40 C.F.R. § 154.10

Petitions to begin the Special Review process

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

The Administrator may evaluate a pesticide use under the criteria of § 154.7 either on his own initiative, or at the suggestion of any interested person.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Washington Toxics Coalition v. Env't Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Washington Toxics Coalition v. Env't Prot. Agency, 413 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 40 C.F.R. § 154.10 . FIFRA allows EPA to suspend a registration immediately for an “imminent hazard,” including an “unreasonable hazard to the survival of a species declared endangered or threatened” under the ESA.”

Coalition for a Sustainable Delta v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, 812 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (E.D. Cal. 2011). “(citing 40 C.F.R. § 154.10 ). The Ninth Circuit rejected EPA’s exhaustion argument, holding that “[n]either FIFRA nor the ESA, however, suggest any legislative intent to require exhaustion of the FIFRA remedy before seeking relief under the ESA.”

Paul E. Merrell v. Lee Thomas, & Ciba-Geigy Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986). “40 C.F.R. § 154.10 . Because the Administrator must release information supporting an application within thirty days of granting a registration, 7 U.”

Friends Animals v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (D. Or. 2019). “§ 136n(a)." Id. at 1298 . Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue directly, other district courts have reviewed an agency's decision not to initiate a Special Review.”

Defenders of Wildlife v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989). “, 40 C.F.R. § 154.10 (1987) (petitioning to initiate Special Review).”

Ellis v. Housenger, 252 F. Supp. 3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “” See 40 C.F.R. § 154.10 ; see also 40 C.F.R. § 154.”

Monsanto v. Durnell (2026). · cites it 2× “40 CFR §154.10 . If EPA refuses to do so, a party may seek judicial review of EPA’s decision.”

Nrdc v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2020). “Any interested person may petition the EPA to cancel a registered pesticide, 40 C.F.R. § 154.10 ; Wash. Toxics Coal. v.”

Nrdc v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2022). “40 C.F.R. § 154.10 . EPA is required to resolve those petitions “within a reasonable time.”

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.