-3

--deciding whether formal cancellations or other

restrictions should be imposed on the use of

pesticides as a result of the RPAR process;

--developing "industry-assisted" Pesticide Registration

Standards; and

--assessing the validity of industry-submitted data to

meet such Standards.

This lawsuit also challenges adoption by EPA, without publication or opportunity for comment, of revised cancer risk criteria and the decisions made pursuant to those criteria. Defendants' challenged actions are unlawful on several grounds. First, inviting the regulated industry alone to advise EPA and otherwise to participate confidentially in regulatory decisions abrogates EPA's duty under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq., to act independently in carrying out its mandate to protect the public health and environment. Congress has expressed its intention under FIFRA to prohibit such private or closed negotiations or protracted and secret discussions of risks and benefits between the industry and EPA.

Defendants' actions also contravene the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), 5 U.S.C. App. I, in that the challenged meetings between industry and the agency were "established or utilized" to advise the EPA on specific health and safety

standards and decisions, were held behind closed doors and without

-4

notice, were not "fairly balanced" and were conducted without any formal attempt to ensure that agency decisions "would not be inappropriately influenced...by any special interest." S 5(b) (2).

Id.,

Finally, defendants' decisions modifying applicable criteria for assessing cancer risks, establishing industry-assisted Registration Standards, permitting continued registration of pesticides through the pre-RPAR and RPAR process and implementing the Regulatory Measures themselves were not published in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a) (1) and were not adopted in accordance with the prior notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act ("the APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 553 (b).

Plaintiffs seek a court order (1) enjoining the continued implementation of the Regulatory Measures, including use by defendants of closed door "decision conferences" with the regulated industry; (2) setting aside a series of EPA regulatory decisions reached pursuant to the Regulatory Measures or without publication or an opportunity for notice and comment; and (3) requiring EPA to submit a plan providing the means for reassessing these actions and applying proper standards in such reassessment in accordance with applicable law.

JURISDICTION

1. This case arises under the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq.; the

-5

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. I; the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a) (1); and the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 553 (b) and 706. Jurisdiction is

invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. S 1337 (commerce clause) and 28 U.S.C. S 1361 (mandamus). Declaratory relief is requested pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et

seg.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

2.

Plaintiffs include an individual farmworker and labor

and environmental organizations whose members are regularly exposed to pesticides, including those that are the subject of this action, in their places of employment, homes, food, drinking water and in the air they breathe. Among the purposes of plaintiff organizations is to disseminate information, to make their members more aware of potential health and safety risks posed by particular pesticides and to participate regularly in the affairs of government agencies, including defendant EPA, that affect plaintiffs' members.

3. Plaintiff Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("NRDC") is a nonprofit, membership corporation headquartered in New York, New York. NRDC has a nationwide membership composed of 44,462 citizens dedicated to the defense and preservation of the human environment and the natural resources of the United States. Among the purposes of NRDC is monitoring and participating in

-6

government agency decisionmaking to ensure that federal statutes designed to protect public health and the environment, such as FIFRA, are fully and properly implemented. NRDC also engages in independent factfinding and research and regularly distributes to its members and the general public information on matters of environmental concern. NRDC brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its members.

4. Plaintiff American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations ("AFL-CIO") is a federation of 101 national and international unions with a total membership of approximately 14.5 million working men and women that is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Among the purposes of the AFL-CIO is to make the members of its affiliates aware of potential adverse health and safety risks, including those risks resulting from exposure to pesticides, and to enable its

affiliates to take appropriate steps to protect those members from hazardous working conditions. Plaintiff AFL-CIO brings this

action on its own behalf and on behalf of its affiliates and their members.

5. Plaintiff Hector Chavez is a California agricultural farmworker who is regularly exposed to pesticides in his workplace, home, food and drinking water. As a result of this exposure, he has suffered serious adverse health consequences in

the past and may suffer additional adverse health consequences in the future.

-7

Defendants

6. Defendant EPA is an agency of the United States. It has ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of FIFRA. It is an "agency" subject to FACA, the FOIA and the APA.

7. Defendant William D. Ruckelshaus is the Administrator of the EPA. He is sued in his official capacity.

GENERAL BACKGROUND:

THE PESTICIDE REGISTRATION PROCESS

8. Section 3 (a) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a (a), prohibits the sale of any pesticide unless it is first "registered" by the Administrator of EPA.

"Registration" of a pesticide must be

preceded by a detailed scientific examination of the characteristics of the pesticide to ensure that in performing its intended function, the pesticide will not cause "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits of [its] use." FIFRA SS 2 (bb), 3 (c) (5), (7 U.S.C. SS 136 (bb), 136a (c) (5)). Once a pesticide is registered, EPA has a continuing obligation to review newly developed scientific data to ensure that the pesticide continues to satisfy this standard of safety.

9. A registrant is required to conduct certain tests and submit the results to EPA as part of the registration and reregistration processes.

FIFRA, SS 3 (c) (1) (B), 3 (c) (2) (A), (7

U.S.C. SS 136a (c) (1) (B), 136a (c) (2) (A)). EPA then analyzes the test results to determine the safety of the product.