INTRODUCTION
The materials contained in this publication have been
prepared in order to provide a convenient format for reviewing
statutory and regulatory interpretations developed as a result
of administrative proceedings held pursuant to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.s.c. 136 et
seq.) (FIFRA). Each substantive judicial or administrative
ruling, decision, and order issued pursuant to a suspension or
cancellation proceeding under FIFRA after 1972 has been reviewed,
summarized, and indexed by appropriate reference within this
publication. In addition to providing a legal resource for
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) staff attorneys, Adminis-
trative Law Judges, the Administrator, Judicial Officers, and
others involved in administrative decisioninakirig under FIFRA,
publication of this document constitutes compliance with Section
552(a)(2)(C) of the Administrative Procedure Act which requires
that the agency maintain and make available for public inspection
and copying current indexes providing identifying information for
the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after
July 4, 1967, an.d required to be made available or published.
Instructions for Use
Reference sheets have been developed for each statutory,
regulatory, or other reference found in the FIFRA orders. The
publication is divided into sections by general headings, e.g.,
40 CFR Part 164.
Tabs are included to separate each general heading into
subheadings or references such as FIFRA §6(b) or 40 CFR §164.30.
Within each subheading group specific references are filed in
reverse order by date. Thus, a reference to FIFRA §6(b) issued
on March 18, 1974 will precede a reference dated January 1, 1974.
In this way, the most recent reference by subheading will be the
first one and will reflect the current interpretation of a
reference in those cases where the interpretation has changed.
Each reference sheet identifies the case name, FIFRA Docket
number, title of order, date of order, and presiding officer.
It contains an abstract of the order’s contents relative to the
particular reference in question. This publication is intended
for use as a research tool only and is not to be cited in
documents prepared by EPA attorneys for purposes of litigation.
All citations should be to the original orders which are filed
in the Hearing Clerk’s Office. A complete set of the orders
summarized in this publication is also available for use by EPA
employees in Room 535, West Tower, EPA.

-------
—2—
Narrative Reference Subheadings
In addition to the general heading categories such as FIFRA,
40 CFR and FDCA, an “Other” category has been included. Review
of the orders produced certain subheadings which could not be
related to particular statutory or regulatory sections. These
subheadings are included under narrative descriptors in the “Other”
section.
Cross References
In many instances a specific reference sheet identifies a
cross—reference to another statutory or regulatory section or a
narrative descriptor subheading. In those cases the reference
is included under both the specific subheading(s) and the cross—
reference(s). This was done because of the large number of
references to certain statutory sections (e.g., FIFRA §6(b)). It
is possible to search under the statutory reference and utilize
the cross—reference identification on the bottom of the reference
sheets to identify other relevant statutory, regulatory or other
references. For example, both FIFRA §6(b) and 40 CFR §164.6(b)
address time deadlines for requesting hearings. Both subheadings
should be consulted to ensure all relevant references have been
identified, even though, to a certain degree, the references
will be duplicative.
Updates
As new orders are issued, the Pesticides/Toxic Substances
Division attorney with lead responsibility for the case will be
responsible for ensuring that the order is abstracted, appropriate
reference sheets are prepared and distributed, and a copy of the
order is filed with the other orders. In this way the publication
will be kept current.

-------
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT

-------
T!PRA •2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Order to File
Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DATE: September 27, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In making a determination concerning unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, the Act provides
that the Administrator shall take into account “the
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits
of the use of any pesticide.” Impact on the
manufacturer is not a relevant consideration.
CROSS REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Ruling on Applicability
DATE: April 27, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Definition of “any unreasonable risk to man or
environment, taking into account the economic, social,
and environmental costs and benefits of the use of
any pesticide”.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA requires balancing of risks. FIFRA does not
establish absolute degree above or below which a
pesticide must or should be cancelled. AU
found some risks insufficient to warrant cancel—
lation of some uses; therefore, burden of proof on
registrants not impossible. They met the standard
as to some uses. Administrator disagrees with ALPs
weighing of relative risks and benefits with respect
to some uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80(b)
FIFRA §6(b)
40 CFR §162.11

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chern. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Fact that other sources of mercury exist and may also
cause some degree of risk in no way diminishes need
to assess particular risks associated with pesticides.
Each separate avenue of risk is increased by very
existence of other avenues of risk. §6(b)—risks
determined for particular pesticide uses are to be
determined solely in relation to benefits of their
use. No weighing allowed against non—FIFRA risks.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Respondent has established proof of actual harm to man
or environment from use of mercurial pesticides.
Minimata and other tragedies relevant since they
are examples of extreme hazard of methylmercury.
Under §6(b) Administrator must examine whatever risks
may be posed by pesticidal use of mercury, even in
absence of proof positive that methylmercury poisoning
has resulted from use of mercurial pesticides.
Administrator need not and should not refrain from
taking action until day that confirmation of potential
risk or suspected hazards results in tragedy. Cites
EF F v. Ruckeishaus , 439 F.2d 584 (D.C. 1971) and
other cases.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)
40 CFR §164.80(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA §2(bb) and §6(b) require a risk/benefit
assessment of evidence adduced at a cance]lation (or
suspension) hearing. ( See EDF v. EPA , 465 F.2d 528,
538 (C.A.D.C. 1972; EDF v. EPA , 510 F.2d 1292, 1302
(C.A.D.C. 1975). FIFRA does not specify that any
specific level or magnitude of risks must be found
before a pesticide may be cancelled. Requires finding
of “unreasonable” risk. A finding of risk, if
it is unreasonable in relation to benefits of continued
use, is sufficient to warrant cancellation. Not
necessary to establish threshhold to trigger risk!
benefit assessment. AU’s characterization of
risks as “minimal” does not preclude cancellati.on.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)
40 CFR §162.11

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE; Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachlor-Chlordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA § 6(c)(1), 2(e), and 2(bb) provide that suspen-
sion depends on a finding that continued use during
time required for cancellation proceeding would be
likely to result in any unreasonable risk taking
into account benefits. Question of reasonableness
depends on risk—benefit assessment. Not necessary
to find conclusively that harm will occur. Propriety
of suspension turns on risk—benefit balancing. Mere
fact that evidence is not complete is not a reason
to deny suspension. Held: ground given by AU (no
conclusive evidence on carcinogeriicity) in determining
not to recommend suspension is difficult as a matter
of law. AU failed to adequately weigh risks in
relation to benefits. Likelihood of risk to man
rather than conclusiveness of evidence is basis for
suspension. Burden of proof of safety on registrant,
so inconclusive evidence favors position of agency.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)(1)
FIFRA §2(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Use for following purposes will not generally cause
unreasonable adverse effects and registrations for
such uses should not be cancelled. (1) as in—can
paint preservative, (2) as fungicide in paints and
coatings, (3) as fungicide on golf course greens to
control snow mold, (4) as fungicide in treating
textiles, and (5) as fungicide to control brown mold
on freshly sawn lumber. Use of mercury containing
pesticides for all other purposes will cause unrea-
sonable adverse effects and should be cancelled
including: (1) other use in paints, (2) other uses
on golf course greens as fungicide, (3) all use for
seed treatments, (4) to control Dutch elm disease,
arid (5) all uses for any material that could be used
as wearing apparel and other uses for textiles except
those listed in decision as not cancelled.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In those cases where there are no adequate or effective
substitutes, benefits outweigh risks. Where there are
substitutes whatever risks there may be outweigh the
benefits. Final decision re cancellation depends on
intricate balance struck between benefits and dangers
to the public health and welfare resulting from (a
product t s) use. EDF v. EPA , 465 F.2d 528 (C.A.D.C.
1972)
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)
40 CFR §164.80

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET *: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Burden on registrants to prove that use of their
pesticides when used in accordance with widespread
and commonly recognized practices will not generally
cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environ-
ment” (taking into account economic, social and
environmental costs and benefits).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80
40 CFR §162.11(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET *: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachior or Chlordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment”.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.11

-------
PIFM •2(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(e)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachior—Chiordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA § 6(c)(l), 2(e), and 2(bb) provide that suspen—
Sian depends on a finding that continued use during
time required for cancellation proceeding would be
likely to result in any unreasonable risk taking
into account benefits. Question of reasonableness
depends on risk—benefit assessment. Not necessary
to find conclusively that harm will occur. Propriety
of suspension turns on risk—benefit balancing. Mere
fact that evidence is not complete is not a reason
to deny suspension. Held: ground given by AU (no
conclusive evidence on carcinogenicity) in determining
not to recommend suspension is difficult as a matter
of law. AU failed to adequately weigh risks in
relation to benefits. Likelihood of risk to man
rather than conclusiveness of evidence is basis for
suspension. Burden of proof of safety on registrant,
so inconclusive evidence favors position of agency.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)(l)
FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
FIFRA §2(1.)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET *: 384
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachlor—Chlordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: AU did not conduct adequately the kind of risk!
benefit balancing process which the law and Agency
policy require. In a suspension proceeding (unlike a
cancellation proceeding) EPA is not specifically
required to balance possible benefits against the
environmental and health risks of pesticide use.
However, Administrator has statutory power to do so
and Agency policy is to do so. Responsibility to
demonstrate that benefits outweigh risks is on proponent
of continued registration. The law does not require
explicit evaluation of all relevant testimony when
that is not necessary to deal with salient grounds of
- objection and would preclude practical use of the
suspension provisions. Sufficient that there is
substantial evidence and court is able to discern
fair import of Administrator’s reasoning ( EDF v.
EPA , 510 F.2d 1304). Concludes there is a substantial
Likelihood of serious harm to man or environment.
Also finds imminent hazard based on unreasonable
human health risk. Some uses suspended, others not,
based on risk/benefit assessment.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c) (Risk—benefit)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Administrator’s findings of imminent hazard were
adequate to support Notice of Intent to Suspend (cf.
aldrin/dieldnin, EDF v. EPA) . Notice of Intent to
Suspend in reality comparable to a conventional
complaint instituting an administrative proceeding.
No prejudgment by Administrator found.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Imminent hazard not limited to a concept of crisis.
Enough if there is a substantial likelihood that
serious harm will be experienced. Conclude that
heptachior and its metabolite appear to be a carcinogen
in the mouse and may be a carcinogen in the rat .
That chiordane appears to be a carcinogen in the
mouse. Hesitantly unwilling at this time to find
B/C are conclusively carcinogens in lab animals.
Therefore, cannot find imminent hazard. Heptachior
presents more of a risk than ch].ordane. (This is
only recommended——in fact not accepted in full by
Administrator).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.120
FIFRA §6(c)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET *: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Co&taining
Heptachlor or Chlordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Defines “imminent hazard”. Not limited to a concept
of crisis; “substantial likelihood” enough. Burden
of proof of establishing safety of a product is on
the registrant.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.3(r)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Risks of aldrin/dieldrin use not outweighed by
benefits. Alternatives available.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c) (Risk/Benefit)

-------
FIFRA §2(1)
Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
of the Administrator and Order
1, 1974
Russell E. Train, Administrator
of irmninent hazard for aldrin/dieldrin.
REFERENCE:
CASE NAME:
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion
DATE: October
PRESIDING OFFICIAL:
ABSTRACT: Finding
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c) (Imminent hazard)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1) (No—effect Level)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Impossible to establish a ‘safe’ level of exposure to
aldrin/dieldrin for man.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrirt Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Suspension mandated when there is “imminent hazard”.
May be declared at any stage of administrative review
process, either upon receipt of new evidence or after
reevaluation of existing evidence. Suspension order
resembles preliminary injunction and immediately
halts production and distribution and remains in
effect until cancellation hearing is completed and a
final decision is made by Administrator. Since sus-
pension order is a temporary decision, EPA has taken
position that it has a continuing responsibility to
review suspension decisions. Here, suspension notice
issued after two previous reviews failed to find
“imminent hazard”.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c) (imminent hazard)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: “Imminent hazard” not restricted to crises.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Risk—benefit analysis required by statute even with
respect to “imminent hazard”. Risk here clearly one
of cancer. Balanced against benefit, especially
1975 corn crop in drought year. (Aidrin) AU does
not believe availability of Aldrin or lack thereof
will significantly affect 1975 corn crop or other
uses. (p. 74).
• CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)(l) (“Imminent hazard”)
40 CFR §164.21(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET *: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure on previous occasions of Administrator to find
no “imminent hazard” does not prevent him from finding
it based on new information or reevaulation.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFPA §6(c)(1) (“Imminent hazard”)
40 CFR S164.21(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Suspension is to be based on potential or likely
injury and need not be based upon demonstrable injury
or certainty of future public harm. Here there is a
cancer hazard. Registrations suspended to prevent
“imminent hazard”. Reserve Mining (asbestos) case
distinguished on the facts and differences in who has
burden of proof. Under FIFRA burden of proving safety
on registrant.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA S6(c) (“Imminent hazard”)
40 CFR §164.121(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(1)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET *: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrtive Law Judge
ABSTRACT: DDT Advisory Committee detinition of
imminent hazard (p.l0).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
FIFRA §2(q)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(g)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET *: 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Pesticide chemicals which cause adulteration
of food under FDCA when used as directed are not
per se misbranded and therefore, issues of fact in
this regard may be raised in this forum ( Continental
Cheniiste Corp. v. Ruckeishaus) . This case distin-
guished from Continental Chemiste on the facts and
therefore respondent’s Motion for Summary Entry of
a Recommended Decision Affirming Cancellation
granted.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §402(a)(1)
FIFRA §12(a)(1)(E)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(q)(1)(F)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et a].. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: As a matter of law, use of any pesticide chemical
for which no tolerances have been established under
§408 of FDCA is deemed unsafe, and that as to any
product containing it, “misbranding” necessarily
results under FIFRA S2(q)(l)(F).
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(q)(1)(F)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET #: 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Pesticide chemical which is defined as unsafe
under FDCA, the use of which on raw agricultural
commodities results in adulteration is a violation
of FIFRA §2(q)(l)(F).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA S12(a)(l)(E)
FDCA §402

