National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. Thomas
17 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20435, 809 F.2d 875, 258 U.S. App. D.C. 34 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it reverses a prior policy without supplying a reasoned explanation for the change, or when its decision relies primarily on factors not enumerated in its governing statute without linking those factors to the statutorily mandated considerations.
Facts:
- Ethylene dibromide (EDB), a pesticide used on fruits and vegetables, was found in the 1970s to increase the risks of cancer and other adverse health effects in humans.
- In 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of EDB on all domestic produce.
- For imported mangoes, the EPA initially set a temporary tolerance of 30 parts per billion (ppb) in January 1985, with a firm expiration date of September 1, 1985, after which a zero-tolerance policy would take effect to protect public health.
- EDB fumigation was the only known effective method at the time to ensure imported mangoes were free from fruit flies.
- As the deadline approached, mango-producing countries argued that the ban would damage their economies, but in an August 1985 memorandum, the EPA rejected these concerns, reaffirming that continued exposure was not in the public interest.
- The zero-tolerance rule for EDB on imported mangoes went into effect on September 1, 1985.
- Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department and Department of Agriculture urged the EPA to reconsider the ban, emphasizing the severe economic impact it would have on friendly foreign nations.
- In November 1985, the EPA reversed its position and proposed reinstating the 30 ppb tolerance, citing the economic impact on mango-producing nations as a primary reason for its decision.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule in February 1986, reestablishing a 30 ppb tolerance for ethylene dibromide (EDB) on imported mangoes.
- The National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides and other petitioners filed a petition for review of the February 1986 rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- While the petition was pending, the EPA issued another rule in September 1986 extending the 30 ppb tolerance through September 1987.
- Petitioners filed a second petition for review challenging the extension, and the Court of Appeals consolidated the two petitions for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Environmental Protection Agency act in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it reverses a public health-based regulation by primarily considering factors not enumerated in its governing statute, such as the economic impact on foreign countries, and fails to provide a reasoned explanation for changing its assessment of the underlying health risks?
Opinions:
Majority - Starr
Yes. The EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by reversing its public health-based regulation. The court's reasoning is twofold. First, the EPA improperly based its decision on factors not intended by Congress. The governing statute, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, requires the EPA to set tolerances 'to the extent necessary to protect the public health' while considering factors like 'an adequate, wholesome, and economical food supply.' The EPA's decision relied almost exclusively on the economic impact on foreign countries without demonstrating how this concern related to the statutorily mandated factors concerning the U.S. food supply or public health. Second, the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation for reversing its position on the health risks of EDB. Having previously concluded that any exposure beyond September 1, 1985 was 'not in the public interest,' the agency later characterized the same risk as 'acceptable' and 'very low' without any new scientific data to justify this change. This unexplained reversal, or 'volte face,' is the hallmark of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of administrative law, reinforcing the 'hard look' doctrine and the requirement for reasoned decisionmaking. It establishes that an agency cannot simply reverse course on a policy, especially one concerning public health, without a well-supported and articulated reason for the change. The ruling limits an agency's discretion to consider factors outside its statutory mandate, requiring that any such considerations be explicitly linked to the primary statutory goals. This case serves as a powerful precedent for challenging agency actions that appear driven by political or economic pressures rather than the criteria established by Congress, ensuring agencies remain accountable to their legislative charters.
