Home » Articles » Volume 45 » Issue 3 » Court Opinions » Ninth Circuit » Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (No. 12-70268, 2013)


Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (No. 12-70268, 2013)


Topics: , , ,


Summary [1]

The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review of a decision of the Environmental Protection Agency granting an application for conditional registration of two pesticides, AGS-20 and AGS-20 U, that applicant HeiQ Materials sought to apply to manufactured textiles such as clothing, blankets, and carpet.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act prohibits the sale of any pesticide that has not been “registered” with the Environmental Protection Agency. AGS-20 and AGS-29U (collectively, “AGS-20) uses nanosilver to suppress the growth of microbes that cause odors, stains, discoloration, and degradation. The EPA conducted a risk assessment of AGS-20 that was published in its decision granting HeiQ’s application for conditional registration.

The panel first held that petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. had Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s conditional registration of AGS-20.

Second, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision to use the characteristics of toddlers rather than infants in determining whether AGS-20 placed consumers at risk.

Third, the panel vacated the EPA’s decision insofar as it concluded that there was no risk concern requiring mitigation for short- and intermediate-term aggregate oral and dermal exposure to textiles that are surface-coated with AGS-20.

Fourth, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision not to consider additional sources of exposure to nanosilver other than AGS-20 in concluding that the product would not have adverse effects on consumers.

District Judge Adelman concurred in the judgment insofar as it granted the petition in part and remanded to the EPA, and dissented from the judgment insofar as it denies the petition in part. Judge Adelman would grant the petition for review in full.

Footnotes    (↵ returns to text)
  1. This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook

Comments are closed

Sorry, but you cannot leave a comment for this post.