## Facts

- EPA regulates pesticide registration and cancellation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which permits registration only if a pesticide will not generally cause “unreasonable adverse effects,” defined through a risk-benefit standard that accounts for economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.
- EPA had significant safety concerns about the termiticides chlordane and heptachlor, which were registered for termite control.
- Rather than pursue contested cancellation proceedings, EPA negotiated voluntary cancellation agreements with the registrants.
- The registrants agreed to cancel registrations conditioned on EPA allowing limited sale and use of “existing stocks” already in the distribution chain for a short period.
- EPA accepted the condition, reasoning that contested cancellation litigation could keep the products available longer than a negotiated transition permitting limited existing-stock distribution and use.
- Environmental and public-interest groups challenged EPA’s decision to permit continued sale and use of existing stocks after voluntary cancellation.

## Issues

1. Whether FIFRA prohibits EPA from permitting any continued sale and use of existing stocks of a pesticide after voluntary cancellation of its registration.
2. Whether EPA acted within its statutory authority and consistent with FIFRA’s risk-benefit framework by allowing limited existing-stock distribution and use as part of voluntary cancellation settlements.
3. Whether the district court properly enjoined EPA from allowing sales, commercial use, and commercial application of existing stocks.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court’s permanent injunction.
- The court held the district court misconstrued FIFRA in concluding that EPA’s existing-stocks determination was unlawful.
- The court concluded FIFRA leaves EPA discretion to manage existing stocks during the transition from registration to cancellation, consistent with the statute’s risk-benefit standard.
- The case was remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction, permitting EPA to carry out the voluntary cancellation settlements, including the limited existing-stock provisions.

## Legal Principles

- FIFRA’s definition of “unreasonable adverse effects” requires agency risk-benefit judgment that includes economic, social, and environmental considerations.
- When FIFRA does not expressly mandate an immediate, absolute cessation of all sales and use upon cancellation, EPA may exercise discretion to permit limited distribution and use of existing stocks based on its statutory balancing responsibilities.
- Courts will not substitute an absolute statutory prohibition for EPA’s policy judgment where the statute’s structure assigns EPA transitional implementation choices within the risk-benefit framework.
- An injunction resting on an incorrect interpretation of FIFRA’s cancellation and existing-stocks authorities must be vacated.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that FIFRA did not bar EPA from allowing limited sale and use of existing stocks as part of voluntary cancellation agreements for chlordane and heptachlor, and it vacated the district court’s injunction that had prohibited those settlement commitments.


Nat'l Coal. Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. EPA, 867 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1989)