## Facts

- EPA initiated cancellation and suspension proceedings under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for heptachlor and chlordane, widely used chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, based on evidence of serious health and environmental risks.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended against a full suspension, reasoning that the record did not conclusively show animal carcinogenicity.
- The EPA Administrator issued a suspension order (Dec. 24, 1975) finding an “imminent hazard” and suspending registrations for most major uses, including corn uses.
- The order prohibited further production for suspended uses but allowed limited minor uses and allowed sale and use of “existing stocks” formulated before a specified date.
- For corn uses, the Administrator delayed the suspension’s effective date until Aug. 1, 1976 to reduce immediate agricultural disruption.
- The Administrator relied on laboratory evidence of cellular changes and other indicia of risk, drew inferences about human risk from animal data, and considered the availability of alternatives and economic effects.
- The order did not include detailed findings on the quantity of existing stocks in commerce or the feasibility of retrieving them instead of permitting continued sale and use.
- Multiple petitions for review were consolidated: agricultural and industry petitioners challenged the suspension as excessive; EDF challenged the order as insufficiently protective, targeting the delayed corn cutoff, minor-use allowances, and existing-stocks provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported EPA’s determination that continued use of heptachlor and chlordane posed an “imminent hazard” justifying suspension under FIFRA despite scientific uncertainty and the ALJ’s contrary recommendation.
2. Whether EPA adequately justified and explained the scope and conditions of the suspension, including continued minor uses, permission to sell and use existing stocks, and the delayed effective date for corn uses.

## Decision

- The court upheld EPA’s suspension of most major uses, holding that the Administrator’s imminent-hazard determination was supported by substantial evidence and fell within EPA’s technical discretion.
- The court rejected requests that it reweigh the scientific record or substitute its policy judgment for EPA’s in assessing uncertain but serious risks.
- The court remanded in part for further explanation and findings regarding the existing-stocks allowance, limited minor uses, and the delayed corn-use cutoff, citing insufficient record-based findings and the need for internal consistency with the agency’s hazard determination.
- Petitions seeking to set aside the core suspension were denied; EDF’s petition was granted in part to the extent it sought further justification for the exceptions to the suspension.

## Legal Principles

- Under FIFRA, EPA may suspend pesticide registrations pending cancellation proceedings when continued use presents an “imminent hazard.”
- Appellate review of a FIFRA suspension order is limited to whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence on the administrative record; courts do not conduct de novo risk assessments.
- EPA may act protectively in the face of scientific uncertainty; the statute does not require conclusive proof of carcinogenicity before suspension where the record supports a reasoned inference of serious risk.
- EPA may consider both health/environmental risks and economic/practical consequences, including the availability of alternatives, when deciding whether and how to suspend uses.
- When EPA permits continued distribution or use (e.g., existing stocks, limited uses, delayed effective dates) after finding an imminent hazard, it must provide a reasoned explanation supported by findings that reconcile the exceptions with the risk determination.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit largely affirmed EPA’s authority to suspend pesticide uses based on emerging evidence of serious risk under FIFRA’s imminent-hazard standard, while requiring the agency to supply adequate findings and a coherent explanation for allowing continued minor uses, existing-stocks sales and use, and delayed implementation for certain applications.


Env’t Def. Fund, Inc. v. EPA, 548 F.2d 998 (D.C. Cir. 1976)