace stake in s:cpping the proposed ac:icn, but who =ay, nonetheless, for reascus of : heir ova, elec: no: :o oppose 1 . his anc=alous resul: was pointed cu: in :he Accelera:ed Oecision J,,jj and would frus::ste :he sta:utcry scheme for p;ctec:1:g h"-'" heal:h and :he enviren=en:. As C1ba , Geigy observed, " I:: 1cally, DF would be defea:ing its own purpose by requesting a hearing. Fr== DF's viewpoin:, se=e restrictions are surely be::e :han ncne." 5) -'hus, :he sea:u:ory sche =e of TITRA can no: logically suppor :he conclusien that D F is " adversely aff ected" by the condi:icnal cancella:ica p;cposal. -'he '.egislative history of 7*774 and the centrolling court decisions are also in accord with this analysis of :he s:a:u:ory sche =e.
-'he legisla:1ve history of ?!?RA de= ens::a:es :ha: :he ter: " adversely aff ected" as used in 16(b) enly includes regis::an:s, users a d c:her t
J_4) Accelerated Decision a: 1, n. l.
5/ Response of Intervenor Ciba-Geigy Corpora-'-- -* - eptions of___
E viren=en:a1 Defesse Fund :o Accelera:ed Decisi:n at 12, dated June"l1, 1979.
P00R ORIGllut 929m i
l l
1 l
4 4
.3 persens who van: :o s:op the proposed cancella:1:n ac:ics f:: going in:o effec:. .~.: M ill v. Envirenzen- ' 5 etee:1e Arenev, 593 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1979), the c ur: :: strued this language in :he con = ext of deciding whether users of a pesticide who oppose cancellatics have the ::gh: :
prevent the indefinice suspensics of a Se(b)(2) hearing whe :h2 sole regis:: ant and :he Agency have agreed :s i:. I:s analysis of :he legis-la:ive history and meaning of the :ar: " adversely aff e :ec" is applicable i: the cc :ex: of this con::eversy as well. The : ur observed :ha: T!??.A, which was originally enac:ed in 1947 (:he "1947 ?!FRA") and which ::17 gran:e: registracts standing :o reques: a hearing,16 / was : =ple:ely revised i: 1972 f : the general purpose of expanding :he Agency's super-visory role over the use of pes:1: ides and protec:ing :he envircemen:,
and in the precess'of a=endi=g :he 1947 ?!yRA, "Cc gress also gras:ed 16/ yhe c. rocedures f:: requestin~sa heart e~ under :he 1947 ~!T?.A e::vida,
__in pertinen: part, as follows:
'4henever :he Secretary . . . de: ermines :ha: regis::a:1::
of an econoci poisca [ pes:1:ide} shculd be cancelled, he shall notify . . . :he regis::an: ef his ac:1ca and :he ressens :here-for . . . . A cancellatie: Of reg s::a:icn shall be effec::ve thir:y days af:e service of :he foregoing notice unlass vi:hin such :i=a che registran: (1) =akas the necessary cc :ac:10:s; t (2) files a pe:1:10 recuesti=g :ha: :he a::er be referred ::
s an advisory :==1::ee: or (3) files objec:10:s and reques:s a public heart =g. (7 USC 135)
If the =a::er was ref arred to an advisory : --d::ee a:d :he Se-cre:ary
- hereaf ter issued *an c der of cancella: ion, :he regia::an: (and : _*"' :he regis :an:) was given another oppo::::1:7 :c file Obj ec:10:s and reques; a hearing.
P00R ORlGlN1 900,9285
14-specific rights of participa:non to ' interested' and ' adversely aff ec:ed' persons (e.2.o non-rects : ants who are resticide users) in .
. . (156(a) and (b) of FIFRA) . " 593 F.2d at 635 (e=phasis added) . The cour: ere d-ed the legislative history and concluded :ha: such rights of participation were added to protec: the interests of pes:icide users who were no: registran:s.
"The legislative history suggests :ha: :he rights of non-regis:: ants were recogni:ed in :he stature because certain Congress =en were :encerned cha: a pesticide p:c-duce:'would choose no: :o defend a particula: registra: ion that was of s=all i=portance to :he =anufacturer, bu: of great i=portance :o a particular ag d-"'-" n1 g up. All parties :o chis li:1ga:1cn agree :ha: :he :ssti=eny of Dr. Edwin A. C :sby, a representative of :he . National Canners Associa:1cn, was ins::v.=en:al in securing rights for non-registrants in :he revised s:atu:e. Eis proposed a=end=en: vas designed :o p;ctec: :he righ:s of csers di established pesticides if :he producer-registran: decided no: :o defend agains: :he cancellation or change of a particula: registrati:n. See Hea 1:gs on H.R. 10729 3efore :he Sub'-Cc==10:ee on Agricul: ural Research and General Legisla:1on of :he Senate Co==ittee en Agriculture and Forestry, 92d Ccng. , 2d Sess. 294 (19 72) . " al/
Represen:a:ives of :he Uni:ed 5:ates Depar =en: Of Agricui:ure (*JSDA) also supported an -a=end:en: :o $6(b) in order :o p c:ec: :he in:erests of pesticide users who were no: regis::an:s.
t L
_1_7 / The a=and-ant which Dr. C :sby ref erred :o in his :es:1=cny read :
"Any person who vill be adversely affected by :Np cancellation of a regis::acion or change of classiii- ===
ca:1cn also =ay file objec:1:ns and reques: a public hearing within 30 days of publi: actice of :he Ad=inis::stor's in antion := cancel the registra:icn or :o change :he classification of a pesticide."
