EPA has requested that a U.S. district court dismiss a “mega-suit” which challenges the registration of 382 pesticide active ingredients as it fails to identify specific violations of the Endangered Species Act. The lawsuit alleges that more than 300 pesticides were not subjected to proper analysis required under the ESA. The plaintiffs asked the Court to issue an order requiring EPA to engage in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries to determine the effects of the pesticides on various endangered and threatened species.

EPA states in the motion to dismiss that the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) fail to identify “any specific EPA action allegedly taken in violation” of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA . EPA also states that CBD and PANNA did not allege facts that would establish a causal link between specific agency actions and adverse effects to federally listed endangered or threatened species.

A coalition of industry groups filed a motion to intervene to “protect their interests in the FIFRA licenses that are the subject of this case.” The coalition argues that the federal government for almost two years failed to defend the legality of the pesticide registrations while pursuing a settlement with the plaintiffs. The court has already granted the groups the right to intervene on remedy. The coalition also filed a motion to dismiss, which makes similar arguments to those made in EPA's motion to dismiss.

The USDA-APHIS decided on this approach after careful evaluation of the scientific information and recognition that P. ram. has not been found in the environment in regulated areas. In addition, the agency determined that this new policy would allow state and federal regulators to more efficiently dedicate resources to areas of perceived higher risk (i.e., quarantine areas).

Filed under: EPA • regulation