-------
FIFRA §2(u)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(u)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET if: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Mercury compounds used as pesticide when used as
bactericide for in—can preservation of paint and as
fungicide in paint and other coatings; as a fungicide
in treatment of turf, seed textiles, wood and Dutch
elm disease within purview of §2(u).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIPRA §3

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Statement s to Basis for Settlement
DATE: March 6, 1978
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: This disposition is without prejudice to any statutory
right of any person to file a new registration
under §3 or to file application to sell, distribute
or use H/C for any use subject to this proceeding
under any other section of FIFRA.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
VIFRA §3(c)(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(l)(D)
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Decision
DATE: April 24, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Appropriate remedy for improper granting of a
registration as a result of registration application
being filed and processed under procedures set forth
in §2(c) of interim policy statement is not cancellation
but, rather, appropriate remedy is for prior applicant
to seek reasonable compensation from subsequent
applicant as provided in §3(c)(1)(D). See FIFRA
Docket No. 407.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.9

-------
FIFRA §3(c)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(2)(B)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: June 16, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure to supply ordered information results in
Accelerated Decision denying applications or can-
celling registrations.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.91(a)(8)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(2)(B)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: June 7, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure to supply ordered information results in
Accelerated Decision cancelling registrations or
denying applications.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.91(a)(8)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(2)(B)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 12, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure to supply ordered data by certain date
results in issuance of Accelerated Decision
cancelling registrations or denying pending
applications.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.91(a)(8)

-------
FIFRA §3(c)(5)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFR.A §3(c)(5)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Essentiality doctrine——an assurance by Congress that
equally safe and effective pesticides can and should
be registered without any preference among the various
products. AU did not base his findings and conclusions
solely on availability of substitutes and therefore
did not violate essentiality doctrine, even though it
was a pivotal consideration.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(5)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET *: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Administrator shall not make any lack of essentiality
a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide.
Where two pesticides meet the requirements of this
paragraph, one should not be registered in preference
to the other. This provision does not eliminate need
for risk—benefit assessment in a cancellation proceeding.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
PIFRA §3(c)(6)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(6)
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraguat)
DOCKET #: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: At least arguable that Assistant Administrator’s
letter of March 19, 1979 may not have been intended
as a notice of refusal to register under §3(c)(6) but
that does not deprive AU of authority to conduct a
hearing and grant such relief as may be appropriate.
Failure to publish notice of refusal to register in
Federal Register as required by §3(c)(6) should not
prejudice Aceto as the applicant.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.11 (Denial of registration)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §3(c)(6)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Final Order
DATE: March 6, 1978
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: All applications for registration of products
containing H/C subject to Notice of Denial of
Registration (5/21/75) or subsequent Notice of
Denial are denied.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.21

-------
vim 16

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Statement as to Basis for Settlement
DATE: March 6, 1978
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Castle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Order will provide for cancellation of all uses of
E’/C at issue in this proceeding. Provides for
transition period. Disposition based on health,
economic and environmental considerations pertaining
to U. S. Different conclusions may be appropriate
in other countries.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA 6
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET : 336
TITLE: Final Order
DATE: March 6, 1978
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Cancels registration for all pesticide products
containing H/C which are subject to Notice of Intent
to Cancel (11/18/74).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIFRA §6(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(a)(1)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Sale and use of mercury compounds cancelled herein
which are formulated into products on or before date
of D&O shall be permitted in view of enormous diffi-
culties which would be involved in collecting and
disposing of them.
CROSS REFERENCES: Existing Stocks

-------
P1FRA §6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(b)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Order Terminating the DBCP Cancellation Hearing
DATE: March 6, 1981
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Walter Barber, Acting Administrator
ABSTRACT: Hearing terminated based on requests for voluntary
cancellation of all DBCP uses except on Hawaiian
pineapples and agreed modification of label instructions
for use of DBCP on Hawaiian pineapples. Notice of
intent to cancel withdrawn. The right of any party to
compel that a hearing continue must be premised on
some dispute concerning an existing registration. No
dispute remains re DBCP. Parties to hearing
representing user groups have no independent right
to prevent termination of hearings.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Purpose of notice)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Purpose of notice is to inform registrant of what
action agency intends to take (not what action EDF
intends to take).
CROSS REFERENCES: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C §554(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Legislative history of FIFRA demonstrates that
“adversely affected” as used in §6(b) only includes
registrants, users and other persons who want to stop
proposed cancellation from going into effect. Cites
McGill v. EPA , 593 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1979) re
legislative history of §6(b). There must be some
legally recognizable injury as a result of the proposed
action in order for person to be “adversely affected”.
Mere “interest” in the problem insufficient. EDF
clearly not “adversely affected”. Distinction between
standing to intervene in an administrative hearing and
standing to obtain judical review of challenged
administrative action. Cites K. Davis, Administrative
Law Treatise, §8.11 at 564 (1958). Intervention
affected by Agency rules and statutes not affecting
standing to challenge. Problems of case or controversy
do not affect inter’ Jention. Also, consequences
different. Undue broadening of issues is a common
ground for denying intervention.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.31
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(b) (Adversely affected)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Effect of Accelerated Decision was to rule that §6(d)
hearing forum is not available to EDF. (Cites Shell
Oil case, Docket #401). EDF seeks to have Shell Oil
decision reversed. In Shell ALl held that scope of
hearing cannot be expanded to include consideration
of relief broader (ie., more restrictive) than that
proposed in §6(b)(1) notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(d) (Scope of hearing)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Timeliness of Request for Hearing)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Florida Citrus Mutual did not file its request for
hearing until five days after deadline set in notice.
FCM argues deadline specified in notice conflicts
with §6(b) and thus unlawfully shortened 30 day
deadline. FCM argues §6(b) should be interpreted to
allow timeliness of a non—registrant’s request for
hearing to be measured from either (1) 30 days
following publication in Federal Register or (2) 30
days following any registrant’s receipt of the notice,
which ever occurs later and that otherwise registrants
would get more time than non—registrants. However,
this interpretation could have opposite effect of
giving all non—registrants more time than registrants
if only one registrant receives notice after publica-
tion in Fed. Register. Reasonable to assume Congress
did not intend completely equal treatment between
registrants and non—registrants. Reasonable to infer
from legislative history that publication provision
in §6(b) primarily intended for non—registrants. Its
benefit to registrants incidental. Constructive
notice by publication in Federal Register adequate
when identity and location of affected person not
known or readily ascertainable.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
40 CFR §164.22(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Hearing Requests)
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET *: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Aceto did not request hearing wi.thin thirty days.
Only issue is whether Aceto made necessary correc-
tions. Where registrant has attempted to make
required corrections, statute is not self—executing
and registrant’s submission must be reviewed and
determination made whether corrections have in fact
been accomplished.
“Makes the ncessary corrections, if possible” does
not mean to the extent possible. Because corrections
required here consist chiefly of promises of future
action not intended to be accomplished within any
specific time period, reasons are not present for
statutory requirement that failure to request a
hearing or to effect required corrections within
thirty day period results in automatic cancellation.
Here a final notice of cancellation was required.
Because record contains evidence from which it can
be inferred such a notice was sent to Aceto, unnces—
sary to decide propriety of cancellation absent a
final notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.22

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Notice of Intent to Cancel)
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET *: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Issue here is whether registration was validly can-
celled. Threshhold question is whether petition
sets forth claim upon which relief can be granted.
Absent a notice of intent to cancel there is no
authority to conduct a hearing under §6(b). Not
reasonable to construe a letter notifying Aceto that
its registration had been legally cancelled over
four years previously as a notice of intent to
cancel because it speaks in past tense rather than
future tense. Held: No genuine issue of material
fact here. Registration was legally and validly
cancelled.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.21

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzjlate)
DOCKET t : 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlinan, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: §6(b) is framed in terms of preventing proposed
cancellation (conditional or otherwise) from
occurring and not in terms of forcing a result not
proposed by the Administrator. Here, EDF trying to
force a more restrictive result. Under §6(b) person
would be adversely affected by affirmative act of
Administrator, not his failure to act. Section
16(a) provides remedy in latter case.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §16(a)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (30 day deadline)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: FIFRA itself imposes thirty day deadline for
requesting hearings. Rules of Practice specifi-
cally fashioned in response to statute and thirty
day deadline. Other cases dismissed based on late
filings. §164.6(b) does not apply to as serious a
matter as the enlargement of statutory deadline and
cannot be construed to enlarge the time or authorize
Administrator to enlarge the time within which to
file initial filings or objections in response to
notice of intent to cancel, conditional or other-
wise, pursuant to FIFRA §6(b)(1). Part of reason for
special treatment is that registration would be
cancelled by operation of law prior to filing of late
objections.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.6(b)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Timeliness of hearing requests)
CASE NAME: DBCP
DOCKET #: 401 et al.
TITLE: Order Denying Motion of Ainvac to Amend its Objection
and Cross—motion to Dismiss Ainvac
DATE: January 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Adminstrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Request for hearing for one specific use cannot be
amended to add uses after 30—day period to request
hearing has expired. Notice itself also required
specific designation of uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR S164.20(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Efficacy)
CASE NAME: S. W. Cowley & Sons Mfg. Co. (arsenic trioxide)
DOCKET #: 341
TITLE: Order Cancelling Registration
DATE: October 28, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Not necessary to find that the product is hazardous
to the environment in order to cancel. Issue here
is efficacy which is also a basis for cancellation.
Absense of complaints from the public does not prove
a product is efficacious. Price of product not
relevant to question of efficacy.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET t : 336
TITLE: Ruling on Applicability
DATE: April 27, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: No useful purpose served in determining whether Sec.
1(2) is procedural or substantive. At most it is a
clarification and refinement of Administrator’s duty
in applying risk/benefit assessment herein. Cites
legislative history. Congressional purpose to assure
Agency takes cognizance of effect of its actions on
agricultural economy at every step in decision process.
Provides effective procedural mechanism for implementing
preexisting statutory risk—benefit test. Sec. 1(2)
applicable to these proceedings. No substantive
rights of parties affected by the amendment. Hearing
has not yet commenced.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.11(a)(5)(ii)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Benefits)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Ruling on Applicability
DATE: April 27, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administratiye Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Amendment to Act requiring Administrator to take
into account impact of final action on production
and prices of agricultural commodities, retail food
prices, etc. Administrator’s notice of intent to
cancel U/C was issued prior to this amendment and it
is clear section 1(1) of this amendment is not appli-
cable herein.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.ll(a)(5)(ii)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Respondent has established proof of actual harm to man
or environment from use of mercurial pesticides.
Minimata and other tragedies relevant since they
are examples cf extreme hazard of methylmercury.
Under S6(b) Administrator must examine whatever risks
may be posed by pesticidal use of mercury, even in
absence of proof positive that methylmercury poisoning
has resulted from use of mercurial pesticides.
Administrator need not and should not refrain from
taking action until day that confirmation of potential
risk or suspected hazards results in tragedy. Cites
EDF v. Ruckeishaus , 439 F.2d 584 (D.A.DSC. 1971) and
other cases.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(bb)
40 CFR §164.80(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET f : 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA requires balancing of risks. FIFRA does not
establish absolute degree above or below which a
pesticide must or should be cancelled. AIJ
found some risks insufficient to warrant cancel-
lation of some uses; therefore, burden of proof on
registrants not impossible. They met the standard
as to some uses. Administrator disagrees with AU’s
weighing of relative risks and benefits with respect
to some uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(bb)
40 CFR §164.80(b)
40 CFR §162.11

