In 2006, the plaintiff sought to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require pesticide labels to list 374 inert chemicals that "have been determined to be hazardous under other environmental laws and regulated as such by the EPA." The EPA didn't respond by 2009, so the plaintiff sued for an unreasonable delay in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Shortly thereafter, the EPA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking declaring its intent to address the issue inert ingredients, but that EPA was not committed to any particular outcome for rulemaking. The EPA then motioned to dismiss the plaintiff's case for mootness. The case was dismissed. The EPA then took no action for over four years, and the plaintiff sued for unreasonable delay. The EPA then informed the plaintiff that it was looking at different approaches to the issue and would not adopt rules requiring the listing of inert ingredients. The EPA motioned for dismissal, but the plaintiff claimed that the issue of unreasonable delay meant that the case could not be dismissed for mootness. The court dismissed the case, noting that the EPA never committed to any advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Thus, all action on the plaintiff's complaint was terminated. Center for Environmental Health, et al. v. McCarthy, No. 14-cv-01013-WHO, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130459 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014).