George's Pest Control Service, a Division of Cardiff Pest Control, a Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Good Law
572 F.2d 204·11 ERC (BNA) 1159·8 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20063·1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10810
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 11, 197776-3760California315 words

Opinion

Opinion

The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency found the petitioner had violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 135 , et seq. (Supp. V 1975), and assessed a civil penalty of $1,000. Section 136j(a)(2)(G) of Title 7 proscribes the use of “any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” Petitioner contends that the EPA failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove a violation of that section. The decision and order of the Administrator must be sustained if it is supported by a substantial evidence, when considered on the record as a whole. 7 U.S.C. § 136n(b) (Supp. V 1975). We affirm.

The record demonstrates that an employee of petitioner sprayed either DIAZINON 4S or DIAZINON 4E in the interior of a retail meat market. DIAZINON 4S and 4E are EPA registered pesticides and carry the following cautionary label:

The record contains substantial evidence to support the following conclusions: (1) the employee, in applying the pesticide, held the nozzle of the applicator eight to twelve inches away from crevices at the intersection of the wall and the floor and saturated a portion of the wall as a result [Record…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.