CropLife America (CLA) commends the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its important and decisive ruling which held that EPA must follow established regulatory procedures before canceling a product’s registration (Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). Supporting the claims of the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser (Reckitt), the District Court’s decision reinforces the importance of a transparent regulatory system for the crop protection industry, as envisioned by Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). CLA filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff that explained congressional intent in FIFRA’s creation to limit EPA’s ability to cancel a product’s registration. Pursuant to additional amendments to FIFRA, Congress created a regulatory system which ensures the safety of products that enter the market, and protects the rights of registrants during the registration process. The decision by the District Court upholds this important principle.  

In the case, originally filed in 2008, EPA issued a Risk Mitigation Decision (RMD) for 10 rodenticides, notifying each company with registered products containing the rodenticides that the products would be considered misbranded by June 2011 unless product changes were made. Reckitt challenged EPA’s efforts to effectively cancel the pesticide registrations without initiating formal registration cancellation proceedings in FIFRA Section 6. CLA filed an amicus brief in September 2009 in support of the plaintiff, which demonstrated that EPA must follow Section 6 during product cancellation.  

“The court’s decision is not just an important victory for our industry, but supports and ensures the continuation of a sound and predictable regulatory process, as mandated by Congress in the creation of FIFRA,” said Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CLA. “This court decision is vital in maintaining the integrity of the registration and reregistration processes, and ensuring the rights of the registrants, who work closely with EPA throughout the entire procedure.”

In its decision, the district court cited and relied upon CLA's amicus brief, which detailed the importance of past legislative history to explain EPA’s overreach. The CLA amicus demonstrated that Congress intended to create a comprehensive cancellation process. Ultimately, this prevents EPA from threatening registrants with criminal or civil enforcement action if they don't comply with demands to restrict, or effectively remove, products from the market, and allows for a balance of rights and roles between the Agency and registrants.

The registration and reregistration processes are part of an established and important framework for the crop protection industry, and one which ensures an orderly and predictable regulatory system. For more information about FIFRA and regulatory review, visit www.croplifeamerica.org.