P00R ORlGlNAL m 9286
1 c-
"Such a provision would pre:ec: agricul:ure and c:her affec:ed perscus f:c= :he cancella:ic: of a p cdue: in ins ances in. which a produe ,has an 1. portan: use bu: for any nu=ber of reasons the regis::an: does no: wish :o appeal; for exa=ple, a use involving such a -d-m volume :ha: :he regis::an:
does to: find i: feasible :o appeal." 13,/
In response to an inquiry by Senator Allen, :he sa=a USD/. wi:nc::
elaborated:
'%a: we had in =d. d is an exa=ple of a s=all g: cup To use an exa=ple, let us :ake an ers=ple of ci: us g:cwers in California. I believe tha: :he regis::scica for DDT cn ci: us was no: appealed by :he registran: when 1: vas cancel-led. The ci: us g:cuers :herefore had nc recourse u= der :he existing law and under :he p = posed law (i.e., E.R. 10729].
What we would say is :ha: user g: cups should have che rign:
to appeal en : heir own behalf and :his should no: he limited
- o the registrant. *nis is our poin . " M/
Based on :he foregoing :es:1=eny and :he :escimeny of Dr. Crosby, :he Sena:e Agricul:ure and Fores:ry Cc==1::ee repor:ed a bili con:aining an amendment which is virtually identical : the presen: So(b).
"The proposed ac:icn shall becc=e final and effective a: the end of 20 days f c= receip by :he registran:, or publica icn, of a notice issued under paragraph (1) , which-ever occurs la:es:, unless vi:hi cha: time ei:her (1) :he registran: =akes. :he necessar7 cc rec:icas , if pessible, c:
(ii) a request for a hearing is =ade by a persen adversely affected by :he notice." 20/ j l
1
_18./
Hearings bef ore Subec==i::ee on Agricul: ural Research and General i 1
Legislatica of :he Coc=1::ee en Agriculture and Fores::y, U.S. Senate
$ (92nd Ccng., 2nd Sess.), en E.R. 10709,. Par: I;, March 7 and 3,1972, k p. 111 (" Senate Hearings") .
_19/ _Id a 114-11f . -_.,_
20,/ Sena:e Agriculture Repor: a: 49.
P00r o n g
\
1 1
i 1
1
, o, a
In explaining :he amend =ent, the Sena:e Agricul ure Repor: de=en-s :stes tha': the Senate incanded the term " adversely aff ec:ed" :o re:e:
to users of :he pesticide.
"The committee action per:1:s persens adversely aff ected (i.e. , registrants] :o cen:inue :o be able :o reques: review of the status of a registration and adversely aff ec:ed persens, like users, also to participa:e in the ad=1sistra:1ve process. " ll/
(E=phasis added.)
A: the same ise tha: users were securing .eu 12 hts of standing f 0=-
Congress to reques: hearings and file ob]ections under $6(b), various public interes: g cups, including EDF, were waging a ba::la :0 retain their established richt of standing :o ob:ais judicial review of Agency refusals
- o ini:ia:a canec11a:1cn hearings under 516 (fer:erly 54(d) under :he 1967 FIFRA). _2_2/ Under :he 1947 T!TRA, :he right of envirce=en:a1 e*:Oups to ini:ia:e cancella: ion proceedings by pe:1:icning :he Agency (ou: side the framework of a cancellatien hearing) was recognized in Enytz:n=en:a1 Defense Fund v. Hardin, 423 F.2d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1970). The cour: held that EDF had scanding :c saek judicial review of a refusal by :he Secre:ary of Agrical:ure (who : hen ad=1 istered ?!?RA) :o issue a t
L >
'. .' / 'd- a*. ..'.
- / See, e.c., Sena
- e Hearings a
- ' 25 (Sierra Club) , 140(Na:1:na_$)[
Auduben 5ccie:7), 147-150 (Alabama Conservancy) and 168 (Invi :n=en:21 Defense Fund).
P00R ORIGINAL 1
l 1
5-el no: ice cancelling all uses of DDT.
"The s:acu:e affords a righ: of review :o ' any person who will be adversely affec:ed' by an order (7 U.S.C.13fb (d) (1964) . . . . Th e ':ene of in: ares:s' sough: :o be pro-cec:ed by :he statu:e includes no: only the econe d- d--=*est of the regis::an: bu: also :he interes: of :he public in safety." 428 F.?d :- J O96.
As noted by :he court, the j udicial review provisions of :he 1947 FITRA allowed any person " adversely affec:ed" b'y an order :o seek fudicial review. The House of Represen:atives ::1ed :o change this language :o "any par:y a: i=:eres:," j],/ but the Senate Agricul:ure Oc==i::ee "rejec:ed :he House language which refers :o 'in:eres:ed persons' so as :o avoid any i= plication of desiring to change presen: law." 24/ Under :he "presen: law" a: tha: time, non-regis:: ants (including users and environ-sental g cups) did not have the righ: :o reques: an ad=1:istra:1ve hearing.
