CBD et al v. EPA

Reference :

4:20-cv-00555-DCB

Complaint date :

December 23, 2020

Status :

Not judged

Place of jurisdiction :

United States

Plaintiffs types :

Environmental NGOs, Health/Food groups

Plaintiffs names :

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) ; Center for Food Safety (CFS) ; Family Farm Coalition ; Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)

Defendants :

EPA, Andrew Wheeler, Other

Lawyers for Health and Environmental Justice :

George A. Kimbrell, Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu, Meredith Stevenson, Stephanie M. Parent

Case nature :

Administrative

Specificities :

Civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief

Type(s), Product(s), Active substance(s) :

Dicamba, Herbicide, Xtendimax, Engenia, Tavium

Requests :

Declare that the Registration Actions and dicamba product registrations violate FIFRA and its implementing regulations; Declare that EPA failed to support the Registration Actions and dicamba product registrations with substantial evidence; Declare that the Registration Actions and product registrations are new uses that required public notice and comment… ; Set aside, or vacate, the Registration Actions and product registrations in whole or part as needed to stop their sale and use...

Name of the Court :

United States District Court of Arizona, United States

Jurisdiction level :

Court

Summary :

Four public interest groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rushed re-approval of products containing the dangerous, drift-prone dicamba pesticide. Despite its high volitility, and its high level of danger for the environment, dicamba products have been reautorized by the EPA in 2020 in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The lawsuit follows the groups' successful prior cases, decided in June 2020, in which the court ruled the EPA's previous approval to be unlawful and struck it down. On Jan. 6, 2022, the groups filed a motion requesting the court allow the litigation to proceed immediately and be expedited. The motion is in response to EPA's December 2021 report admitting another season of widespread harm to farmers and endangered species following EPA's 2020 registrations. In March 2022, the judge orders that "the EPA shall file a report on the status of its ongoing evaluation of its options for addressing future dicamba-related incidents relevant to any potential regulatory action related to the 2020 dicamba registrations" with a deadline set for May 15, 2022. In the meantime, the case remains stayed, while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decides a jurisdictional question of whether lawsuits over the 2020 dicamba registrations belong in federal appeals courts, instead of federal district courts. On May 16, 2022, EPA referenced potential label changes coming to over-the-top dicamba herbicides for the 2023 growing season, in a court document filed by the agency. EPA stated that the agency's only changes to 2022 dicamba use will be the state-specific cutoff dates and temperature restrictions issued for Minnesota and Iowa back in March. According to the agency, Bayer submitted a proposed amendment to the 2020 registration of its XtendiMax herbicide to EPA on March 18, involving "additional use restrictions" for counties where certain federally listed threatened or endangered species are present. EPA has nine months from the date of Bayer's submission to consider these label restrictions, which would mean a decision should be made by December 2022.

Scientific references :

No scientifice reference for this case.