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA §2(bb) and S6(b) require a risk/benefit
assessment of evidence adduced at a cancellation (or
suspension) hearing. ( See EDF v. EPA , 465 F.2d 528,
538 (C.A.D.C. 1972; EDF v. EPA , 510 F.2d 1292, 1302
(C.A.D.C. 1975). FIFRA does not specify that any
specific level or magnitude of risks must be found
before a pesticide may be cancelled. Requires finding
of “unreasonable” risk. A finding of any risk, if
it is unreasonable in relation to benefits of continued
use, is sufficient to warrant cancellation. Not
necessary to establish threshhold to trigger risk/
benefit assessment. AU’s characterization of
risks as “minimal” does not preclude cancellation.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(bb)
40 CFR S162.ll

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Fact that other sources of mercury exist and may also
cause some degree of risk in no w y diminishes need
to assess particular risks associated with pesticides.
Each separate avenue of risk is increased by very
existence of other avenues of risk. §6(b)—risks
determined for particular pesticide uses are to be
determined solely in relation to benefits of their
use. No weighing allowed against non—FIFRA risks.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA S2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA 6(b)
CASE NAME: Chaprrian Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Initial Dedision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In those cases where there are no adequate or effective
substitutes, benefits cutweigh risks. Where there are
substitutes whatever risks there may be outweigh the
benefits. Final decision re cancellation depends on
intricate balance struck between benefits and dangers
to the public health and welfare resulting from (a
product’s) use. EDF v. EPA , 465 F.2d 528 (C.A.D.C.
1972)
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80
FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FDCA §408)
CASE NAME: Bio—Labs Inc. (Consolidated into #245)
DOCKET #: 297
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: May 19, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: No residue—zero tolerance phase out issue (PR Notice
72—4). “No fault” clause. Bio—Labs found not to be
at fault for delay in issuance of tolerance and
therefore proceeding for cancellation dismissed.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408 (Zero tolerance)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order of Dismissal
DATE: 4ay 9, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: EPA filed motion to dismiss as to Do—It—Yourself Pest
Control, Inc. since its product produced little risk
of environmental contamination. Technical errors by
EPA. Dismissal of proceeding would technically result
in cancellation of registration in issue. En reality
EPA is seeking withdrawal of notice of intent to
cancel.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.21

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order to File
DATE: May 2, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Company filing petition to intervene must file
memoranda or brief, including referenàes to pertinent
legislative history, with respect to meaning of phrase
“by a person adversely affected by a notice” in context
of its motion.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.31

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FDCA §408)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Case involves registered uses for which no tolerances
have been established. Registration of enumerated
substances and indicated usages were directed to be
cancelled unless all directions for such usages were
deleted from labels. U.S. v. Ewig Bros . held that
any pesticide chemicals used on raw agricultural
commodities are declared “unsafe” under S408 unless
exempted or used within prescribed tolerance limits
(same conclusion as Dexol) .
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Zero tolerance)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET *: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Allowed continuation of registration for pesticide
use patterns accepted on a “no residue” or “zero
tolerance” basis pending petitions for fir ite
tolerances where lack of established tolerances
not the fault of petitioners. Series of PR Notices
phasing out no residue or zero tolerance registrations.
“No fault” saving clause not applicable since
fault for non—completion of these tolerance petitions
lies with petitioners.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408 (Zero tolerance)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FDCA §408)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Found close relationship between §408 of FDCA and
FIFRA. Registration cancelled. Question whether
Dexol is applicable to current cases (Docket #245).
Dexol agrees with holding in U.S. V. Ewig Bros .
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FDCA §408)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: This proceeding may not be utilized to determine
what might be safe or acceptable limits of residue.
§408 is the vehicle for that purpose. In this pro-
ceeding if any residues are shown to be likely, by
operation of law the product violates FIFRA and
cancellation may result.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FDCA §408)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET 1: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Closely related; but each represents a separate
portion of the statutory scheme and each is governed
by separate rules of procedure. Registrants may
not forestall operation of cancellation provisions
of FIFRA merely because they have succeeded in
frustrating conclusive action on their tolerance
petitions.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Notice of Withdrawal of Cancellation and
Intent to Hold Hearings)
CASE NAME: 2,4,5—T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: (1) Notice of Withdrawal of Cancellation of 2,4,5—T
on Rice and;
(2) Notices of Withdrawal of Intent to Hold Hearings
on All Registered Uses of 2,4,5—T etc; Statement
DATE: June 24, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: J. Quarles, Assistant Administrator
ABSTRACT: Notice of withdrawal of cancellation of 2,4,5—T on
rice and notices of withdrawals of intent to hold
hearings on all registered uses of 2,4,5—T and all
registered uses of herbicides potentially containing
tetrachiorodioxin, including Silvex and Erbon.
Reason for withdrawal: sufficient TCDD residue
monitoring requires more time.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order
DATE: April 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: David A. Schuenke, Judicial Officer and
Assistant Director for Legislation
ABSTRACT: Question whether finding of widespread practice,
unreasonable risk and costs and benefits are condition
precedent to issuance of cancellation notice. Two
portions of §6(b) are alternative. Can also cancel
based on health and safety aspects associated with
misbranding under old FIFRA.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.11(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motion
to Remand
DATE: January 14, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Two separate bases for cancellation: (1) does not
comply with provisions of Act, or (2) unreasonable
adverse effects. These two situations are alter-
natives. Legislative history clear. Purpose of 1972
amendments to provide for more complete regulation.
FIFRA as amended does not require Administrator to
take into account every economic, social and environ-
mental cost and benefit before issuing Notice of
Cancellation. Purpose of hearing is to present
evidence on factors Administrator must take into
account before he makes determination and issues an
order. Possible existence of countervailing factors
that would justify administrative decision to continue
a registration despite substantial degree of risk does
not justify failure to issue notice that triggers
administrative process. Findings in notice adequately
meet requirements of statute.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.21

-------
REFERENCE: FIFR.A §6(b) (Relation to FDCA)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Order Partially Granting Motion
DATE: July 24, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Proceeding divided into two phases: 1) consideration
of uses, including risks and benefits; 2) considera-
tion of tolerances by Administrator after cancellation
decision made. Such a procedure avoids duplication
of evidence since §406 only applies if there is a
cancellation. Previous order of Administrator had
consolidated tolerance (rulemaking) proceeding into
cancellation (adjudicatory) proceedings. Bifurcation
insulates at least FIFRA cancellation proceedings
from possible serious procedural questions. Persons
concerned with tolerances will have opportunity to
participate in registration segment of this proceeding
as it relates to tolerances.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §406
FDCA §408
40 CFR Part 180

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Relationship to FCDA §408)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET #: 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Two related statutes should, whenever possible, be
blended to reinforce their common purpose.
Congressional intent that issuance or continuance
of a tolerance under FDCA would usually be a con-
dition precedent to issuance or continuance
of a registration under FIFRA. Registrant cannot
do indirectly (through registration) what he failed
to do directly (get a tolerance established).
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA S408

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (No tolerance)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET #; 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Registrant’s claim of financial inability does
not alter decision to cancel registration.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §408 (Claim of Financial Inability to Obtain
Residue Tolerance)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: While AU may rule on motion to dismiss objections
filed by registrant and cancel registration, serious
doubt exists as to AU’s authority to issue a final
order of cancellation in a proceeding under the act.
AU believes he lacks such authority under the act.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.90
40 CFR §164.103

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b) (Widespread and commonly recognized
practice)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE; June 14, 1972
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: William D. Ruckleshaus, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Evidence of each alleged risk must be reviewed
and a conclusion reached as to whether or not, and in
what degree, such risk is incidental to the directed
use of a particular product (p.10).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.1l(b)(l)(i)

-------
FIFR §6(b)(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Adversely affected)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Question whether EDF is a person “adversely affected”
by §6(b)(1) notice. Held: EDF not person “adversely
affected” since EDF seeks not to stop conditional
cancellation from becoming final but rather to force
a more restrictive action. Under §6(b) proposed
action is self—executing. Therefore, standing
conferred on persons seeking to stop such action.
§16 applies.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §16(a)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(1)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Proceeding under §6(b)(1) not an abstract academic
exercise or scientific peer review. First two
objections inextricably intermingled with EDF’s
challenge that conditional registration not restric-
tive enough. Will not substitute form for substance.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Standing)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET *: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Administrative Law Judge’s ruling incorrect.
Importance of role of §6(b)(l) notice in setting
standard of relevance for conduct of the proceeding.
Evolutionary change in FIFRA resulting in abandonment
of “all—or—nothing” approach to cancellation.
Administrator not limited to what has been proposed
in notice of intent to cancel-—may amend original
notice prior to commencement of hearing, consolidate
proceedings, or broaden issues by consent of parties.
Fairly narrow changes allowed. Notice determines
standard of relevance——cannot expand scope of hearing
to include matters not contained in notice of intent
to cancel. To let parties’ own objections set scope
of hearing (as Administrative Law Judge did) is contrary
to statutory scheme. Administrator has authority to
issue notice and thus establish standard of relevance.
Cites history of pesticide regulation.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(1) (Standing)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Discussion supporting Administrator’s authority
to issue conditional cancellation notices. EPA’S
increased ability to tailor cancellation notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §162.11

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(l)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Issue is whether Administrative Law Judge can properly
expand heariflg to consider whether DBCP pesticides
which were conditionally cancelled should be uncondi-
tionally cancelled (a more restrictive action than
proposed in §6(b)(l) notice). Administrative Law
Judge held Carlos P maya’s objections were proper and
order can be more restrictive than §6(b)(l) notice.
Subsequently, EPA issued §6(b)(2) notice regarding
uses in question and also filed appeal on Admini-
strative Law Judge’s ruling, claiming issue was moot
since S6(b)(2) notice was issued. AU’s ruling held
incorrect.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Standing)
CASE NAME: DBCP - Cancellation
DOCKET #: 401 et al.
TITLE: Order and Opinion Allowing Objectives
DATE: January 18, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Interprets FIFRA §6(b)(l) to permit hearing requests
and objections filed by persons seeking more restrictive
action than cancellation notice contemplates. Note:
Prior to decision in EDF v. Costle (Chlorobenzilate)
with opposite ruling as to hearing requests.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(1) (Adequacy of Notice)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Registrancs claim PR Notices 72—4 and 73—5 do not
meet requirements of FIFRA §6 that cancellation
notice state “reasons (including factual basis) for
the action.” Also claim notices refer to generic
descriptions of substances rather than listing
individual registrations affected. Held: factual basis
clearly established; no lack of reasonable notice.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIFRA §6(b)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Order Directing Respondent to File a Response
DATE: November 14, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Velsicol seeking summary judgment (on certification
of interlocutory appeal to Administrator). Failure
of Respondent to respond could lead to termination of
proceeding. Question is discretionary basis of
§6(b)(2) notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.91

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Fact that an action is commenced under §6(b)(2) (i.e,
Mirex) rather than §6(b)(1) would indicate less cause
for questioning safety.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Certification of Ruling on Interlocutory Appeal to
the Administrator
DATE: October 15, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Under §164.100 ruling or order may be certified for
interlocutory appeal to Administrator when its involves
important question of law or policy concerning which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion
and either (1) immediate appeal would advance ultimate
termination of proceeding or (2) review after final
decision will be inadequate or ineffective. Held:
ruling in question here (denial of motion to dismiss)
involves such a question and immediate appeal will
advance termination of proceeding. Issue is
discretionary basis of §6(b)(2) notices.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.100

