## Facts

- Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) petitioned the EPA Administrator to immediately suspend and ultimately cancel all registered uses of aldrin and dieldrin under FIFRA, alleging serious risks to human health and the environment.
- The EPA Administrator issued notices of cancellation for aldrin and dieldrin, finding “a substantial question as to the safety of the registered products” not effectively countered by registrants.
- Despite initiating cancellation proceedings, the Administrator declined to order immediate suspension pending the administrative outcome, stating current uses did not pose an imminent threat requiring immediate action.
- EDF sought judicial review, arguing the Administrator misapplied FIFRA’s “imminent hazard” standard and failed to justify continued use by evaluating risks against benefits and alternatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the EPA Administrator’s refusal to suspend pesticide registrations pending cancellation proceedings is subject to judicial review.
2. How “imminent hazard” under FIFRA’s suspension provision should be interpreted, and whether EPA applied the correct standard.
3. Whether EPA’s denial of suspension required a reasoned explanation addressing the evidence of risk, the asserted benefits of continued use, and available alternatives, particularly in light of EPA’s own safety concerns supporting cancellation notices.

## Decision

- The court held the refusal to suspend was judicially reviewable because FIFRA supplies a governing standard (“imminent hazard”) against which the agency’s decision can be assessed.
- The court concluded EPA’s stated rationale for denying suspension was inadequately explained and insufficiently connected to the statutory standard, given EPA’s contemporaneous determination that there was a substantial safety question warranting cancellation proceedings.
- The court remanded to EPA for reconsideration and a fuller, reasoned explanation applying the proper understanding of “imminent hazard” and addressing relevant considerations.

## Legal Principles

- An agency decision to deny interim suspension under FIFRA is not insulated from review where the statute provides a substantive standard; the agency must articulate a reasoned basis for action or inaction.
- “Imminent hazard” in the FIFRA suspension context is risk-based and does not require certainty of harm or an immediate catastrophe; it concerns whether continued use poses a sufficiently serious and likely risk during pending administrative proceedings.
- When the agency has identified substantial safety concerns sufficient to initiate cancellation, a denial of suspension must squarely explain why continued use does not meet the “imminent hazard” threshold.
- Reasoned decisionmaking in this setting requires meaningful consideration of the magnitude and likelihood of harm, the benefits of continued use, and the availability of safer alternatives; a bare recitation of existing uses or conclusory assurances is inadequate.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit required EPA to justify, with a reasoned explanation grounded in FIFRA’s “imminent hazard” standard, any decision to allow continued pesticide use during cancellation proceedings, and remanded EPA’s denial of immediate suspension for reconsideration and fuller articulation.


Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 465 F.2d 528 (D.C. Cir. 1972)