C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDE PROGRAMS › PART 157—PACKAGING REQUIREMENTS FOR PESTICIDES AND DEVICES › Subpart B—Child-Resistant Packaging

40 C.F.R. § 157.21

Definitions

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

Terms used in this subpart shall have the following meanings:

Appropriate, when used with respect to child-resistant packaging, means that the packaging is chemically compatible with the pesticide contained therein.

Child-resistant packaging means packaging that is designed and constructed to be significantly difficult for children under 5 years of age to open or obtain a toxic or harmful amount of the substance contained therein within a reasonable time, and that is not difficult for normal adults to use properly.

Package or packaging means the immediate container or wrapping, including any attached closure(s), in which the pesticide is contained for distribution, sale, consumption, use or storage. The term does not include any shipping or bulk container used for transporting or delivering the pesticide unless it is the only such package.

Practicable, when used with respect to child-resistant packaging, means that the packaging can be mass produced and can be used in assembly line production.

Residential use means use of a pesticide or device:

(1) Directly on humans or pets;

(2) In, on, or around any structure, vehicle, article, surface or area associated with the household, including but not limited to areas such as non-agricultural outbuildings, non-commercial greenhouses, pleasure boats and recreational vehicles; or

(3) In or around any preschool or day care facility.

Technically feasible, when applied to child-resistant packaging, means that the technology exists to produce the child-resistant packaging for a particular pesticide.

Unit packaging means a package that is labeled with directions to use the entire contents of the package in a single application.

[51 FR 21286, June 11, 1986, as amended at 73 FR 75596, Dec. 12, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2000 · leading case: Lyall v. Leslie's Poolmart, 984 F. Supp. 587 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyall v. Leslie's Poolmart, 984 F. Supp. 587 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “” 40 C.F.R. § 157.21 (c). Although FIFRA gives the EPA broad authority to regulate packaging of pesticides, such as the chlorine tablets at issue in this case, plaintiffs argue that the sole area in which the EPA has exercised its authority and has actually enacted federal…”
Lucas v. Bio-Lab, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 2d 518 (E.D. Va. 2000). · cites it 3× “” 40 C.F.R. § 157.21 (c). And, except for Bio-Lab’s argument that EPA has regulated packaging because of the registration procedure, it is undisputed that EPA has promulgated no other packaging regulations.”
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.