## Facts

- NRDC filed a 2009 administrative petition seeking cancellation of tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) registrations for use in household pet products, alleging neurodevelopmental risks to children from exposure.
- EPA did not timely resolve the petition; after years of inaction, related litigation prompted EPA action, including a denial and later a remand to conduct a new risk assessment.
- EPA issued a revised risk assessment acknowledging that TCVP exposure from pet products posed risks to children’s health and represented it would issue a new petition response within 90 days.
- EPA did not issue the promised revised response; more than two additional years passed with no final action.
- NRDC filed an original mandamus petition in the Ninth Circuit under the All Writs Act to compel EPA to act on the 2009 petition.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA’s more than decade-long failure to issue a final response to NRDC’s TCVP cancellation petition constituted action “unreasonably delayed” under the APA.
2. Whether the TRAC factors supported the extraordinary remedy of mandamus requiring EPA to resolve the petition by a court-ordered deadline.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held EPA had unreasonably and egregiously delayed performing its statutory duties on a matter affecting public health.
- The court ordered EPA to issue a response to NRDC’s 2009 petition within 90 days of the decision becoming final.
- The court directed additional case-management measures: if EPA initiated cancellation proceedings, it was required to provide periodic status reports until cancellation of the relevant registrations; if EPA denied the petition, NRDC could seek judicial review of that final agency action.

## Legal Principles

- Under the APA, agencies must conclude matters presented to them “within a reasonable time,” and courts may compel agency action “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1).
- Claims of unreasonable agency delay are evaluated under the TRAC framework, including: a rule-of-reason inquiry; statutory indications of expected timing; heightened intolerance of delay where human health and welfare are implicated; competing agency priorities; prejudice caused by delay; and no requirement to show agency bad faith.
- A prolonged delay may warrant mandamus where (i) the agency has missed repeated self-imposed timelines, (ii) the subject matter implicates serious health risks, and (iii) inaction prevents meaningful review by withholding a final agency position.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit compelled EPA to act because a decade of unresolved agency proceedings concerning a pesticide linked to serious risks to children could not be justified under a rule of reason, and mandamus was necessary to end unreasonable delay and allow a final agency determination subject to review.


Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 956 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2020)