The Environmental Protection Agency asked the District of Columbia District Court on Friday to remand a lawsuit regarding the approvals of nine different pesticides which the plaintiffs alleged would harm bees to allow it to conduct review required under the Endangered Species Act.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2017 by the National Resources Defense Council, asked the court to vacate almost 100 separate products which use neonics, namely acetamiprid, dinotefuran, or imidacloprid, because of the harm bees and other birds or insects. The plaintiffs claimed that the EPA did not consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before registering the pesticides. The complaint identified 26 species harmed by the use of the pesticides which were not properly approved.
The EPA’s memorandum in support of its voluntary remand, which also addressed the plaintiffs’ recent motion for summary judgment, argued that although the EPA acknowledged that it did not take the appropriate steps under the Endangered Species Act, the error was not serious enough for the court to vacate the product. The agency specifically cited that if the court were to vacate the registrations, it would not still have an obligation to conduct the effects determinations under the ESA.
In the filing, the EPA said that the registrants for four of the 13 products challenged in the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment have already requested voluntary cancellation, which the EPA plans to approve. It determined that the challenge to those registrations is now moot.
Addressing the additional nine pesticides at issue, the EPA said that it would, after a voluntary remand, correct its error of not completing the ESA requirements, and that a deadline for completion as the plaintiffs requested would not be necessary because the EPA is already taking steps to determine a nationwide effects determination for imidacloprid. The EPA claimed that vacating the dinotefuran products would cause disruptions because they are the only products approved for “this type of liquid solution tree injection” and would remove “an entire application method.” The filing further argued that vacating the acetamiprid products would not be equitable, claiming that it would not benefit any endangered species.
This motion from the EPA mirrored multiple other lawsuits relating to pesticide approvals, and weather the EPA took the required steps under the Endangered Species Act before granting approval. Earlier this month a District of Columbia Appeals Court vacated the approval of Aldicarb, after the EPA made the same request for the court to remand it, without vacating, to allow it to address similar flaws in the registration.