They could, however,' participate in :he ad d-is::a:1ve hearings as intervenors. Consequently, :he Senate's res: ora:icn of " adversely affected" in :he judicial review provisions of y! IRA did not, con::ary :o IDF's asser:1ces, indica:e a: L::en: to gran: environ = ental groups s:anding to request a hearing fo :he pu pose of contesting an Agency refusal :o ini:ia:e a cancella: ion proceeding. ECF gicsses ver these f ac:s in 1:s selec:1on of excerp:s f:cm :he legisla:1ve his:ory and :hus fails :o
=ake :he p cper dis:inctica between standing :o intervene in an k
22/ Ecuse Repor: a: 62. _ ,_
-m
_2_L / Senate Aericulture Report a: 12.
j
13 ad-4"istra:1ve hearing and standing :o eb:ain judicial review of challenged ad dads::a:1ve ac:1cn. 25/ For exa=ple, DF cices the following sta:e=en:
of David D. Do=inick, a for=e I?A Assistan: Ad-- -is t ra: c t , which was =ade before the Se ste Agricul:ure Subec- d::ee, as supper: for i:s conce=: ion that "(eleviren= ental g cups such as C7 had s:a= ding :o reques; and :o participa:e in cancellati n hearings under :he 'presen law' referred :o by the Senate Co _.1::ee." M /
"On a rela:ed 6 ject (i.e. , E?A's authority :o phase-ou: use of a cancelled pesticide]. :his =a::e underscores :he i=portance for b :ad public parti:1pa: ion in ou: regulatory proc es s. As the law stands at cresent, users and interested creues, like environ =entalists. have stancine :o carti: ira:e in our decisions .' The Ecuse Bill has changed the language in
- he presen: ac . I: is our view :ha: this change d: language does no: create a change in substance in view of :he case law which does not suggest :ha: ecurts view :hese :vo phrases
_23_/ As noted bv. Pr:fessor Davis in his :reatise en ad=inistra:ive law, "The proble= of righ: :o L::ervene in ad
- dstrative proceedings is closely rela:ed := and in sc=e seasure governed by the elabora:e body of law concerning standing' =c challenge and :o enforce ad '"istra:ive acti:n. Su: intervention and standing to challenge are ro: :he sa=a and are no: governed by the sa=e :cesidera:icns. In:erven:icn is affec:ed by Agency rules and statu: cry provisicts ::: aff ec:ing s:a ding :c challenge.
The p;cble=s of case c: con:roversy, :he hear: Of =any s:acdi g p cble=s, do not affec: L :erventica in ad=inistra:ive proceedings.
Furthe r= ore , :he consequences of intervencien are differen: fr==
g :he censecuences of allowing a par y :o obtain review. :::erven:ic 6 depends no: caly upon the directness and i=portance of the ef f ec:
of the p;cceeding upon :he in:eres: Of :he par:/ seeking :o =::ervene, but it also depends upon :he effec:s upec :he proceedi g of allowing 10:erven:icn. Thus, an ==due b: adening of :he issues is a == men 3:cund f:: denying interventi:n." T,. Davis, Ad " ds::a:ive Lemm i Trea:ise , 58.11, a: 564 (1958). l l
_2_6 / ZDT 3rief a: 7.
P00R ORIGINAL !
l
19 differently. 'n' nile we do no: believe a change back :s the original FI?RA is required, che Cc 1::ee ay wish :o include language in the co 1::ee repor: which would clarify wha: we believe :o be the case." E/ (F.=phas:.s acded.)
Mr. Dominick's reference :o "s:anding :o par:1cipa:e in our decisi=ns" was obviously incended :o refe :o standing :o per*.icipa:e as er. inremer; only regis:: ants had standing to reques: a hea:1:s under :he 1947 FIFRA. 1 his prepared ce==en:s f or che Sena e subec::=1::ee hearings , 'Mr. Do inick addressed :his point direc:1y: -
e agree :ha: any ,.=:eres:ed
. person sh:ule. .se acie ::
intervene in a hearing. This is :he prac:1ce under :he presen:
law and : hat prac: ice is, we believe, carried ic ward by E.R.
10729 and so further language is necessary. . " 2/
Based en this :escimeny, the Senate Agricul:ure and Fores: 7 C0~ .::ee rej ected an a:nesd=en: proposed by the Senate C e:ce C: 1::ee which would have =ade such a righ: :o intervene an express par: of the law. 2/
Ano:her exa=ple of CF's f ailure to dis:inguish be: ween :he differen:
- ypes of scanding is :he following passage 1: :he Sena:e Agricul:ure a.d Fores::7 Cc==1::ee's Supplesenzal Report, which explained :ha: Oc 1::ee's
_27/ Senate Ae~ricul:ure RePor: a: 14.
T s _23/ Sena e Hearings a: 34.
M/ See Senate Ag-1:ul:ure Repor: (S uppler.en:al) a: 42 (Oc:cber 3 d 972).
E. R. 10729 was reierred :o be:h Sena e -- '~ ees, bu: :he Co ::ee":n Agricul:ure and Fores::7 ul:i=a:ely prevailed in asserting a pred :1:an:
ole da ' " uencing :he final legisla:icn.
