C.F.R. » Title 40 » CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY › SUBCHAPTER E—PESTICIDE PROGRAMS › PART 164—RULES OF PRACTICE GOVERNING HEARINGS, UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT, ARISING FROM REFUSALS TO REGISTER, CANCELLATIONS OF REGISTRATIONS, CHANGES OF CLASSIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS OF REGISTRATIONS AND OTHER HEARINGS CALLED PURSUANT TO SECTION 6 OF THE ACT › Subpart B—General Rules …

40 C.F.R. § 164.80

Order of proceeding and burden of proof

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

(a) At the hearing, the proponent of cancellation or change in classification has the burden of going forward to present an affirmative case for the cancellation or change in classification of the registration. In the case of the denial of an application for registration, the applicant shall have the burden of going forward. In the case of a hearing called by the Administrator, the Respondent has the burden of going forward to present an affirmative case as to the statement of issues. The party having the burden of going forward shall have the opportunity to submit evidence on rebuttal.

(b) On all issues arising in connection with the hearing, the ultimate burden of persuasion shall rest with the proponent of the registration.

(c) If any party, other than Respondent, after being duly notified, fails to appear at the hearing, he shall be deemed to have authorized the Administrative Law Judge to dismiss the proceeding with or without prejudice, as the Administrative Law Judge may determine, unless a motion excusing the failure to appear has been made and granted. In the event that a party appears at the hearing and no representative of the Agency appears, the Administrative Law Judge shall proceed ex parte to hear the evidence of the party: Provided, That failure on the part of Respondent to appear at a hearing shall not be deemed to be a waiver of Respondent's right to file proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and orders, to be served with a copy of the Administrative Law Judge's initial or accelerated decision, and to file exceptions with and to submit argument before the Administrator with respect thereto.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2011 · leading case: Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (2011) dcd · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (a). At an application hearing, the “applicant shall have the burden of going forward.”
Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency (2010) cadc “§ 136d(b), (d); see 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (b). Registrants can seek review of a cancellation decision by filing a petition for review in a court of appeals pursuant to Section 16, see 7 U.”
FMC Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2008) dcd “On November 7, 2006, FMC submitted a petition to amend an EPA regulation, 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (b), allocating the burden of proof in adjudicatory hearings concerning challenges or cancellations of extant agency orders.”
Fmc Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011) dcd “40 C.F.R. § 164.80 . At the conclusion of the cancellation hearing, the EPA Administrator issues an order either revoking the NOIC or cancelling the registration.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (2011) dcd · cites it 2× “” 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (a). At an application hearing, the “applicant shall have the burden of going forward.”
— 40 C.F.R. § 164.80(b) — 2 cases
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (2011) dcd “” 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (a). At an application hearing, the “applicant shall have the burden of going forward.”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (2011) dcd “” 40 C.F.R. § 164.80 (a). At an application hearing, the “applicant shall have the burden of going forward.”
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.