C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDE PROGRAMS › PART 152—PESTICIDE REGISTRATION AND CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES › Subpart F—Agency Review of Applications

40 C.F.R. § 152.102

Publication

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

The Agency will issue in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of each application for registration of a product that contains a new active ingredient or that proposes a new use. After registration of the product, the Agency will issue in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The notice of issuance will describe the new chemical or new use, summarize the Agency's regulatory conclusions, list missing data and the conditions for their submission, and respond to comments received on the notice of application.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . A new use is one that would “result in a significant increase in the level of exposure, or a change in the route of exposure, to the active ingredient of man or other organisms.”
Hardin v. Jackson, 625 F.3d 739 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “See 40 C.F.R. § 152.102 ; 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4).”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . In June 2008, the EPA published on its website a spirotetramat “Pesticide Fact Sheet,” which explained that spirotetramat had been conditionally registered, and summarized the EPA’s rationale behind that decision.”
Migrant Clinicians Network v. Usepa, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023). “” The EPA did not comment more broadly on the study’s claim regarding the supposed ineffectiveness of streptomycin.”
Hardin v. Jackson, 648 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “40 C.F.R § 152.102; 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4).”
Ellis v. Housenger, 252 F. Supp. 3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 3× “, which alternative pertains when the application “proposes a new use” for the pesticide, see 40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . When it publishes such a notice in the Federal Register, the EPA must “provide for a period of 30 days, in which any Federal agency or any other interested person…”
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Ariz. 2024). · cites it 3× “See also, 40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . 10 In this case, EPA did not follow the FIFRA notice-and comment provisions and 11 issued the 2020 Decision as an “unconditional” registration, which EPA may only grant if 12 it concludes that the pesticide (1) “will perform its intended function…”
Ctr. for Food Saf. v. Michael Regan (9th Cir. 2022). “FIFRA then requires EPA to “promptly” publish in the Federal Register “a notice of each application for any pesticide if it contains any new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed use pattern.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4).”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2011). “” 40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . A new use is one that would “result in a significant increase in the level of exposure, or a change in the route of exposure, to the active ingredient of man or other organisms.”
Hardin v. Leavitt (D.D.C. 2009). “40 C.F.R. § 152.102 . BASF holds registrations for three pesticides containing the active ingredient quinclorac: Facet 50 WP (“Facet 50”), Facet 75 DF (“Facet 75”), and Facet GR.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.