40 C.F.R. § 153.155

Seed treatment products

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

(a) Pesticide products intended for use in treating seeds must contain an EPA-approved dye to impart an unnatural color to the seed, unless appropriate tolerances or other clearances have been established under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for residues of the pesticide.

(b) The following products are exempt from the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section:

(1) Products intended and labeled for use solely by commercial seed treaters, provided that the label bears a statement requiring the user to add an EPA-approved dye with the pesticide during the seed treatment process.

(2) Products intended and labeled for use solely as at-planting or hopper box treatments.

(3) Products which are gaseous in form or are used as fumigants.

(1) Sections 180.910, 180.920, and 180.950 if an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance has been established.

(2) Section 180.2010 if EPA has determined that residues of the dye will be present, if at all, at levels that are below the threshold of regulation.

(3) Section 180.2020 if it has been determined that no tolerance or exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is needed as a result of a determination by EPA that the use is unlikely to result in residues in food/feed.

[53 FR 15990, May 4, 1988, as amended at 66 FR 66772, Dec. 27, 2001; 69 FR 23117, Apr. 28, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2005 · leading case: Wayne F. Wuebker Janet E. Wuebker v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., Crop Life Am., Amicus on Behalf Of, 418 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wayne F. Wuebker Janet E. Wuebker v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., Crop Life Am., Amicus on Behalf Of, 418 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2005). “§§ 136 -136y, and a related Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 153.155 (b), preempt the state-law tort claims of Wayne Wuebker and his wife, Janet Wuebker.”

Wuebker v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 338 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Iowa 2004). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs further assert that their claims are not implicitly pre-empted by EPA regulation 40 C.F.R. § 153.155 (b), stating that there is no direct conflict between this EPA regulation and Plaintiffs’ state law claims, and the EPA dye exemption has no relevance to the issue in…”

Wayne Wuebker v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. (8th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “We conclude that the Wuebkers' claims are not preempted and reverse the order of summary judgment entered against them. I. Mr. Wuebker became seriously ill after using Agrox Premiere, a pesticide produced by Wilbur-Ellis as a hopper box seed treatment.”

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.