Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
EPA sought to limit exposure to carbofuran by revoking all tolerances which would effectively ban the use of carbofuran on both domestic and imported food for human consumption. The petitioners submitted extensive comments in response to the proposed revocation. Also during the comment period, FMC, the only manufacturer of carbofuran in the United States, voluntarily cancelled its registrations under the FIFRA for all but six crops and proposed that the EPA amend the remaining registrations to limit usage in areas particularly susceptible to drinking water contamination (the First FMC Proposal), which EPA accepted. In May 2009 the EPA issued a Final Regulation revoking all tolerances for carbofuran. It concluded that although the First FMC Proposal would reduce exposure to carbofuran, the aggregate exposure from drinking water would still exceed the level of concern with respect to both children and adults. FMC subsequently, submitted a second proposal which EPA also denied.
The petitioners contend that even if the EPA properly revoked all domestic tolerances for carbofuran, it acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), in revoking the import tolerances for carbofuran. EPA acknowledges that exposure to carbofuran from imported foods alone is safe. The EPA nonetheless revoked all carbofuran tolerances for imported foods, contending the petitioners failed to make a timely request that import tolerances alone be left in effect.
The Appeals Court ruled, "The agency's position is untenable, for the petitioners made such a request on two occasions. . . In sum, the petitioners asked that if all else failed, the import tolerances for carbofuran should be maintained because the EPA itself considered them safe. The EPA's decision to revoke those tolerances was arbitrary and capricious."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Friday, July 23, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Jul 16: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 09-1879. The City of Pittsfield, Massachusetts asks the Appeals Court to consider whether EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) improperly declined Pittsfield's petition seeking the Board's review of EPA's grant of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Pittsfield sought changes to the terms of the permit, which was issued pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EAB held that Pittsfield had procedurally defaulted because its petition failed to identify its specific objections to the permit or to articulate why the Board should assume jurisdiction. The Appeals Court said, "We conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in so holding, and we therefore affirm its denial of Pittsfield's petition."