P00R ORIGIML
l
\
1 1
1 1
1 l
,o 1
I reasons f or rej ecting a Senata C ==erce Co==1::ee proposal :o include an amend:en: to provide fer cir.iseus' sui:s:
1 "The bill as rec == ended bv :he Cc==1::ee On Agricul:ure l
and Fores ry affords adversely affected par:ies wi:h :he '
opportunity for ad=1:istrative and judd -aviaw f l
decision. wi:h respeu: :o registra:1:n, cancella: ion, suspen- 1 sien, classification and :he i= position of addi:10 cal involve- l
=en: of citizens in :h. ad d =1stra: ion of :he law provided i f or by :his amend =e.9:. * *
- The Agricul:ure Cc==1::ee bill already cer=1ts an 21:isen to iniziate cancella:icn croceedines , ;
obtain judicial re. ew of every ac:1 n and inac:ics he disagrees l with, and interve:E in every proceeding. '. . ." (I=phasis ;
supplied in EDF Response a: 10) jo,/ l l
l The underscored language is plainly not "disposi:ive" ci :he issue l 1
as EDF con ends. 31,/ Firs , :here is no indica:1cn in :his language :ha:
the Sena:e Agricul:ure and 'orestry Cc =i::ee intended to rescind i:s previous state =ents which at .aued " adversely af f ec:ed" persens u= der
$6(b) wi:h registran:s and t ters. Second, :he passage si= ply does not address the issue of whe:he. environ = ental organi a:1:ns have standing :o request a hearing under .6(b). Third, :he right of ci:1: ens to "initia:e cancellation proceeding ' by pa:i:1ccing :he Agency :o issue a cancella:icn notice was es ablished in Invironmen:al Def ense Fund v. Hardin, and :ha:
l righ: is dis:ine:1y dif f erent from :he right :: reques a hearing after 1
- he cancellation no: ice has been issued. And ficcily, the express i
i t
E l
_3_0 / __Id at 29. W I
<=. I 1
_3_1/ IDF Respense at 11, 1
l P00R ORIGINAL 1
reference in the quoted passage :o the right of "any ci:izen" to " intervene in every proceeding" .cusci:utes :aci: ecogni-ion of -he f ac: :ha: :he Senace expected such persons :o participate as in:ervenors. _3_2/
Thus, che Sena:e's res:cra: ion of :he " adversely affected" language in the judicial review provisions of $16 was in: ended to avoid any i=pli-cation of changing the "presen: law" regarding the righ: of third parties, such as EDF, :o ob:ain judicial review. Tha; action did no: purpor: :o create any new rights of standing for such persons in cancella:1cn hearings under 56(b). *dowever, because :he focus of :he Sena e's deliberaciens over
$16 are heavily iden:dfied wi:h rights ci environ =en a1 g cups :o ob:ain i
j udicial review, EDF argues :ha: :he iden ical " adversely affec:ed" l language in 56(b) nus: also have been intended :o reflect :he sane
. Congressional concern over :hei rie-hts in cancella:icn hearings. _3_3/
This argn=en: is :co si=plistic. It seeks :o always equa:e environ = ental l
l l
31/ In resolving the discrepancy between :he ' ouse d and Sena:e judicial review provisions, :he Co=ni::ee of Conference si=ilarly s:a:ed :ha: 515
". . . provides judicial review of any order following t
a public hearing for ' any person who will be adversely l af f ec:ed by such order and who had been a par:y :o :he I proceedings.' I: is :he in:en: of the conferees ha:
anyone who in:ervenes in a public hearing cader :his Ac:
shall be considered a par:y for purposes of this provision ;3_
(i.e. $16(b)]. . . . The conferees intend :he words 'adversel;,,
af fec:ed' to have the same neaning :ha: : hey have under 5 U.S.C.
700. " 5. Rep . No . 92-1540, 92d ;0cng., 2d Sess. a: 33 (1970'.
_3_3 / See EDF Response a: 3.
P00R ORIGINAL 9 w 9 93
3 orgacizations wi:h the :er: " adversely affac:ed." 'dovever, :his ignores
- he plain meaning of the worcs: whe:her ene is " adversely aff ected" depends no: so much en his s:a:us as a regis::an:, user : enviren=en-talis:, bu: ra:her en how he is affec:ed by :he pr: posed ac:icn. ""he r e nus: be some legally recognizable injur/ as a resul: of :he proposed action in order for he person :o be " adversely affec:ed." As s:ated in Sierra Club v. Mer on, l.05 U.S. 7:7, 739 (1972), "a =ere 'interes: in :he problem,' no =atter how longs:anding :he in:eres: and no na::e hev qualified the organization is in evalua:ing the problem, :.s not sufficien:
by itself to render :he c ganizacic: ' adversely affec:ed' 0: ' aggrieved'
. . . ." Under :his definition, DF is clearly no: "acversely af f ec:ed" by :he condi:icnal cancella: ion proposal; if anything, DF is benefi:ed, no: injured, by the* :es: icticas en :he ci: us uses. T.DF's overst_. ~
plica: ice of :he relati:nship be:veen 56(b) and $16 also igneres :he legislative histe:/, discussed earlier, which denens::a:es :ha: :he
" adversely affected" language in 56(b) was added :o p 0:ee: :he interes:s of cen-registran:s, like users, whose po:en:ial for injury is manifes: ii
- he p;cposed ac:icn goes into effec:.
DF's real grievance, as s:a:ed earlier, is act with :he ac:icn proposed, bu: wi:h the ac:icn no: proposed. F ??.A has never provided
?
, for an autona:ic righ: := a cancella:1on hearing in such cir:n=s:ances.
l l
I l P00R ORIGINAL l 90019294 l
l
! I
F 23 .