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
‘CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET *: 483
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by Velsicol to Dismiss
Cancellation Proceeding or for Summary Judgment, and
for Stay Pending Determination of Motion
DATE: September 21, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Authority to issue notice of intent to hold hearing
to determine whether or not to cancel is within sole
discretion of Administrator and until such a hearing
is held and issues stated therein are answered there
is no authority to void such discretionary action.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
tASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by Velsicol to Dismiss
Cancellation Proceeding or for Summary Judgment, and
for Stay Pending Determination of Motion
DATE: September 21, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In previous case AU Levinson and Administrator
thereafter held Dow had waived any claim to §10(b)
trade secrets protection. However, to grant motion
which claims Dow’s waiver precludes invalidation of
Velsicol’s past registrations based on Dow’s claims
under §10(b), will result, in effect, in a withdrawal
of Administrator’s Notice of Intent to Hold a Hearing.
Only the Administrator has that authority.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §10(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Appeal of Administrative Law Judge’s ruling not
mooted by subsequent issuance of §6(b)(2) notice
because of unsettled status of §6(b)(2) notice,
issues raised re §6(b)(2) notice likely to recur,
overall importance of issues.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Mirex
DOCKET #: 293
TITLE: Order
DATE: March 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: John R. Quarles, Deputy Administrator
ABSTRACT: Orders restricting use during §6(b)(2) hearing.
Extends order permitting USDA’S Mirex spray application
program and monitoring for data on aquatic hazards.
Includes conditions beyond labelling regarding pilot
actions, required USDA findings before spraying,
acreage limitations and surveillance, including EPA
monitors.
CROSS REFERENCES: Orders Adding Use Requirements Beyond Labelling

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: In re: Use of Certain Rodenticides
DOCKET #: 294
TITLE: Determination and Order
DATE: December 3, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: J. Quarles, Deputy Administrator
ABSTRACT: Hard scientific data needed to respond to the
Statement of Issues does not now exist. Sufficient
valid scientific and economic data do not exist at
this time to justify continuation of procedures
begun by June 19, 1973 Notice of Intent to hold a
hearing. Notice of Intent withdrawn. EPA will
undertake field studies to develop data.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Order Granting Motion
DATE: January 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Marshall Miller, Special Assistant to
Administrator, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Motion sets forth good cause to grant Lilly’s request
and permit Lilly to use a label designed more particu—
larly to fit peculiar considerations applicable to its
product rather than label required by Administrator’s
order of 7/7/72.
CROSS REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.10
40 CFR §164.21

-------
FIFRA §6(c)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Cancel Registrations of Pesticide
Products Containing DBCP
DATE: October 29, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: This Notice satisfies requirements of §6(c) of FIFRA
that suspension order be accompanied or preceded by
notice under §6(b). Appears that a final §6(b)(2)
would be legally sufficient to support suspension
order under §6(c) because cancellation proceeding
can be intiated either by a §6(b)(1) notice or a
§6(b)(2) notice. This notice issued to avoid liti-
gation over whether a §6(b)(2) notice (currently
outstanding for DBCP) can support an order of
suspension.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.122(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Suspension Order and Final Decision
DATE; October 29, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Function of suspension decision is to make preliminary
assessment, not ultimate resolution of difficult
issues. Do not need complete evidence to suspend.
Suspension an interim remedy.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Order Denying Field Hearings in Los Angeles
DATE: August 16, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL:
ABSTRACT: Suspension proceeding entails a preliminary
assessment of probability of harm, not ultimate
resolution of difficult issues. Expedited
process — statute sets short time limits.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121(c)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Termination of suspension proceeding)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T and Silvex Suspension)
DOCKET #: 409
TITLE: Order Terminating the Suspension Proceeding
DATE: May 18, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Since all parties have withdrawn from suspension
hearing, proceeding terminated. Suspension orders
final.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Risk—benefit)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachlor—Chlordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: AU did not conduct adequately the kind of risk!
benefit balancing process which the law and Agency
policy require. In a suspension proceeding (unlike a
cancellation proceeding) EPA is not specifically
required to balance possible benefits against the
environmental and health risks of pesticide use.
However, Administrator has statutory power to do so
and Agency policy is to do so. Responsibility to
demonstrate that benefits outweigh risks is on proponent
of continued registration. The law does not require
explicit evaluation of all relevant testimony when
that is not necessary to deal with salient grounds of
objection and would preclude practical use of the
suspension provisions. Sufficient that there is
substantial evidence and court is able to discern
fair import of Administrator’s reasoning ( EDF v .
EPA, 510 F.2d 1304). Concludes there is a substantial
likelihood of serious harm to man or environment.
Also finds imminent hazard based on unreasonable
human health risk. Some uses suspended, others not,
based on risk/benefit assessment.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Benefit analysis)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET *: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: AU recommends certain uses of Heptachior and Chiordane
be continued during period of suspension assuming
Administrator disagrees with him on issue of
carcinogenicity and decides to suspend. Discussion
of alternatives to heptachior and chiordane.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Burden of proof)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Administrator does not have burden of proving that a
pesticide is unsafe. Burden of proving safety is on
registrant. Function of suspension decision is to
make a preliminary assessment of evidence and
probabilities, not an ultimate resolution of difficult
issues ( EDF v. EPA , 510 F.2d 1292, 1298 (D.C. Cir.
1975) ).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Imminent hazard not limited to a concept of crisis.
Enough if there is a substantial likelihood that
serious harm will be experienced. Conclude that
heptachlor and its metabolite appear to be a carcinogen
in the mouse and be a carcinogen in the rat.
That chlordane appears to be a carcinogen in the
mouse. Hesitantly unwilling at this time to find
H/C are conclusively carcinogens in lab animals.
Therefore, cannot find imminent hazard. Heptachlor
presents more of a risk than chiordane. (This is
only recommended—— in fact not accepted in full by
Administrator).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.120
FIFRA §2(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(c)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Notice of Intent to Suspend issued on basis of
additional matters, some of which Velsicol did not
timely call to Administrator’s attention as was its
statutory duty. Cannot say Administrator was arbi-
trary in issuance of Notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Administrator’s findings of imminent hazard were
adequate to support Notice of Intent to Suspend (cf.
aldrin/dieldrin, EDF v. EPA) . Notice of Intent to
Suspend in reality comparable to a conventional
complaint instituting an administrative proceeding.
No prejudgment by Administrator found.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Suspension/cancellation relationship)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Notice of Denial of Request for Interlocutory Review
and Reconsideration by the Administrator
DATE: October 2, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Velsicol challenges order holding cancellation
proceeding in abeyance pending outcome of suspension
proceeding. Cancellation can take as much as 18
months during which time product can be marketed.
Suspension notice requires finding of “imminent
hazard”. Purpose of suspension proceeding to
determine if imminent hazard exists and whether to
cease marketing etc. pending cancellation. No basis
in law or judicious use of Agency resources to warrant
simultaneous adjudications of issues involved in
cancellation and suspension proceedings. Implicit in
law’s provision for expedited suspension proceedings
is notion that once imminent hazard finding is made,
issues presented in suspension action should be
adjudicated first, even if it interrupts cancellation
proceeding. No prejudice to registrant since product
can be marketed etc. during 4—5 months suspension
proceeding takes.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET *: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachior or Chiordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Notice of intent to suspend based on evidence of
human cancer hazard (imminent hazard) pending outcome
of cancellation hearing. The function of suspension
is to make a preliminary assessment of evidence and
probabilities, not ultimate resolution. Enough that
administrative record contain respectable scientific
authority supporting the Administrator.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Imminent hazard)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET 1 : 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Finding of imminent hazard for aldrin/dieldrin.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Risk/Benefit)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET *: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Risks of aldrin/dieldrin use not outweighed by
benefits. Alternatives available.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Imminent hazard)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Suspension mandated when there is “imminent hazard”.
May be declared at any stage of administrative review
process, either upon receipt of new evidence or after
reevaluation of existing evidence. Suspension order
resembles preliminary injunction and immediately
halts production and distribution and remains in
effect until cancellation hearing is completed and a
final decision is made by Administrator. Since sus-
pension order is a temporary decision, EPA has taken
position that it has a continuing responsibility to
review suspension decisions. Here, suspension notice
issued after two previous reviews failed to find
“imminent hazard”.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (Risk/Benefit Analysis)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: In a suspension proceeding, unlike a cancellation
proceeding, EPA not required to balance possible
benefits against environmental and health risks of
pesticide usage. No absolute need for analysis of
benefits. However, Agency has traditionally done so.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: “Imminent hazard” not restricted to crises.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Suspension proceedings are not but a phase or part of
the cancellation proceedings, even though Notice to
Suspend based largely upon evidence adduced in cancel-
lation hearing. Does not violate 5 U.S.C. 554(d) (APA).
CROSS REFERENCES: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §554(d)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c) (“Imminent hazard”)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Suspension is to be based on potential or likely
injury and need not be based upon demonstrable injury
or certainty of future public harm. Here there is a
cancer hazard. Registrations suspended to prevent
“imminent hazard”. Reserve Mining (asbestos) case
distinguished on the facts and differences in who has
burden of proof. Under FIFRA burden of proving safety
on registrant.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.121(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: DDT Advisory Committee definition of
imminent hazard, (p. 10).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.120

-------
FIFRA §6(c)(1)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)(l)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: October 20, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Suspension hearing to decide if there is substantial
likelihood that serious harm will be experienced
during time it takes to complete cancellation
proceeding. A preliminary assessment, not ultimate
resolution of issues.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)(l)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chen. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachlor—Chlordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA §S6(c)(l), 2(e), and 2(bb) provide that suspen-
sion depends on a finding that continued use during
time required for cancellation proceeding would be
likely to result in any unreasonable risk taking
into account benefits. Question of reasonableness
depends on risk—benefit assessment. Not necessary
to find conclusively that harm will occur. Propriety
of suspension turns on risk—benefit balancing. Mere
fact that evidence is not complete is not a reason
to deny suspension. Held: ground given by AU (no
conclusive evidence on carcinogenicity) in determining
not to recommend suspension is difficult as a matter
of law. AU failed to adequately weigh risks in
relation to benefits. Likelihood of risk to man
rather than conclusiveness of evidence is basis for
suspension. Burden of proof of safety on registrant,
so inconclusive evidence favors position of agency.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(e)
FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)(1)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachlor or Chiordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Findings of imminent hazard (p. 11—17) which shall
constitute the issues to be adjudicated at suspension
hearing, if hearing is requested.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121(c)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)(1) (“Imminent hazard”)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Risk—benefit analysis required by statute even with
respect to “imminent hazard”. Risk here clearly one
of cancer. Balanced against benefit, especially
1975 corn crop in drought year. (Aldrin) AU does
not believe availability of Aldrin or lack thereof
will significantly affect 1975 corn crop or other
uses. (p. 74).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.21(g)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(c)(1) (“Imminent hazard”)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure on previous occasions of Administrator to find
no “imminent hazard” does not prevent him from finding
it based on new information or reevaulation.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)
40 CFR §164.21(g)

-------
PIFRA §6(c)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S6(c)(2)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Denial of Petition for Withdrawal of Suspension Notice
DATE: September 10, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Administrator’s 60 day deadline for completion of
process not a violation of due process principles
embodied in APA. Case citations. Ainvac’s claims
of unfairness are premature (filed before First Pre—
hearing Conference). Whether 60 day deadline results
in unfairness can only be answered during course of
proceedings. Can later move for extension of deadline
if necessary upon recommendation of presiding officer
and for good cause.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121(d)
40 CFR §164.2(g)
40 CFR §164.121(j)

-------
FIFR.A 6(d)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by NCAP to Refer Questions to
NAS
DATE: February 24, 1982
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: FIFRA §6(d) permits AU to refer relevant questions
of scientific fact to committee of NAS. AU must
find it is either “necessary or desirable”—not auto-
matic. No demonstration here by NCAP of “necessary
or desirable”.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by NCAP to Refer Questions to
NAS
DATE: February 24, 1982
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Where request for referral to NAS made at public
hearing, parties are directed to file proposed
questions for consideration by AU under “necessary
and desirable” standard.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §l64.50(e)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Granting Motion for Compulsory Process Regarding
50 ppt Study Against Dr. Allen, et al.
DATE: July 16, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Dr. Allen, et al. declined to comply with subpoenas
issued pursuant to order of AU. Therefore, Respon-
dent has moved to compel production. §6(d) authorizes
AU to issue a subpoena to compel production upon
showing of relevance and reasonable scope of evidence.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.70

