Cactus Corner, Llc, a California Limited Liability Corporation Venida Packing Company, a California Corporation California Citrus Mutual California Grape and Tree Fruit League v. U.S. Department of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture Bobby R. Acord, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Intercitrus, a Spanish Trade Association Ibertrade Commercial Corporation, a New York Corporation Lgs Specialty Sales, Ltd., a New York "S" Corporation Luke G. Sears, President of Lgs Specialty Sales, Ltd., Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees
Docket: 04-16003
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 8, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Cactus Corner, LLC and other plaintiffs challenging a rule by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that allowed the importation of clementines from Spain after a medfly larvae discovery in 2001. The Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) is a significant agricultural pest, threatening California's $13 billion fruit and vegetable industry, particularly due to export restrictions from infested areas. After the USDA halted imports following the larvae discovery, it later issued a rule permitting imports under specific conditions aimed at preventing medfly introduction. Domestic growers opposed this rule, claiming it jeopardized their market and was influenced by a desire to limit foreign competition. The Spanish fruit growers supported the USDA's decision, leading to motions for summary judgment from both parties. The district court ruled in favor of the USDA, affirming the rule against the domestic growers' challenge. The case was heard in the Ninth Circuit, with the appeal filed following the district court's decision.
The appeal addresses the requirements for administrative agencies in decision-making processes. The domestic fruit grower plaintiffs argue that the USDA should establish explicit standards, particularly concerning acceptable risk levels to prevent plant pest introduction as mandated by 7 U.S.C. § 7712(a). They claim that the USDA's failure to do so violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, the court finds that while agencies must provide a satisfactory explanation for their actions, they are not obligated to define explicit standards. The USDA's rationale for its discretion in adopting new rules is deemed sufficient, and the court rejects claims that the agency's factual determinations lack support from the administrative record.
The background outlines that prior to 2001, Spanish clementines were imported under a permit requiring cold treatment to eliminate medfly larvae. Following the discovery of live larvae in clementines in November 2001, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) suspended their importation, acting under the Plant Protection Act's authority. APHIS then recommended a 'systems approach' for pest control due to concerns over the effectiveness of the cold treatment protocol, which was reviewed by an expert panel. The panel found that the existing protocol did not ensure complete mortality of pests and suggested extending the treatment duration, alongside advocating for long-term research to confirm the new treatment's effectiveness.
APHIS conducted an analysis of cold treatment protocols through its Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis (ORACBA), which quantitatively assessed the effectiveness of these protocols. The ORACBA report confirmed the inadequacy of the existing cold treatment protocol from May 2002 but indicated that a revised protocol would meet the necessary probit 9 security level. Additionally, APHIS completed a risk management analysis, released on October 4, 2002, which evaluated medfly control measures and estimated the likelihood of a mated pair of medflies entering suitable U.S. climates, emphasizing that a single medfly poses minimal risk.
The analysis employed a five-variable model to assess the risk of medfly introduction, considering factors such as the number of clementines shipped from Spain and the proportion of infested fruit. APHIS concluded that the proposed control measures would reduce the risk of medfly introduction to less than 0.0001, or less than one in ten thousand years. At a 95% confidence level, the likelihood rose to 0.0004, or less than one in two thousand years.
In July 2002, APHIS proposed resuming the importation of clementines, inviting public comments and holding hearings. After revisions based on feedback, APHIS issued the Final Rule on October 21, 2002, which relied on the risk management analysis and other studies. The Final Rule implements two main changes: it mandates the revised cold treatment protocol and requires Spain to take significant measures to control medfly populations in orchards.
Furthermore, the Rule stipulates pre-treatment sampling of 200 fruits from each shipment; if any live medfly is detected, the shipment is rejected. If a live medfly is found in two lots from the same orchard during the shipping season, that orchard will be excluded from the export program for that season. Inspections will also occur at U.S. ports, where any findings of live medflies will result in the shipment being held for investigation and remedial actions.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of California, claiming that the Final Rule issued by APHIS violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and other laws. Following the intervention of Spanish clementine exporters in support of the Final Rule, both parties sought summary judgment. On March 11, 2004, the district court granted summary judgment for APHIS, leading to a timely appeal by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs challenge the Final Rule on two main grounds: first, they assert that APHIS failed to define an acceptable level of risk for preventing the introduction of Mediterranean fruit flies (medflies) under the Plant Protection Act; second, they argue that the agency's factual findings are unsupported by the record.