If EDF is unsuccessful in convincing :he Agency :ha: 1:s refusal :o ini:iate a cancellation hearing is wrong, EDF's recourse is to con-vince a Federal cour. tha: :he Agency's refusal viola:ed :he sta:u:or/
standard under which the Agency is required to issue cancella:icn notices. Thus , in Environ = ental Def ense Fund v. Hardin (after holding cha: EDF had standing :o obtain judicial review of :he Secretar/'s refusal :o ini:ia:e a cancellation hearing) , :he cour: re -'nded the case :o :he Secretary of Agricul:ure for an explanation of the grounds for his refusal. '4 hen, af:e: renand,.:he Secretarv affir=ed his orig-inal decision no: to ini:iate a cancella: ion hearing, :he cour: held tha:
based upon the Secre:ary's own findings respec:ing :he hacards of ODT, the s a:u:orf scandard for issuing cancella: ion no: ices had been violated. Environ = ental Defense Fund v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 584 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
1 l
l l
"(*4] hen, as in :his case, he reaches :he conclusion
- ha: there is a substantial question abou: :he saie:7 of a regis:ered 1:em, he is obliged :o ini:ia:e :he s:2:u:or/
procedura :ha: resul:s in referring :he natter firs: :o a scien:1fic advisor / con.1::ee and : hen :o a public ,
hearing." 439 F.2d at 595. I Since :he Secretarf had ade a finding abou: :he safe:7 of ODT wnich ne:
the statu:or/ standard for issuance of a cancella: ion no:1ce, :he cour:
v-ordered hi= to issue a tancella:1on no: ice and :hereby co-aa.ce the fornal ad=inistrative process. Consequen:17, when -he opposi:e finding is nace,
~=
POUR BRIGINAL l
l 90019295 l
l
l 1
l 1
. */
1.e., that the statu:ory standard has no: been nez, i: follows cha: :he issuance of a cancellation nocice would be inapp cpriate. This i=portan: J 1
aspect of :he statutory scheme is explained in :he Shell decision in the specific context of condi:1onal cancellation no: ices.
"As a necessary corollary :o :he court's holding in IDF v. Ruckelshaus, the Agency is nec required to coc=ence the f or=al ad-d aistrative process if an af firnative dece:-
nination has been =ade tha: che sta utory standard io:
issuing a cancella:1on notice has not been nat. Therein lies :he key difference between the Secre:ary's ac: ion in EDF v. Ruckelshaus and :he Assistan: Ad=inis::a:or's decision in :his case. Here :he Assistan: Ad- nistrator has, by clear inplica:icn, decernined tha: :he s:stucc 7 standard for issuing a cancellation notice will not be net under car:ain specified circu=scances. Specifically, if the required nodifications in the :er=s and condi: ions of registra: ion are nada (in other words, ii :he proposed restric:1cus are adopted), then :he risks posed by :he use of DEC? products covered by the condi:1onal cancellation proposal will not be greater :han :he social, econo =ic and environ = ental benefi:s of : hose uses. Consequcn:ly, the decision Oc exclude consideration of note s::ingen:
rest:10: ions in :he $6(b)(1) Nocice is no: in conflic:
. wi:h EDF v. Ruckelshaus. And, as previously shown, i: is in accord w :h the sta:utory =anda:e requiring :he Ad=inis-tracer :o consider rest:10:1on as an al:erna:ive to uncondi:ional cancellation." Shell a: 14-lf.
This reasoning applies 21:h equal for:e :o :he chlorobencila:e no: ice, where a f ae:ual de:ermina:1on was nade by Responden: :ha: :he ::: us uses will nec =ee: the s:atu:ory standard for uncondi:icnal cancellation when subject :o the changes and restrie:icts on use iden:ified in the notice. ji/
--./
34 As s:sted in the chlorobenzila:e 56(b)(1) no: ice, _,_
". . .use of chloroben ila:e :n 21::us :rops in Florida, Texas , Calif ornia, and Arizona, in accordance vi:h :he nodifica:icns :o :he : erns c: condi:icns of registration dece==1:ed herein :o be necessary, does not cause unreasonable adverse eff ec:s on :he environ-nent." a4 T.R. 9531.
~
P00R ORIGIR
6 x.,
DF's recourse to che decision to exclude these uses fr:= uncccdi:icna) cancellation is :he same as 1: ::ss in 1970. :: =ay peci:1:n :he Agency
- o reconsider :he refusal :o issue an uncendi-d enal cancella:1ca cocien and,1f :he peticion is subsequen:ly denied, have :ha: decision j udici.tlly reviewed as provided in 316 of ?!?'A. "" 2 law has co: ch: ged in :nis respect, and :herefore, centrary :o DF's suggestions, i:s rights of public participa:1ca in pes:icide decisions are cc: car :ved by :his r es ult. = fac:, DF, as well as regist:ss:s, users and ochers, were given the opportuni:y , as part of the ?SAR review of :his che:1 cal, :o participa:e 1: :he decision which resul:ed i: Raspenden:'s issuance of :he chloro'en:ila:e e cancellacica cocice. ~he highligh:s of :his review were su==arized by ?.espenden: as follows:
"Th'e Chicrocen::. lace Nocice was issued af ter al: s:
three 7 ears of in:ensive review under :he ?J.G process ,
which afforded =ul:1ple Oppo--" ' des for 12:eres:ed ;ar:1es ,
including DF, :o _ske : heir views kncvn :o :he Agency.