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4 ,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Granting Motion for Compulsory Process Regarding
50 ppt Study Against Dr. Allen, et al.
DATE: July 16, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Allows AU to issue subpoenas sua sponte or upon a
showing by applicant that evidence sought is relevant
and material or that sought discovery pursuant to
S164.51 meets standards set forth therein. Records
sought here will provide evidence that satisfy “rele-
vant and material” standard of §164.70(a) and have
significant probative value. Motion granted.
CROSS REFEPF.NCES: 40 CFR §l 64 .70(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Granting Motion for Compulsory Process Regarding
50 ppt Study Against Dr. Allen, et al.
DATE: July 16, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Evidence sought here satisfies the criteria for “other
discovery” in §164.51. Documents can only be obtained
through issuance of subpoenas. Production necessary
to fully access other data. Therefore, the documents
contain information that has “significant probative
value”.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.51
40 CFR §164.70

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Suspension)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Order Denying Requests for Referral of Questions
to a Committee of the National Academy of Sciences
DATE: June 23, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Requests for referral to WAS must be accompanied
by reasons supporting request. No reasons given
here. Expert testimony on the record will provide
answers to the questions — referral to NAS unnecessary.
Referral to NAS to be used only where scientific
information material to the issues cannot be obtained
by other means reasonably available to the parties.
Not intended to relieve party of obligation to
present its evidence.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Granting Motion by Dow for Enforcement of
Subpoena Duces Tecum Against Dr. Allen
DATE: May 20, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Re: 50 ppt study. Dow’s motion granted. Matter
forwarded to 0CC, EPA for transmittal to Dept. of
Justice for appropriate action.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.70(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,45—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion
for Compulsory Document Production Against Dr. James
Allen
DATE: February 1, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Subpoenas issued pursuant to 40 CFR §164.70 which
states AU shall be guided by Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures. In spirit of Rule 45 FRCP, AU will
entertain motion to quash or modify if filed timely
and contains specific statements as listed in Order.
Issuance of subpoenas not considered as precedent
for discovery. Uncertainties are the overriding factor.
Motion for Compulsory Document Production as to one
study denied since study was nonsubstantive as to
probative value.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.70
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Exhaustion of administrative remedies)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET 4 1: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Issue: What avenue of administrative relief is EDF
(whose objections were dismissed) entitled to pursue
in order to have requested relief either granted or
denied (and thus finalized). It is by filing objec-
tions in adjudicatory hearing forum under §6(d) or
by invoking less formal administrative procedures.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §16(a) (Exhaustion of administrative remedies)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Scope of hearing)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Effect of Accelerated Decision was to rule that §6(d)
hearing forum is not available to EDF. (Cites Shell
Oil case, Docket #401). EDF seeks to have Shell Oil
decision reversed. In Shell AU held that scope of
hearing cannot be expanded to include consideration
of relief broader (ie., more restrictive) than that
proposed in S6(b)(l) notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Intention to Refer
DATE: May 6, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Desirability of referring some limited questions to
committee of NAS. Submission of broad, general
questions, in the abstract, not meaningful or
rewarding or contemplated purpose of §6(d).
Administrator responsible for entering into “appro-
priate arrangements” with NAS, not AU.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Referral to NAS)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Referral to committee of NAS not a right. No
provision for referral in suspension proceedings.
§6(d) deals with cancellation and does not apply to
§6(c) suspension proceedings.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Mirex
DOCKET #: 293
TITLE: Order
DATE: October 22, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: D. Harris, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Denies USDA request for referral to NAS because issues
either subjected to intensive testing by cross—
examination, previously judicially detennined, or not
directly relevant.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Referral to NAS)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Notice Denying Motion for Interlocutory Review and
Stay of Proceedings
DATE: October 10, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: No specific authority found in Rules of Practice for
referring questions to NAS in suspension proceedings.
To contrary, suspension hearings are to be expedited
and referral to NAS would delay proceedings.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Referral to NAS)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Notice of Denial of Request for Interlocutory Review
and Reconsideration by the Administrator
DATE: October 2, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: No basis for reviewing Judge Penman’s decision to
defer ruling on motion which seeks appointment of a
committee of NAS until cancellation proceeding is
resumed.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.100
40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET *: 336
TITLE: Order Denying Motion
DATE: June 24, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Issue is referral of “9 principles” which EPA’s brief
stated should be used in these proceedings to guide
evaluation of cancer hazard of H/C. Velsicol contests
two of the principles. No useful purpose would be
served by referring nine principles to NAS. AU’s
function not to construct definitive treatise on
chemical carcinogenesis or establish general Agency
policy but rather to determine cancer hazard of H/C.
Submission of broad general questions, in the abstract ,
not every meaningful or rewarding or contemplated
purpose of Section 6(d). Also two concepts in dispute
are not unique or esoteric and have been presented
to the scientific community. Purported fact that
there is not universal acceptance of some of the
“principles” does not alter conclusion not to refer
to NAS.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Amendment to FIFRA in 1972 providing for referral
to Committee of National Academy of Sciences
immediately effective under §4(a) of FIFRA.
With the change in FIFRA (1972) no right to an
advisory committee continued even though the
requests were pending at the time of the change.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Science Products Co. et al. (Zero Tolerance)
DOCKET #: 245
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: November 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: 1947 FIFRA provided for referral to advisory
committee. Registrant requested referral which
was not acted upon because tolerance petition
was not complete.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motion
to Remand
DATE: January 14, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Under FIFRA as amended, applicant may request hearing
and may request AU to refer questions of scientific
fact to advisory committee. Change in procedure
(from old FIFRA) which does not affect registrant’s
substantive rights. Nothing in statute to indicate
an exemption from new method of procedure. Motions
to dismiss denied.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Ruling on Motions and Requests
DATE: June 28, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Motion denied. Persons utilized by Respondent to
prepare for litigation not an advisory committee.
Questions previously referred to Advisory Committee
under old FIFRA. Doubts as to whether ALl has
authority to refer matters to Advisory Committee
as it was then constituted. Also, Committee report
was but “one piece of evidence” before Administrator
(cites Stevens Industries , Docket #63).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d) (Subpoenas)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Ruling on Motions and Requests
DATE: June 28, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Shell request for subpoena of EPA documents etc.
relating to risks and benefits. FIFRA §6(d) somewhat
unclear as to whether subpoena power extends to
pretrial discovery or merely covers testimony or
evidence at a hearing by a witness and production of
documents there . Subpoena power may not be exercised
for purposes of discovery as here requested where
rules of practice do not so provide. Cites Admini-
strator’s statement in Implementation Plan, Pesticide
Control Act (1/4/73) that subpoena power will be
exercised in accordance with FRCP and applicable
precedents. This statement relates to method of
obtaining, etc. subpoenas and not their scope.
Since statutory language is unclear and there is an
absence of clear implementation by Administrator of
a power which is a matter of serious concern , motion
denied. (Agency rules of practice being amended at
the time).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.70

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Under recent amendment to Act, registrant may no
longer request or obtain report of a science
advisory committee as a matter of right. Under
circumstances presented herein, AU would not again
refer the matter to such a committee.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(d)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Stipulation by registrant that Committee Report would
be made part of record. Registrant’s attack on compo-
sition and operation of Committee an afterthought
necessitated by its decision not to proceed with the
hearing process.
No merit in registrant’s contentions with respect to
Committee. Findings and recommendations of committee
unanimous and committee report but one piece of evi-
dence in these proceedings. Administrator exercised
independent judgment based, in part, on data in
addition to committee report.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.50(e)
40 CFR §164.81(b)

-------
FIFRA §7

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §7
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order Granting Motions
DATE: February 3, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Velsicol alleges much of the data is already
available by reason of §7 reporting form. Held that
information on reporting form is inadequate to meet
needs herein.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR Part 167

-------
FIFRA §10

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §10
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Requiring Dow Chemical Co. to Submit Name
of Outside Consultants
DATE: July 27, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Conditions under which Dow releases trade secret data
to its consultants are immaterial to conclusion
herein. Any disclosure of such released trade secret
data by Dow employee or outside consultant would
prompt consideration of a waiver of trade secret
status of the subject data.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIPRA §10(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §10(b)
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by Velsicol to Dismiss
Cancellation Proceeding or for Summary Judgment, and
for Stay Pending Determination of Motion
DARE: .-, September 21, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In previous case AU Levinson and Administrator
thereafter held Dow had waived any claim to §10(b)
trade secrets protection. However, to grant motion
which claims Dow’s waiver precludes invalidation of
Velsicol’s past registrations based on Dow’s claims
under §10(b), will result, in effect, in a withdrawal
of Administrator’s Notice of Intent to Hold a Hearing.
Only the Administrator has that authority.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)(2)

-------
FIFRA fl2(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA S12(a)(1)(E)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET #: 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Pesticide chemicals which cause adulteration
of food under FDCA when used as directed are not
per se misbranded and therefore, issues of fact in
this regard may be raised in this forum ( Continental
Chemiste Corp. v. Ruckelshaus) . This case distin-
guished from Continental Chemiste on the facts and
therefore respondent’s Motion for Summary Entry of
a Recommended Decision Affirming Cancellation
granted.
CROSS REFERENCES: FDCA §402(a)(l)
FIFRA §2(q)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §12(a)(1)(E)
CASE NAME: Dexol Industries
DOCKET #: 255
TITLE: Recommended Order of Dismissal
DATE: March 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Pesticide chemical which is defined as unsafe
under FDCA, the use of which on raw agricultural
commodities results in adulteration is a violation
of FIFRA §2(q)(l)(F).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA S2(q)(l)(F)
FDCA §402

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §12(a)(1)(F)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET *: 63
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: June 14, 1972
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: William D. Ruckleshaus, Administrator
ABSTRACT: If a product is misbranded within the meaning
of the Act, it may no longer be shipped in interstate
commerce and stocks in hand in the original package may
be seized (p. 10).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §13(b)

-------
FIFRA §13(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §13(b)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET 1: 63
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: June 14, 1972
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: William D. Ruckleshaus, Administrator
ABSTRACT: If a product is misbranded within the meaning
of the Act, it may no longer be shipped in interstate
commerce and stocks in hand in the original package may
be seized (p.10).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §12(a)(1)(F)

-------
FIFRA §15(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(a)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Order to File
Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DATE: September 27, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: FIFRA does not provide for payments to Petitioner
(for existing stocks) in a cancellation action.
CROSS REFERENCE:

-------
FIFRA §15(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order Granting Motions
DATE: February 3, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: AU has need for the information for reasons other
than those stated by respondent in its motion for
presentation of evidence. Administrator should have
available more precise information to determine
whether he intends to consider exempting existing
stocks.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order Granting Motions
DATE: February 3, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Existing stocks issue in suspension and cancellation
proceedings differ substantially because of time
periods and uses involved. Independent inquiry
needed in cancellation proceeding regardless of
Administrator’s action in suspension proceeding.
Not premature to consider Respondents request before
Administrator establishes procedures for adducing
and reviewing data on existing stocks.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator on the Suspension of
Heptachior—Chiordane and Order
DATE: December 24, 1975
PRESIDING.OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: “Special Rule”——continued sale and use of existing
stocks permitted.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachior or Chlordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Invokes “Special Rule” provision permitting continued
use of existing stocks formulated as of date of this
notice. There would be no stocks realistically
retrievable following a suspension notice.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §15(b)(2)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Suspension)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: October 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell E. Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT:’ Order allows continued sale and use of existing stocks
under “Special Rule” provisions.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIFRA §16

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Administrator’s refusal to impose unconditional
cancellation on citrus uses of chlorobenzilate once
finalized (after exhausting available administrative
remedies) amounts to “final agency action” within
terms of APA (5 U.S.C. §704) and is judicially review—
able under §16 of FIFRA.
CROSS REFERENCES: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §704

