Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. EPA

ELR Citation: 40 ELR 20187
Nos. No. 09-1314, (D.C. Cir., 07/16/2010)

The D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded a lower court decision dismissing on jurisdictional grounds a pesticide manufacturer's complaint against EPA challenging its misbranding enforcement authority under FIFRA. In May 2008, EPA issued a risk mitigation decision (RMD) for 10 rodenticides and notified the company that its registered products containing these rodenticides would be considered misbranded in June 2011 unless certain product changes were made. The company notified EPA that it would not make the changes and instead intended to challenge the RMD through the registration cancellation procedures of FIFRA §6. When EPA did not expeditiously commence cancellation proceedings, the company filed suit. The manufacturer argued that EPA's non-initiation of §6 cancellation proceedings, in effect canceling the registrations without following the regulatory procedures set forth in FIFRA, was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The lower court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But while it is true the lower court lacked jurisdiction under §4, it does have jurisdiction under FIFRA §16(a) since EPA's interpretation of its misbranding authority is an "other final action[] of the Administrator not committed to the discretion of the Administrator by law." In addition, the case involved final agency action ripe for review.