Parties were invi:ed :o sub=1: co--an:s in response ::
- he ini:ial ?SA2 Nccice (il TR 21317; l'ay 26, 1976); vere allowed :o =ake vr:.::en and oral presen:a:1:ns :o :he Agency's ?!?RA Scian:1fic Advisory Facel; a:d vara invi:ed to sub=1: ce= ents en :he Agency's prelin:. nary decisions concerning :he balancing of risks and benef t:s of Chlor:bensilate which were announced in a Nccice :f Oe:er=1:a:1:n Concluding :he Chlorecen::. lace ?J.G, and unich vere explained in detail in as acc =panyis; ? si: .:n Docu=ent (43 FR 2982i; July 11, 1978). Moreover, :he Agency responded in deca 11 :o :he las: sec of cc:=en:s :n :he Agency's t evalua:icn of risks, benefits and chosen regulator 7 :pciens in k
a m.f*
P00R ORIGINAL 1
l
4 l
l
'6 I
\
l l
another ?:si:1:n Dccuuen: .hich ac:::panied :he final. Chlor:-
ben:11 ate Noc1:e (41 2 9543; February 13, 1979). Folleving
- his sequence of events, :he Adr.inist a: r's delega:ee i r
- hese decisions (Respuncen: Assistan: Ad=iniscra::: f:: 70:1 Subscances) has :sken n ac:1:n : hat he has dece. r.ed vill achieve the scacu:Ory nan: ate tha: a pesticide Occ cause l unreasonable adverse effte:s : :he enviren=en:, and has f issued a $6(b)(1) notice :: affectus:e :hac decision." l I
(Respondent's.3rief ac E-20.)
1 l
Thus, public participati:n .n pescicide decisi:ns is ac:ually b :adened 4
in con::ast cc earlier ti=es when decisi:ns en cancella:1:n natters vere l act nade public until a cancella:i:n ac ica was ac:ually issuec. A: :he same cise, the RFAA proces: implements :he spiri: of :he Congressional nandate :ha: F!?RA *r : vide or "nore finely :ened con:::1 Of aes:1:1 r des . " .3 5./
(~~ais la::er poin: is discuss, d a: Length in :he Shell decisi:n.) Yet, in spice of :hese parallal achie'. .nen:s, CF is urg:.ng an in:e: pre:a:1:n of
?!?RA which 16 openly ackn:vle -gas vili cause the envir:n=entally pre:ec-
- ive res::10:icns c:n sined '. the ::ndi:icnal cancella:icn p:Opcsal :: be
" stayed pending :he ou::::a ci :he hearing." M / Such an :.n:arpre:a:icn s1= ply does not nake any sense anc :.s ::n::ary :: :he s:a:u:::,7 schene as discussed acove.
. 90019298 t.
_35/ Note 6, su ra.
~
_36/ CF Resc. onse at *5 ..
_~"
P00R0%lNAL
I .
,7 DF raises a number of other argn=en:s in 1:s briais which are primarily intended to suppor: its concen:1:n cha: :he Shell decisica is erroneous. For example, 1 arguing :ha: :he Agency has broad authori:7 under FIFRA to enlarge che scope of relief beyond wha: is
,m:oposed in :he socice of intent :o cancel, D F rugges:s tha: :he duc process proble=s vich respect to the regis:: ant vno elec:s noc :o oppose he proposed action (and thereby all:ws his registra:1:n :o be cancelled by operati:n of law) can be ignored since the regiscran: vas On socice during the R?AR review thac uncendi:1ccal cancella:1:n was an option open to the Ad* 'istrator and."i: is in this contax: :ha: the regis::an was advised of CF's objec:1cca :o :he Amis::a::r's < Op o s al . " _3_7_/
l Le prac:ical affect of :his suggestion is :o sullify :he purpose of l
j che socice i self, which is :o infors :Se reg:.stran: ci wha: accion the Agency in: ends :o :ake (5 U.S.C. 354(b)), no: wha: ac:1:n DF incends
- o :aka. h is also based on the unlikely assu=ptica :ha: :he regis-
- an has the prescience required :o k:cw wha: CF's posi:ica vill be w
af:er the cancellation actice is issued, based upon :he posi:icn 1:
- ck dur1:g :he RF.G reviev . CF also argues :ha: :he scope ci relief is not li:1:ed :: wha: vas proposed in :he :::1:e by relying en : u::
decisiccs arising in the centext of rule =aking proceedings; 18,/ however, t
k See CF Response a: 21 and Append 1= C a: 3. W
_37/ =
_38/ DF Response,. Append 1= C a: '.1.
4 90019299 4 8 '
s s
23 these decisions are inapposi:e :o license revoca:icn pr:ceedings (can-cellacion) ,condue:ed in accordance vi:h ?!??.A and :he Ad-d-istra 1ve Procedure Ac:. These and all c:her argunents nade by EDF have been considered and rejected as either being irrelevant or lacking in ner1:;
in any event, they are coc sufficien to overse:A :he cenclusion :ha:
EDF is nec " adversely affected" by :he condi:1onal cancella:icn socice vi:hin the neaning of $6(b).