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16 (Effect of pending judicial appeal
on AU jurisdiction)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Appeal by registrant from Administrator’s order filed
6/14/72 taken in U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,
does not remove jurisdiction of AU in this matter.
Administrator’s order applied to parties involved in
proceedings at time of order. Registrant was not a
party to those consolidated proceedings until three
months after the appeal.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIFRA §16(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA has never provided for formal adjudicatory
hearing under §6(d) to object to Agency’s refusal to
propose action. Instead, FIFRA contemplates in §16
that unresolved controversies over Agency “refusals”
to propose such action are to be heard in the Federal
courts. To allow EDF’s objections would prevent
proposed action from going into effect even though
affected parties (registrants) have not objected.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: EDF’s recourse is to convince a Federal court that
EPA’s refusal violated statutory standard under which
Agency is required to issue cancellation notices.
Cites Shell Oil (Docket #401) and EDF v. Ruckeishaus .
Here a factual determination made by EPA that citrus
uses will not meet statutory standard for unconditional
cancellation when subject to changes and restrictions
on use identified in notice. EDF may petition EPA to
reconsider refusal to issue unconditional cancellation,
and, if the petition is subsequently denied, have
that decision judicially reviewed per §16. This
decision does not narrow EDF’s rights to public parti-
cipation. EDF had chance to participate in decision
making during RPAR review which actually broadened
public particpation.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Question whether EDF is a person “adversely affected”
by §6(b)(1) notice. Held: EDF not person “adversely
affected” since EDF seeks not to stop conditional
cancellation from becoming final but rather to force
a more restrictive action. Under §6(b) proposed
action is self—executing. Therefore, standing
conferred on persons seeking to stop such action.
§16 applies.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Adversely affected)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a) (Exhaustion of administrative remedies)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Issue: What avenue of administrative relief is EDF
(whose objections were dismissed) entitled to pursue
in order to have requested relief either granted or
denied (and thus finalized). It is by filing objec-
tions in adjudicatory hearing forum under §6(d) or
by invoking less formal administrative procedures.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(d) (Exhaustion of administrative
remedies)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PR ESIDLNG, OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: §6(b) is framed in terms of preventing proposed
cancellation (conditional or otherwise) fran
occurring and not in terms of forcing a result not
proposed by the Administrator. Here, EDF trying to
force a more restrictive result. Under §6(b) person
would be adversely affected by affirmative act of
Administrator, not his failure to act. Section
16(a) provides remedy in latter case.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(a)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET It: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDING’OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Agency refusals to cancel or suspend not following
a public hearing are reviewable in district courts.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
FIFRA §16(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(b)
CASE NAME: S. W. Cowley & Sons Mfg. Co. (arsenic trioxide)
DOCKET #: 341
TITLE: Order Cancelling Registration
DATE: October 28, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Rejects argument that §16 gives U.S. Court of Appeals
exclusive jurisdiction (see Denial of Application for
Stay, 9/1/76).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §16(b)
CASE NAME: S. W. Cowley & Sons Mfg. Co. (arsenic trioxide)
DOCKET #: 34].
TITLE: Denial of Applications for Stay Pending Appeal
DATE: September 1, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Richard G. Stoll, Jr., Acting Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Issue is whether FIFRA §16(b) confers “exclusive
jurisdiction” in the Court, therefore barring Agency
from proceedings. Agency has not taken a final action
and therefore registrant is free to market its product.
Remand Order is not a decision on the merits and
Initial Decision on Remand is not a final order. No
adverse effect under §16(b) until there is a final
order.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.101

-------
FIFRA §21

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §21
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET 1: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motion
to Remand
DATE: January 14, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: If new scientific findings are truly significant, AU
assumes they are known to scientists interested in
the subject including EPA staff. This information
should be brought to respondent’s attention in course
of prehearing procedures.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.110

-------
FIFRA §21(b)

-------
REFERENCE: FIFRA §21(b)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Provides for Administrator to solicit outside views.
No improper ex parte communication here such as to
provide an impediment to Administrator acting in his
quasi—judicial capacity in suspension proceedings.
May be a problem as to cancellation proceeding.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.7

-------
40 CFR PART 162

-------
40 CFR §162.3

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.3(r)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET *: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachlor or Chiordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Defines “imminent hazard.” Not Limited to a concept
of crisis; “substantial likelihood” enough. Burden
of proof of establishing safety of a product is on
the registrant.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(1)

-------
40 CFR §162.8

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.8 (Test methods)
CASE NAME: S. W. Cowley & Sons Mfg. Co. (arsenic trioxide)
DOCKET #: 341
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: May 28, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: (1) Reasonable and proper for EPA to establish test
methods for determining efficacy,
(2) Such tests necessary to proper administration of
F I F RA,
(3) These test methods must be established on basis
of lab techniques which simulate field condi-
tions,
(4) Test methods must be established and promulgated
under informal rulemaking requirements of APA
§553,
(5) Procedures are presently being utilized by EPA
to establish test methods for acute rat liquid
bait in compliance with APA, and
(6) Test methods which form basis of intent to cancel
were not established under informal rulemaking
requirements of APA and are therefore invalid
and unenforceable. (Decision reversed on other
grounds by Administrator——see Order on Remand,
7/27/76).
CROSS REFERENCES: Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §553

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.8
CASE NAME: S. W. Cowley & Sons Mfg. Co. (arsenic trioxide)
DOCKET #: 341
TITLE: Order Cancelling Registration
DATE: October 28, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Impossible for lab tests to duplicate natural
environment and actual use conditions. These test
procedures simulate actual conditions reasonably
well.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR §162.9

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.9
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrations — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Decision
DATE: April 24, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Appropriate remedy for improper granting of a
registration as a result of registration application
being filed and processed under procedures set forth
in §2(c) of interim policy statement is not cancellation
but, rather, appropriate remedy is for prior applicant
to seek reasonable compensation from subsequent
applicant as provided in §3(c)(1)(D). See FIFRA
Docket No. 407.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §3(c)(l)(D)

-------
40 CFR §162.10

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.10
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Order Granting Motion
DATE: -January 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Marshall Miller, Special Assistant to
Administrator, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Motion sets forth good cause to grant Lilly’s request
and permit Lilly to use a label designed more particu-
larly to fit peculiar considerations applicable to its
product rather than label required by Administrator’s
order of 7/7/72.
CROSS REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
40 CFR §164.21

-------
40 CFR §162.11

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11 (Denial of registration)
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET #: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: At least arguable that Assistant Administrator’s
letter of March 19, 1979 may not have been intended
as a notice of refusal to register under §3(c)(6) but
that does not deprive AU of authority to conduct a
hearing and grant such relief as may be appropriate.
Failure to publish notice of refusal to register in
Federal Register as required by §3(c)(6) should not
prejudice Aceto as the applicant.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §3(c)(6)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
DATE: April 9, 1979
PRESIDIt4G OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Discussion supporting Administrator’s authority
to issue conditional cancellation notices. EPA’s
increased ability to tailor cancellation notice.
RPAR process served need of refining Agency’s
decision—making capabilities to get away from “all—
or—nothing” approach to cancellation. Major advance
in decision—making since DDT case ( EDF v. Ruckelshaus )
which is distinguished on the facts. §6(b)(l)
notice here culmination of RPAR process which gave
all parties opportunity to participate and present
their views. Other relief available to Amaya such
as petition to Administrator outside framework of
formal administrative process to seek cancellation
of additional uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Standii’ )

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA requires balancing of risks. FIFRA does not
establish absolute degree above or below which a
pesticide must or should be cancelled. AU
found some risks insufficient to warrant cancel-
lation of some uses; therefore, burden of proof on
registrants not impossible. They met the standard
as to some uses. Administrator disagrees with ALl’s
weighing of relative risks and benefits with respect
to some uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)
FIFR.A §2(bb)
40 CFR §164.80(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: FIFRA §2(bb) and §6(b) require a risk/benefit
assessment of evidence adduced at a cancellation (or
suspension) hearing. (See EDF v. EPA , 465 F.2d 528,
538 (C.A.D.C. 1972; EDF v. EPA , 510 F.2d 1292, 1302
(C.A.D.C. 1975). FIFRA does not specify that any
specific level or magnitude of risks must be found
before a pesticide may be cancelled. Requires finding
of “unreasonable” risk. A finding of risk, if
it is unreasonable in relation to benef its of continued
use, is sufficient to warrant cancellation. Not
necessary to establish threshhold to trigger risk!
benefit assessment. AU’s characterization of
risks as “minimal” does not preclude cancellation.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)
FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachlor/Chlordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
- Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
• Heptachlor or Chiordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment”.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
40 CFR §162.11(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(a)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order
DATE: April 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: David A. Schuenke, Judicial Officer and
Assistant Director for Legislation
ABSTRACT: Question whether finding of widespread practice,
unreasonable risk and costs and benefits are condition
precedent to issuance of cancellation notice. Two
portions of §6(b) are alternative. Can also cancel
based on health and safety aspects associated with
misbranding under old FIFRA.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.ll(a)(3)(ii)
CASE NAME: Mirex
DOCKET 1: 293
TITLE: Administrator’s Decision on Interlocutory Appeal
Affirming Denial of Respondent’s Request to Take
Official Notice
DATE: April 22, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Administrator comments on commitment to basic cancer
policy principles like extrapolation from animal
data, malignant vs. benign tumors, and no effect”
levels.
CROSS REFERENCES: Carcinogen Policy

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(a)(3)(ii)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Decision of the Administrator and Order
DATE: February 17, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Registrant’s contention that extrapolations from
laboratory conditions are insufficient to demonstrate
risks sufficient to warrant cancellation under §6(b)
is not legally defensible.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.81(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.1l(a)(3)(ii)(A)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Suspend and Findings of Imminent
Hazard Posed by Registrations of Pesticides Containing
Heptachlor or Chlordane
DATE: August 1, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Russell Train, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Sets forth bases for evaluating carcinogenicity of
pesticides. Positive oncogenic effect in test animals
sufficient to characterize a pesticide as posing a
cancer risk to man. Negative results have only
limited significance. No scientific basis exists for
establishing a no effect level for ca rcinogens.
Distinction between benign and malignant tumors not
meaningful in determining cancer hazard to men on
basis of tests conducted on laboratory animals. As to
benefits, because of expected and provisional nature
of suspension process, it is not necessary to explore
all available information on alternative pest control
methods to same degree as in cancellation proceedings.
Responsibility to show benefits of continued registra-
tion during cancellation proceeding outweigh risks
is on proponents of continued registration.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.121(c)
Carcinogen Policy

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(a)(5)(ii)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Ruling on Applicability
DATE: April 27, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Amendment to Act requiring Administrator to take
into account impact of final action on production
and prices of agricultural commodities, retail food
prices, etc. Administrator’s notice of intent to
cancel H/C was issued prior to this amendment and it
is clear section 1(1) of this amendment is not appli-
cable herein.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Benefits)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.ll(a)(5)(ii)
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Ruling on Applicability
DATE: April 27, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: No useful purpose served in determining whether Sec.
1(2) is procedural or substantive. At most it is a
clarification and refinement of Administrator t s duty
in applying risk/benefit assessment herein. Cites
legislative history. Congressional purpose to assure
Agency takes cognizance of effect of its actions on
agricultural economy at every step in decision process.
Provides effective procedural mechanism for implementing
preexisting statutory risk—benefit te st. Sec. 1(2)
applicable to these proceedings. No substantive
rights of parties affected by the amendment. Hearing
has not yet commenced.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)

-------
40 CPR fl62.11(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(b)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Order to File
Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DATE: September 27, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: In making a determination concerning unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment, the Act provides
that the Administrator shall take into account “the
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits
of the use of any pesticide.” Impact on the
manufacturer is not a relevant consideration.
CROSS REFERENCE: FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET *: 246
TITLE: Initial Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Burden on registrants to prove that use of their
pesticides when used in accordance with widespread
and commonly recognized practices will not generally
cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environ-
ment” (taking into account economic, social and
environmental costs and benefits).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80
FIFRA §2(bb)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §l62.ll(b)(l)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET *: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
DATE: March 7, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Question of whether respondent has carried burden of
going forward to present an affirmative case for
cancellation. Cites Administrator’s opinion in
Stevens Industries (Docket #63) re: burden of proof.
Held here that respondent sustained burden of proof;
motions denied. In FIFRA canellation hearing proponent
of cancellation bears burden of going forward, but
does not bear burden of persuasion.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.11(b)(l)(i)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Opinion of the Administrator and Order
DATE: June 14, 1972
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: William D. Ruckleshaus, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Evidence of each alleged risk must be reviewed
and a conclusion reached as to whether or not, and in
what degree, such risk is incidental to the directed
use of a particular product (p.lO).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Widespread and commonly recognized
practice)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.ll(b)(l)(i)(B) and (C)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Decision on Appeal of Accelerated Decision by
Lethelin Products Co.
DATE: December 13, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harriet Marple, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Notice of cancellation will be issued unless person
requesting hearing carries burden of proof that
pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects
on environment or man. Nothing presented by
Lethelin to suggest it has evidence to sustain this
burden of proof.
CROSS REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.1l(b)(2)(i)(B)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFRS162.1l(b)(2)(i)(B)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Decision on Appeal of Accelerated Decision by
Lethelin Products Co.
DATE: December 13, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harriet Marple, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Notice of cancellation will be issued unless person
requesting hearing carries burden of proof that
pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects
on environment or man. Nothing presented by
Lethelin to suggest it has evidence to sustain this
burden of proof.
CROSS REFERENCE: 40 CFR §162.ll(b)(l)(i)(B) and (C)