The court reviews the district court's summary judgment decision de novo and can overturn the agency's decision if it is deemed arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with the law. The review under the APA considers whether the decision was based on relevant factors and if there was a clear error of judgment.
Regarding the acceptable level of risk, plaintiffs contend that APHIS inadequately explained its criteria for declaring that its measures would prevent medfly introduction. They reference Harlan Land Company v. USDA, which found similar deficiencies in APHIS's risk assessments. However, the court cites a recent decision in Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund v. USDA, where it was determined that the Animal Health Protection Act does not require the Secretary to quantify an acceptable level of risk. The court emphasizes APHIS's discretion in such regulatory matters.
Concerning the factual determinations, plaintiffs argue that the administrative record lacks support for the Final Rule, identifying four specific issues that they claim render the rule arbitrary and capricious. The court concludes that these objections lack merit.
The plaintiffs argue that the risk management analysis presented inconsistent estimates regarding the likelihood of medfly introduction, but these discrepancies do not undermine the Final Rule as the underlying data aligns with the agency's conclusions. The court cites precedent confirming that an agency's decision can withstand scrutiny even if the explanation lacks clarity, provided the agency's reasoning is discernible.
The plaintiffs also contest the risk management analysis's estimate of a maximum of eight viable larvae per fruit, asserting it is unfounded based on 2001 sampling data showing an average larvae range of four to twelve. However, the court finds this argument unconvincing for two reasons: first, the analysis specifically estimated viable larvae, accounting for mortality, while the sampling data did not; second, the agency's choice to rely on a 1999 study indicating a maximum survival rate of less than eight larvae per fruit was within its discretion. The court emphasizes that it defers to agency evaluations when faced with conflicting evidence, ultimately rejecting the plaintiffs' challenge to the Final Rule.
Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule's control measures are ineffective, as the observed medfly infestation rate in 2001 was 0.16%, while the Rule allows for rates up to 1.5%. They challenge APHIS's reasoning, questioning how a limit almost ten times higher could be beneficial. APHIS countered that later-season samples may not represent early-season infestation rates, asserting that these rates were likely higher than 0.16% when early shipments arrived. The agency's position is supported by evidence of increased trap captures and temperatures at that time.
Additionally, plaintiffs contest the revised cold treatment protocol, claiming APHIS's experts could not validate its effectiveness. Although an expert panel suggested further research, the ORACBA study provided strong confidence in the protocol achieving the probit 9 level of security. The plaintiffs’ later argument that the ORACBA report only supports an 18-day treatment lacks merit; APHIS addressed efficacy concerns for treatments shorter than 18 days and relied on a study involving lemons to devise the 14-day protocol, a discretionary decision to which the court defers.
Ultimately, the court concludes that APHIS was not obliged to define a negligible risk standard under the Plant Protection Act. The agency established a rational connection between its findings and decisions, affirming that the Final Rule is not arbitrary or capricious. The district court's summary judgment in favor of the government is upheld.
Probit 9 denotes a pest control measure achieving 99.9968% mortality, equating to 32 survivors per million, commonly referenced in relation to fruit fly treatments by APHIS. The Animal Health Protection Act and the Plant Protection Act have nearly identical provisions allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to impose import restrictions to prevent pest introduction, as per 7 U.S.C. 8303(a)(1) and 7 U.S.C. 7712(a), respectively. Clementines, being smaller than grapefruits, present a larger inspection surface area and are easier to dissect. APHIS is capable of detecting infestation levels as low as 1.5% through a protocol that involves randomly cutting and inspecting 200 clementines from each shipment, achieving a 95% probability of detecting medfly larvae at that infestation level.