Florida Ci:rus Mu:ual's Acceal The issue in :his appeal is wh 7ther Ficrida Ci:rus Mu:ual filed a
- inely request for a hearing in c:nnection vi:h :he chloreben:ila:e socice. 39/ The chloroben:11 ace cocice, issued on Feb ruary 5, 1979, was published in the Federal Resiscer on February 13, 1979, and speci-fled the :ine for requescing a hearing as follows :
" Registrants aff ec:ed by :he ac:1ons ini:ia:ing cancella:icn of the registered uses of chloreben:112:e nay reques: a hearing on specific registered uses vi:hin 30 days of receipt of :his notice, or en or before March 13, 1979, whichever occurs la:ar.
Any perscu adversely aff ec:ed by :he cancellation ac: ns ini:1-aced by :his cocice nay request a hearing en specifi: regis:ered
~
uses affected by :his ccice on or before March li, 1979." .a F.R. a 9531.
Florida C1:rus hucual's requese was coc filed vi:h :he *dearing Clerk until March 20,1979, five (5) days af:er :he deadline se:
T f orth in :he notice. Ac Ordingly, :he Chiai Ad dnistra:ive *.au Judge a
issued a cocice :o shew cause why :he request for a hearing should act
- -~~-
r -
39/ Florida C1:rus Mu:ual is act a registran:, but i:s sca:us as "a person adversely aff ec:ed" by :he cocice is act c:n=es:ec by any party.
l l-
~
1 P00R BRIGINAI.
c
1 4
be dismissed as us:1:ely. Racher :han respond direc:17 :o :he to: ice
- o show cause, and in apparent recognizion of :he uccineliness of 1:s request, Florida Ci::us Mucual filed a :ocion pursuan: :o 40 CTR 164.5(b) to ents:ge che ti=e wi:his which :o file 1:s objec: ions. As g curds for graniing :he extension, Florida Ci::us Mucual sca:ed cha: 1 did noc receive :he Federal Register no: ice unc11 March 2,1979, and i:
"underscoed" : hat 1: had 30 days fres : hat da:e :o file i:s requese for a hearing.
Is denying :he socion and dis =1ssing :he request for a hearing, :he Chief Admd ist:acive Law Judge did not ce==es: on :he c:gans:a:icn's obvious =1sreading of :he accice, bu: instead held tha: :he Agency's rules of practice did nec allow his :o enlarge :he 30-day s:2:u:::7 deadline. On appeal, Florida C1::us Mu:ual does not con:es :he Chief Administrative Law Judge's c:nclusion :ha :he Agency's rules of prac: ice do not all:w for the enlarge =an: of a s:stu:o 7 deadline; ins: cad, i:
asserts : hat Raspondent's socice of L :en: to cancel :isin:e:pt e:s :he sca:uto 7 require =ents ocd thus had :he c= lawful effec: of shortening :ta 30 day deadline. In other words, Florida Ci:: s Mu:ual argues :ha: :he March 13 deadline specified i :he to: ice ::nflic:s vi:h 16(b) , veich, in pertinen: part, is rescated here as foll:ws:
"The proposed ac:icu shall bec::e final and effec:ive a:
che end of 30 days from receipe by :he registran:, or publi-cacien, of a socice issued under paragraph (1) , whichever Oc:::3
, later, c less vi:hi :ha: i=a ei:her (i) he regis::ang- akes
! :he necessar7 correc: ions, ti possible, or (ii) a recuess f : a 3
hearing is =ade by a person adver ely affec:ed by :he : tice."
i i.
P00R ORIGINAL 90o19.soi
-e ..
30 The thruse of Florida Ci: us Mu:ual's argn=en: is :ha: this language should be interpreted to allev the :i=eliness of a non-registran:'s request for a hearing :o be =easured frem ei: hor (i) 20 days foll: wing the date of publiestic: of :he notice in the Feceral Register or (11) 30 days fellcwing any registras:'s receip: of -he socice, whichever occurs la:er. I: argues :ha: the interprs:acion contained in Respondent's socice favors reg _stras:s and usiairly penali:es non-registran:s : con-registran:s cus: always ea,ure :ne ci=eliness of : heir requests by ref erence :o :he publicaci= dace, Whereas registran:s have :he option of =easur.ng 1: fr:: ei;..e: :he date of receipt or the da:e of publication, whi= ever ccurs ;;:er.
However, Florida Ci::us hu:ual f ails :o noce :ha: 1:s in:erp:2: .1:n has the opposi:e effect: if just one regis::an: receives his . :1ce after 1: vas published in the Federal Ree13:er, :he 30-day per- i felicwing :he publicacion da:e may be ig cred by all cen-:c;..s:: acts, no vi:hstanding :he fac: that other regis:::::s who receiru :hei:
notices on or bef ore :he publication da:e =use abide by :hr.: da:a or suff er che c:: sequences of hav ng : heir regis::a:10:s 0a:00'. led 5 r i l
Operacion of law. Consequently, nei:her in:erpreca: .:n aff ar - ::=ple:e '
. pari:7 '= der all circu=semaces. ~he ::17 instance where bech hieve t
1: is when all regia::an:s receive : heir 0 pies of :he accie.a : L :e same day :hac :he ::ccice is published. ~~..e likaliheed Of :h s :: ur: :g, even under the best of circu stances, is of : curse ex racel;7eco e.
\
l l
90019502 I POOR ORIGINAL
, s.