-------
40 CFR PART 164

-------
40 CFR Part 164,
Subpart C

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR Part 164, Subpart C (Supplementary Procedures)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Denial of Petition for Withdrawal of Suspension Notice
DATE: September 10, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Administrator established supplementary procedures
for this hearing: (1) 60 day deadline for rendering
of recommended decision by Administrative Law Judge
(2) assignment of technical support staff of
Agency employees for Administrative Law Judge (3)
extension of right to intervene to “any interested
person”. Axnvac challenges these procedures and
Administrator’s failure to use California benefits
data.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR Part 164, Subpart C (Interlocutory review)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T and Silvex Suspension)
DOCKET #: 409
TITLE: Denial of Motion for Appointment of AU
DATE: April 11, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: 40 CFR Part 164 does not provide for consideration
of interlocutory matters by the Administrator in a
suspension proceeding. Dow’s motion to appoint AU
in lieu of presently constituted hearing panel denied.
Concludes Dow unlikely to prevail on the merits.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.100

-------
40 CFR §l 6 4. 2 (q)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.2(g)
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Denial of Petition for Withdrawal of Suspension Notice
DATE: September 10, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Administrator’s 60 day deadline for completion of
process not a violation of due process principles
embodied in APA. Case citations. Anivac’s claims
of unfairness are premature (filed before First Pre—
hearing Conference). Whether 60 day deadline results
in unfairness can only be answered during course of
proceedings. Can later move for extension of deadline
if necessary upon recommendation of presiding officer
and for good cause.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)(2)
40 CFR §164.121(d)
40 CFR §164.121(j)

-------
40 CFR §164.4

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Order Incorporating Suspension Record
DATE: March 28, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Record of suspension proceeding admitted into this
proceeding available for inspection and copying at
office of Hearing Clerk. Parties who were not parties
to suspension will get copy of docket sheet entries
and final list of witnesses and exhibits. Recommended
and final decisions available.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR §164.4(c)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET 4: 415
TITLE: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Dow’s
Motion in Support of Proposed Protective Order and
Confidentiality Agreement
DATE: March 13, 1981
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Respondent unwilling to agree to including irreparable
damages provision in confidentiality agreement. It
would be unfair to require any signatory to a confi-
dentiality agreement to be bound by such a provision
as Dow proposes. It would not add to or detract from
effectiveness of order and agreement and its absence
would not affect Dow’s rights. Lack of this provision
will merely require proof by Dow of irreparable harm
in another forum and opportunity of signatory to such
agreement to defend its position.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Benefits Protective Order
DATE: March 13, 1981
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Protective Order entered pursuant to 40 CFR S164.4(c).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Protective Order
DATE: July 25, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Protective Order
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR S164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Supplemental Protective Order
DATE: March 14, 1980
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Supplemental Protective Order pursuant to 40 CFR
§164.4(c).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR Sl64.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET 4 : 415
TITLE: Protective Order
DATE: August 2, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Protective Order entered pursuant to 40 CFR §164.4(c).
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex’Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Order Requiring Dow Chemical Co. to Submit Name
of Outside Consultants
DATE: July 27, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Dow shall submit to AU, under seal, names of outside
consultants.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.4(c)
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T and Silvex Suspension)
DOCKET #: 409
TITLE: Protective Order
DATE: May 4, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Charles Gregg, Chairperson, Hearing Panel
ABSTRACT: Order granted. Conditions specified.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR §164.6

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.6
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions
DATE: October 30, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Cannot use anticipated Motion to Dismiss as basis for
getting time extension to file answering brief. 60
days adequate to file answering brief.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR § 164.6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.6(b)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: FIFRA itself imposes thirty day deadline for
requesting hearings. Rules of Practice specifi-
cally fashioned in response to statute and thirty
day deadline. Other cases dismissed based on late
filings. §164.6(b) does not apply to as serious a
matter as the enlargement of statutory deadline and
cannot be construed to enlarge the time or authorize
Administrator to enlarge the time within which to
file initial filings or objections in response to
notice of intent to cancel, conditional or other—
wise, pursuant to FIFRA §6(b)(l). Part of reason for
special treatment is that registration would be
cancelled by operation of law prior to filing of late
objections.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (30 day deadline)
40 CFR S164.20(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.6(b)
VCASE NAME: 2,4,5—T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: Order Denying Request for Certification
DATE: April 17, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Unclear from EDF motion or EPA support thereof if
major or minor enlargement of parameters of proceeding
is sought. Supporting justifications mostly mere
conjecture. Should Administrator, in response to proper
motion, grant a request for enlargement, no reason why
testimony as to expanded issues cannot be presented
at the end of its presentation. No time extension
needed.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.23(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order on Reconsideration
DATE: December 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perinian, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Motion for reconsideration and request for oral
argument denied. “Environmental problems should be
parced with a scalpel, not a hacksaw.”
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.6(b)
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET *: 246
TITLE: Order to File
DATE: May 9, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Registrants given 10 days to file response to EPA’S
answer to motions to amend in view of the fact that
they were filed prior to placement of proceedings in
hearing process.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.60(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR S164.6(b) (Delay of Hearing)
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET : 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Matters in registrant’s motion to dismiss on
jurisdictional and procedural grounds were untimely
raised and represent a not well disguised attempt to
delay entry of final order of cancellation. AU,
nevertheless, addressed them. Registrant’s attack on
composition and operation of committee an afterthought
necessitated by its decision not to proceed with
hearing process.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR §164.7

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Notice of Intent to Cancel Registrations of Pesticide
Products Containing DBCP
DATE: October 29, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Prohibition against ex parte communications on the
merits of the proceeding between Administrative Law
Judge, Judicial Officer or Administrator and
investigative and trial staff or other interested
parties.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7
CASE NAME: DBCP Suspension
DOCKET #: 485
TITLE: Denial of Petition for Withdrawal of Suspension Notice
DATE: September 10, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Moot issue re illegal ex parte contact since presiding
officer has exercised his discretion not to consult
ex parte with technical support panel.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7
CASE NAME: Dow Chemical Co. (2,4,5—T & Silvex Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 415
TITLE: Notice and Order
DATE: May 17, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Certain communications from Suspension Hearing Panel
to Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances held
not to relate to merits of proceeding and therefore
not in violation of ex parte rule. Also, these
communications were not filed by or on behalf of any
party to the cancellation proceeding. This
correspondence not to be included in record of
hearing.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachior/Chiordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: December 12, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: No violation of 40 CFR §164.7 re ex parte contact
based on clarification issued by Deputy Administrator
since it was procedural, not substantive. In fact,
clarification was to Velsicol’s benefit. During
development of regulations Velsicol had opportunity
to input and challenge Agency policy re: evaluation
of cancer hazard.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chem. Co. (Heptachlor/Chlordane Suspension)
DOCKET #: 384
TITLE: Order Denying Motion
DATE: August 7, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Velsicol requested ‘Clarification of Evidence which
may be introduced . . . SI( / /75) be stricken as
being the result of improper ex parte communications.
§164.7 does not apply here and Velsicol’s oral motion
denied. Clarification was procedural and did not
involve merits of the controversy. Also, no indica-
tion of improper ex parte communication.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.7.
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Provides for Administrator to solicit outside views.
No improper ex parte comutunication here such as to
provide an impediment to Administrator acting in his
quasi—judicial capacity in suspension proceedings.
May be a problem as to cancellation proceeding.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §21(b)

-------
40 CFR §164.8

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.8
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET #: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: EPA claims it mailed notice of cancellation, Aceto
claims they did not receive it. There is a strong
presumption of delivery in ordinary course of mails.
Fact of mailing may be established by proof of an
office practice and evidence of non—receipt does not
nullify the presumption. Here presumption not
rebutted. Conclusion: irrespective of whether a final
notice of cancellation was legally required, record
establishes that such a notice was mailed; Aceto is
presumed to have received it and Aceto’s registrat ion
was legally and validly cancelled. Therefore, no
genuine issue of material fact here.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.8
CASE NAME: Mirex
DOCKET #: 293
TITLE: Prehearing Conference Order No. 3
DATE: August 9, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: D. Harris, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Respondent, then supporting parties, then registrant,
then opposing parties to present evidence.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
40 CFR §164.20

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, et al. (DDT)
DOCKET #: 63
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: March 14, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Registrant failed to participate in hearing based on
conclusion that in view of Administrator’s order filed
6/14/72 (cancelling certain uses of DDT) proceeding
further would be useless. No such presumption or
assumption can be made. Because registrant failed to
participate in hearing, AU’s decision is limited to
the record.
By failure to adduce evidence regarding DDT use on
crops not covered in previous cancellation order,
registrant has failed to carry burden of proof.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.80

-------
40 CFR §l 64 . 2 0(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: 15 Herbicides Registrat.ion — Velsicol
DOCKET #: 483
TITLE: Order Denying Motion by Velsicol to Dismiss
Cancellation Proceeding or for Summary Judgment, and
for Stay Pending Determination of Motion
DATE: September 21, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Authority to issue notice of intent to hold hearing
to determine whether or not to cancel is within sole
discretion of Administrator and until such a hearing
is held and issues stated therein are answered there
is no authority to void such discretionary action.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)(2)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Question whether EDF is a person “adversely affected”
by §6(b)(l) notice. Held: EDF not person “adversely
affected” since EDF seeks not to stop conditional
cancellation from becoming final but rather to force
a more restrictive action. Under §6(b) proposed
action is self—executing. Therefore, standing
conferred on persons seeking to stop such action.
§16 applies.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §16(a)
FIFRA §6(b)(l) (Adversely affected)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Legislative history of FIFRA demonstrates that
“adversely affected” as used in §6(b) only includes
registrants, users and other persons who want to stop
proposed cancellation from going into effect. Cites
McGill v. EPA , 593 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1979) re
legislative history of §6(b). There must be some
legally recognizable injury as a result of the proposed
action in order for person to be “adversely affected”.
Mere “interest” in the problem insufficient. EDF
clearly not “adversely affected”. Distinction between
standing to intervene in an administrative hearing and
standing to obtain judical review of challenged
administrative action. Cites K. Davis, Administrative
Law Treatise, §8.11 at 564 (1958). Intervention
affected by Agency rules and statutes not affecting
standing to challenge. Problems of case or controversy
do not affect intervention. Also, consequences
different. Undue broadening of issues is a common
ground for denying intervention.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.31
FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Cos.tle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Florida Citrus Mutual did not file its request for
hearing until five days after deadline set in notice.
FCM argues deadline specified in notice conflicts
with §6(b) and thus unlawfully shortened 30 day
deadline. FCM argues §6(b) should be interpreted to
allow timeliness ot a non—registrant’s request for
hearing to be measured from either (1) 30 days
following publication in Federal Register or (2) 30
days following any registrant’s receipt of the notice,
which ever occurs later and that otherwise registrants
would get more time than non—registrants. However,
this interpretation could have opposite effect of
giving all non—registrants more time than registrants
if only one registrant receives notice after publica-
tion in Fed. Register. Reasonable to assume Congress
did not intend completely equal treatment between
registrants and non—registrants. Reasonable to infer
from legislative history that publication provision
in §6(b) primarily intended for non—registrants. Its
benefit to registrants incidental. Constructive
notice by publication in Federal Register adequate
when identity and location of affected person not
known or readily ascertainable.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Timeliness of Request for Hearing)
40 CFR §164.22(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: §6(b) is framed in terms of preventing proposed
cancellation (conditional or otherwise) fran
occurring and not in terms of forcing a result not
proposed by the Administrator. Here, EDF trying to
force a more restrictive result. Under §6(b) person
would be adversely affected by affirmative act of
Administrator, not his failure to act. Section
16(a) provides remedy in latter case.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Adversely affected)
FIFRA §16(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(a)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: May 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: FIFRA itself imposes thirty day deadline for
requesting hearings. Rules of Practice specifi-
cally fashioned in response to statute and thirty
day deadline. Other cases dismissed based on late
filings. §164.6(b) does not apply to as serious a
matter as the enlargement of statutory deadline and
cannot be construed to enlarge the time or authorize
Administrator to enlarge the time within which to
file initial filings or objections in response to
notice of intent to cancel, conditional or other—
wise, pursuant to FIFRA §6(b)(l). Part of reason for
special treatment is that registration would be
cancelled by operation of law prior to filing of late
objections.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (30 day deadline)
40 CFR §164.6(b)