4 31 Thus, in the absence of any indicarica :o :he c:n=rary in :he legislative history, i: is reasonable to assu=e :ha: Con; ess did to: expec. :his provisien of ?!?RA :o operace in a way :hac vould require registra::s and act-registrants :o be : eated equally. Sc=e inequali:7 was bound to occur. _4_0/
As noced in connec:1cn vi:h EDF's appeal, :he 1947 FIFRA did not l au:horize non-registrancs :o requesc a hearing. In addi:icn, :here was I 1
no provisica for pub 11 stica of :he socice; i: vas si: ply sen: :o :he 1
i registrant, vno : hen had 30 days af:er ser7 ice thereof :o file a requese for a hearing. _A_1/ Ecvever. vich :he 197! a=end:en:s :o ?!TRA which expanded the righ: to reques: a hearing :o i:clude act-registran:s who are adversely affected by the socice, an obv1=us need arcse to provide i
1 1
i some =eans of socifying : hem thac che proposed accion vculd beceme final l and effec:ive culess they =ade a :1:ely reques for a hear ng. Since
- he nu=ber of individuals who fall 1: :ha: class is nec k cvs and : heir iden:1:ies are to: readily ascer "d-'ble, publica 1cn in -he Federsi
. Resister was clearly the Only feasible way of pu::ing : hec :: :: ice 30,/ Ac:ually here is a chird i::erpreca:ica which does achieve pari:7 between :he :vo categories. I: is based :n :he assu=pti:n :hac :he no: ice t provisicus of $6(b) per:1: a regis::an: who aa.:ved both periods :o lapse
, before requesting a hearing (i.e., 20 days fr:m ac:ual receip:, and 30 days fr:m publicacien) :o later :c=a is and have his ==:ize17 reques:
ruled ":i=ely" by virtue of :he fac: : hat i: was nevertheless filed bef ore :he expiraci:n of sone other registran:'s deadline (:rgardless of vhe:her or not :he lac:er ac:ually filed a request) . 3:ve=er, :11s interpretation is so obviously ac adds .".:h cc.__en sense :ha: i: us: he dis =1ssed as being :otally i= plausible.
11/ See noce 16, sutra, i P00R BRIGIN?L
- a. .
~
31 thac cheir interests =ight be adversely affected by :he .4gency's proposed action. Therefore, i: is reasonable o infer cha :he publicacion pro-vision in 56(b) was pri=arily i=: ended :o p:sscribe a deadline for non-regis tran cs . The fac: :hac i: =ight also benefi: registrancs zus be viewed as incidental. Construe:1ve notice :hrough publicacion 1: :he Federal Registar is noc cor= ally regarded as a sa:isfactory subseicuce for actual cocice when the iden:1:7 and location of :he aff ec:ad person is known or readily ascertainable, as is :he case vi:h regis:: ants. Cen-structive cocice by publication in :he Federsl Resister is, however, nor= ally regarded as adequace when the identi:7 and 1:cacion of :he aff ected person is soc k:own or readily ascertainable, as is :he case vi:h non-registran s who are adversely affec:ed by the socice. Therefore, i: is unlikely chac Congress in: ended :o pu: non-regis::s=:s , such as Florida C1::us Mucual, on :he sane footing as regis::an:s i: : erns of ;
i def1 ing when : heir rights :o request a hearing would be cu:-off by the j passage of :ime. Non-registracts were given :he righ: :o reoues a 1
hearing as a =atter of legislative grace in order :o ensure :ha: :he interests of farners and other consu=ars vould be considered before a pescicide's availabill:7 was res::1c:ed or :ernica:ed, ac: because : hey were enti: led :o a hearing as a =ac:ar of lav. _Cf. McGill v. Enviren=en:al 6
Cefense Fund, suers a: 637.
I: is c reasonable :o assu=a : hat Congress in: ended :o g ss: a grace
~~ ;
period to non-registrants (in c:dar :o cure a lack of due di;sgence 1:
P00R ORIGIMI.
=
d
.A 33 responding to :he published ucice) which has :he :1cudy con:ours envis-aged in :he interpretacion advanced by Florida Ci::us Mutual. :: order for Florida Chrus Mu:ual :o establish :ha: 1:s reques: was :1=ely under its interprecacion, Florida Citrus Mucual was forced in:o :he posi:1on of a :empting to locate a registrant who had not received a copy of :he notice until af ter the publicacion date. 3ased on : hat search, i:
uncovered a reg strant, 'over Chemical Co=pany of Cler:cc:, Florida, which did noc re:eive a copy of :he socice us:11 March 1. 1979. ~~n e r e-fore, according :o Florida Ci::us Mucual,1: had 30 days f::= :he receipt of Tower Che=ical Company's notice, or us:11 March 31, 1979, :o file 1:s request for a hearing. liocv1:hscanding Florida Ci::us Mu:ual's
> ingenuicy and success in locacing Tower Che=:. cal Cocpany, i: is c:likely that Congress intended 56(b) to opera:e in :his way. h see=s core likely cha: 1: incanded a core objec:ive and easily ascertainable ethod of judging the ti=eliness of non-regis::an:s' hearing requests. 3y referencing the :1:eliness of such reques:s :o :he da:e of publica:1on in the Federal Retiscar, Responden: es:ablished such a _achod.
Conciusion
~he Accelerated Decision of :he Chief Ad==.nistra:ive *.aw .*cdge is affir:ed in 1:s entirecy. [
t L '
illiiL'AL44 .
j- :peasx.acle s ==a =c, 3-Dated: h .(O.9 y
P00R ORIGWAL
_~.