-------
40 CPR §164.20(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(b)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: April 16, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Amvac’s objections filed within 30 days but did
not include registration numbers or copies of
labeling as required by §164.22(a). Only registered
use identified was tomatoes, which was not one of
the uses to be cancelled. After 30 day period Ainvac
moved to amend objections to include all uses. EPA
moved to dismiss as to tomatoes and opposed objections.
Administrative Law Judge denied EPA’s motion as to
tomatoes but sustained as to amending objections to
include additional uses. This Administrative Law
Judge’s order constitutes accelerated decision under
§l64.91(a)(1) from which appeal can be taken
pursuant to §164.102. On appeal, none of Amvac’s
exceptions sustained.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.22(a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR S164.20(b)
CASE NAME: DBCP
DOCKET #: 401 et al.
TITLE: Order Denying Motion of Amvac to Amend its Objection
and Cross—motion to Dismiss Amvac
DATE: January 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Request for hearing for one specific use cannot be
amended to add uses after 30—day period to request
hearing has expired. Notice itself also required
specific designation of uses.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Timeliness of hearing requests)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(b)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Decision on Appeal of Accelerated Decision by
Lethelin Products Co.
DATE: December 13, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harriet Marple, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Requires a person requesting a hearing to state
objections to Administrator’s intent to cancel.
CROSS REFERENCE:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(b)
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET it: 392
TITLE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Order to File
Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DATE: September 27, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: As part of their obligation in requesting a hearing,
petitioners are required to file objections setting
forth the factual basis of their objections. Responses
filed by petitioners to Administrative Law Judge’s
Order to File (June 1, 1977) are not sufficient
objections under Rules of Practice to entitle Petitioners
to a hearing. Objections made by petitioners are either
vague and without foundation or immaterial.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.22

-------
CFR §164.20(c)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.20(c)
CASE NAME: 2,4,5—T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: Administrative Law Judge Document Re: Procedure
DATE: May 15, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Direction in previous order that all matters necessary
to commencement of an orderly, informative, and
efficient hearing will be subject to “resolution by
the parties” rather than by the Administrative Law
Judge is at odds with the Rules and the fact that no
party has presented any objections to procedures
(other than effort for postponement).
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.40

-------
40 CFR §164.21

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET #: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Issue here is whether registration was validly can-
celled. Threshhold question is whether petition
sets forth claim upon which relief can be gi anted.
Absent a notice of intent to cancel there is no
authority to conduct a hearing under §6(b). Not
reasonable to construe a letter notifying Aceto that
its registration had been legally cancelled over
four years previously as a notice of intent to
cancel because it speaks in past tense rather than
future tense. Held: No genuine issue of material
fact here. Registration was legally and validly
cancelled.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Notice of Intent to Cancel)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Final Order
DATE: March 6, 1978
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: All applications for registration of products
containing H/C subject to Notice of Denial of
Registration (5/21/75) or subsequent Notice of
Denial are denied.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §3(c)(6)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (HeptachlorfChiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order of Dismissal
DATE: May 9, 1975
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge -
ABSTRACT: EPA filed motion to dismiss as to Do—It—Yourself Pest
Control, Inc. since its product produced little risk
of environmental contamination. Technical errors by
EPA. Dismissal of proceeding would teáhnically result
in cancellation of registration in issue. In reality
EPA is seeking withdrawal of notice of intent to
cancel.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR S164.21
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. 1 (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order
DATE: April 1, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: David A. Schuenke, Judicial Officer and
Assistant Director for Legislation
ABStRACT: Administrator’s Notice adopted general findings of
earlier mercury order and set forth factual basis for
his action. Any notice is adequate in absence of a
showing a party was misled. Notice here reasonably
calculated to apprise registrants of nature of
Administrator’s intent to remove registration and
reasons. AU’s order sustained.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order Denying Motions to Dismiss and Motion
to Remand
DATE: January 14, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Levinson, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Two separate bases for cancellation: (1) does not
comply with provisions of Act, or (2) unreasonable
adverse effects. These two situations are alter-
natives. Legislative history clear. Purpose of 1972
amendments to provide for more complete regulation.
FIFRA as amended does not require Administrator to
take into account every economic, social and environ-
mental cost and benefit before issuing Notice of
Cancellation. Purpose of hearing is to present
evidence on factors Administrator must take into
account before he makes determination and issues an
order. Possible existence of countervailing factors
that would justify administrative decision to continue
a registration despite substantial degree of risk does
not justify failure to issue notice that triggers
administrative process. Findings in notice adequately
meet requirements of statute.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Chapman Chem. Co. (Mercury)
DOCKET #: 246
TITLE: Order to File
DATE: May 31, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
•ABSTRACT: Motion by respondent to clarify requirement that
- registrants file objections pursuant to §164.21 in
order to determine confines of controversy. Motion
granted since it would cause little undue hardship
and would help determine scope of proceedings.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21
CASE NAME: Stevens Industries, Inc., et al. (DDT)
DOCKET *: 63
TITLE: Order Granting Motion
DATE: January 22, 1973
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Marshall Miller, Special Assistant to
Administrator, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Motion sets forth good cause to grant Lilly’s request
and permit Lilly to use a label designed more particu-
larly to fit peculiar considerations applicable to its
product rather than label required by Administrator’s
order of 7/7/72.
CROSS REFERENCE: FIFRA §6(b)(2)
40 CFR §162.10

-------
40 CFR §164.21(g)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21(g)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Perlman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Risk—benefit analysis required by statute even with
respect to “imminent hazard”. Risk here clearly one
of cancer. Balanced against benefit, especially
1975 corn crop in drought year. (Aidrin) AU does
not believe availability of Aldrin or lack thereof
will significantly affect 1975 corn crop or other
uses. (p. 74).
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(c)(l) (“Imminent hazard”)
FIFRA §2(1)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.21(g)
CASE NAME: Shell Chemical Co. (Aldrin/Dieldrin Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 145
TITLE: Recommended Decision
DATE: September 20, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Failure on previous occasions of Administrator to find
no “imminent hazard” does not prevent him from finding
it based on new information or reevaulation.
CROSS REFE1 ENCFS: FIFP.A §6(c)(l) (“Irir’inent hazard”)
FIFRA §2(1)

-------
40 CFR §164.22

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET #: 401
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DAT E: April 16, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: 40 CFR §164.22 must be construed using Amended
Notice which requires person requesting a hearing
to perfect request by objecting to “specific
registered uses.” When read together, term
“pesticide” is interchangeable with term “use”.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22
CASE NAME: DBCP
DOCKET #: 401, et al.
TITLE: Order Denying Motion of Axnvac to Amend its Objection
and Cross—Motion to Dismiss Amvac
DATE: January 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Harwood, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Aniendrnent to objections permitted because letter
requesting hearing was drafted by laymen and should
be liberally construed and because rules of practice
provide for leave to amend objections when justice
requires.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22
CASE NAME: Kepone
DOCKET #: 392
TITLE: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Order to File
Proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Order
DATE: September 27, 1977
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Finch, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: As part of their obligation in requesting a hearing,
petitioners are required to file objections setting
forth the factual basis of their objections. Responses
filed by petitioners to Administrative Law Judge’s
Order to File (June 1, 1977) are not sufficient
objections under Rules of Practice to entitle Petitioners
to a hearing. Objections made by petitioners are either
vague and without foundation or immaterial.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.20(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22
CASE NAME: Aceto Chemical Co. (Paraquat)
DOCKET #: 484
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: August 22, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Nissen, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Aceto did not request hearing within thirty days.
Only issue is whether Aceto made necessary correc-
tions. Where registrant has attempted to make
required corrections, statute is not self—executing
and registrant’s submission must be reviewed and
determination made whether corrections have in fact
been accomplished.
“Makes the ncessary corrections, if possible” does
not mean to the extent possible. Because corrections
required here consist chiefly of promises of future
action not intended to be accomplished within any
specific time period, reasons are not present for
statutory requirement that failure to request a
hearing or to effect required corrections within
thirty day period results in automatic cancellation.
Here a final notice of cancellation was required.
Because record contains evidence from which it can
be inferred such a notice was sent to Aceto, unnces—
sary to decide propriety of cancellation absent a
final notice.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Hearing Requests)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22
CASE NAME: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Heptachior/Chiordane)
DOCKET #: 336
TITLE: Order With Respect to Intervention
DATE: June 29, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Penman, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Vermont and Rhode Island petitions fail to comply
with §164.31 in that they fail to contain proposed
objections to notice of intent to cancel (S164.22)
and fail to comply with §164.31(b). AU would be
inclined to look favorably on proper petition.
Without knowing basis for requests for intervention,
Respondent is unable to reply in detail.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.31

-------
40 CFR §l 64 . 22 (a)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22(a)
CASE NAME: Shell Oil Co. (DBCP Cancellation)
DOCKET *: 40].
TITLE: Accelerated Decision
DATE: April 16, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Ronald L. McCallum, Judicial Officer
ABSTRACT: Amvac’s objections filed within 30 days but did
not include registration numbers or copies of
labeling as required by §164.22(a). Only registered
use identified was tomatoes, which was not one of
the uses to be cancelled. After 30 day period Ainvac
moved to amend objections to include all uses. EPA
moved to dismiss as to tomatoes and opposed objections.
Administrative Law Judge denied EPA ’s motion as to
tomatoes but sustained as to amending objections to
include additional uses. This Administrative Law
Judge’s order constitutes accelerated decision under
§164.91(a)(l) from which appeal can be taken
pursuant to §164.102. On appeal, none of Anwac’s
exceptions sustained:
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.20(b)

-------
40 CFR §164.22(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.22(b)
CASE NAME: Environmental Defense Fund (Chlorobenzilate)
DOCKET #: 411—414
TITLE: Final Decision
DATE: August 23, 1979
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Douglas Costle, Administrator
ABSTRACT: Florida Citrus Mutual did not file its request for
hearing until five days after deadline set in notice.
FCM argues deadline specified in notice conflicts
with §6(b) and thus unlawfully shortened 30 day
deadline. FCM argues §6(b) should be interpreted to
allow timeliness of a non—registrant’s request for
hearing to be measured from either (1) 30 days
following publication in Federal Register or (2) 30
days following any registrant’s receipt of the notice,
which ever occurs later and that otherwise registrants
would get more time than non—registrants. However,
this interpretation could have opposite effect of
giving all non—registrants more time than registrants
if only one registrant receives notice after publica—
tibri in Fed. Register. Reasonable to assume Congress
did not intend completely equal treatment between
registrants and non—registrants. Reasonable to infer
from legislative history that publication provision
in §6(b) primarily intended for non—registrants. Its
benefit to registrants incidental. Constructive
notice by publication in Federal Register adequate
wherLJdentity and location of affected person not
known or readily ascertainable.
CROSS REFERENCES: FIFRA §6(b) (Timeliness of Request for Hearing)
40 CFR §164.20(a)

-------
40 CFR §164.23(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.23(b)
CASE NAME: 2,4,5—T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: Order Denying Request for Certification
DATE: April 17, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Contemplates amendments to statement of issues;
this presumably will be done by Administrator only
for clear and ascertainable reasons. Otherwise
proceeding may never reach a conclusion if issues
are successively amended to include each new
substitute disclosed by the Responses filed.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.23(b)
CASE NAME: 2,45-T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: Order Denying Request for Certification
DATE: April 17, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Unclear from EDF motion or EPA support thereof if
major or minor enlargement of parameters of proceeding
is sought. Supporting justifications mostly mere
conjecture. Should Administrator, in response to proper
motion, grant a request for enlargement, no reason why
testimony as to expanded issues cannot be presented
at the end of its presentation. No time extension
needed.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §164.6(b)

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.23(b)
CASE NAME: 2,4,5—T
DOCKET #: 295
TITLE: Order Denying Request for Certification
DATE: April 17, 1974
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Denniston, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: One registrant acting on validly assumed starting
date has established a special Washington office
and obtained apartments for its personnel working
on the case. Delay will prejudice this registrant.
Strong public interest considerations which are not
served by inordinate delay.
CROSS REFERENCES: 40 CFR §6(b) (Delay of proceeding)

-------
40 CFR §164.24

-------
REFERENCE: 40 CFR §164.24
CASE NAME: Mirex
DOCKET #: 293
TITLE: Order
DATE: June 25, 1976
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: D. Harris, Administrative Law Judge
ABSTRACT: Order substituting as party the entity to which
registrations of previous party were transferred.
CROSS REFERENCES:

-------