7 U.S.C. § 136a

Registration of pesticides

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Requirement of registration

Except as provided by this subchapter, no person in any State may distribute or sell to any person any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter. To the extent necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator may by regulation limit the distribution, sale, or use in any State of any pesticide that is not registered under this subchapter and that is not the subject of an experimental use permit under section 136c of this title or an emergency exemption under section 136p of this title.

(b) ExemptionsA pesticide which is not registered with the Administrator may be transferred if—(1) the transfer is from one registered establishment to another registered establishment operated by the same producer solely for packaging at the second establishment or for use as a constituent part of another pesticide produced at the second establishment; or(2) the transfer is pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of an experimental use permit.(c) Procedure for registration(1) Statement requiredEach applicant for registration of a pesticide shall file with the Administrator a statement which includes—(A) the name and address of the applicant and of any other person whose name will appear on the labeling;(B) the name of the pesticide;(C) a complete copy of the labeling of the pesticide, a statement of all claims to be made for it, and any directions for its use;(D) the complete formula of the pesticide;(E) a request that the pesticide be classified for general use or for restricted use, or for both; and(F) except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2)(D), if requested by the Administrator, a full description of the tests made and the results thereof upon which the claims are based, or alternatively a citation to data that appear in the public literature or that previously had been submitted to the Administrator and that the Administrator may consider in accordance with the following provisions:(i) With respect to pesticides containing active ingredients that are initially registered under this subchapter after September 30, 1978, data submitted to support the application for the original registration of the pesticide, or an application for an amendment adding any new use to the registration and that pertains solely to such new use, shall not, without the written permission of the original data submitter, be considered by the Administrator to support an application by another person during a period of ten years following the date the Administrator first registers the pesticide, except that such permission shall not be required in the case of defensive data.(ii) The period of exclusive data use provided under clause (i) shall be extended 1 additional year for each 3 minor uses registered after August 3, 1996, and within 7 years of the commencement of the exclusive use period, up to a total of 3 additional years for all minor uses registered by the Administrator if the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, determines that, based on information provided by an applicant for registration or a registrant, that—(I) there are insufficient efficacious alternative registered pesticides available for the use;(II) the alternatives to the minor use pesticide pose greater risks to the environment or human health;(III) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in managing pest resistance; or(IV) the minor use pesticide plays or will play a significant part in an integrated pest management program. The registration of a pesticide for a minor use on a crop grouping established by the Administrator shall be considered for purposes of this clause 1 minor use for each representative crop for which data are provided in the crop grouping. Any additional exclusive use period under this clause shall be modified as appropriate or terminated if the registrant voluntarily cancels the product or deletes from the registration the minor uses which formed the basis for the extension of the additional exclusive use period or if the Administrator determines that the registrant is not actually marketing the product for such minor uses.(iii) Except as otherwise provided in clause (i), with respect to data submitted after December 31, 1969, by an applicant or registrant to support an application for registration, experimental use permit, or amendment adding a new use to an existing registration, to support or maintain in effect an existing registration, or for reregistration, the Administrator may, without the permission of the original data submitter, consider any such item of data in support of an application by any other person (hereinafter in this subparagraph referred to as the “applicant”) within the fifteen-year period following the date the data were originally submitted only if the applicant has made an offer to compensate the original data submitter and submitted such offer to the Administrator accompanied by evidence of delivery to the original data submitter of the offer. The terms and amount of compensation may be fixed by agreement between the original data submitter and the applicant, or, failing such agreement, binding arbitration under this subparagraph. If, at the end of ninety days after the date of delivery to the original data submitter of the offer to compensate, the original data submitter and the applicant have neither agreed on the amount and terms of compensation nor on a procedure for reaching an agreement on the amount and terms of compensation, either person may initiate binding arbitration proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to appoint an arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators maintained by such Service. The procedure and rules of the Service shall be applicable to the selection of such arbitrator and to such arbitration proceedings, and the findings and determination of the arbitrator shall be final and conclusive, and no official or court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such findings and determination, except for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by one of the parties to the arbitration or the arbitrator where there is a verified complaint with supporting affidavits attesting to specific instances of such fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. The parties to the arbitration shall share equally in the payment of the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. If the Administrator determines that an original data submitter has failed to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in an arbitration proceeding as required by this subparagraph, or failed to comply with the terms of an agreement or arbitration decision concerning compensation under this subparagraph, the original data submitter shall forfeit the right to compensation for the use of the data in support of the application. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the Administrator determines that an applicant has failed to participate in a procedure for reaching an agreement or in an arbitration proceeding as required by this subparagraph, or failed to comply with the terms of an agreement or arbitration decision concerning compensation under this subparagraph, the Administrator shall deny the application or cancel the registration of the pesticide in support of which the data were used without further hearing. Before the Administrator takes action under either of the preceding two sentences, the Administrator shall furnish to the affected person, by certified mail, notice of intent to take action and allow fifteen days from the date of delivery of the notice for the affected person to respond. If a registration is denied or canceled under this subparagraph, the Administrator may make such order as the Administrator deems appropriate concerning the continued sale and use of existing stocks of such pesticide. Registration action by the Administrator shall not be delayed pending the fixing of compensation.(iv) After expiration of any period of exclusive use and any period for which compensation is required for the use of an item of data under clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), the Administrator may consider such item of data in support of an application by any other applicant without the permission of the original data submitter and without an offer having been received to compensate the original data submitter for the use of such item of data.(v) The period of exclusive use provided under clause (ii) shall not take effect until 1 year after August 3, 1996, except where an applicant or registrant is applying for the registration of a pesticide containing an active ingredient not previously registered.(vi) With respect to data submitted after August 3, 1996, by an applicant or registrant to support an amendment adding a new use to an existing registration that does not retain any period of exclusive use, if such data relates solely to a minor use of a pesticide, such data shall not, without the written permission of the original data submitter, be considered by the Administrator to support an application for a minor use by another person during the period of 10 years following the date of submission of such data. The applicant or registrant at the time the new minor use is requested shall notify the Administrator that to the best of their knowledge the exclusive use period for the pesticide has expired and that the data pertaining solely to the minor use of a pesticide is eligible for the provisions of this paragraph. If the minor use registration which is supported by data submitted pursuant to this subsection is voluntarily canceled or if such data are subsequently used to support a nonminor use, the data shall no longer be subject to the exclusive use provisions of this clause but shall instead be considered by the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of clause (i), as appropriate.(G) If the applicant is requesting that the registration or amendment to the registration of a pesticide be expedited, an explanation of the basis for the request must be submitted, in accordance with paragraph (10) of this subsection.(2) Data in support of registration(A) In general

The Administrator shall publish guidelines specifying the kinds of information which will be required to support the registration of a pesticide and shall revise such guidelines from time to time. If thereafter the Administrator requires any additional kind of information under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the Administrator shall permit sufficient time for applicants to obtain such additional information. The Administrator, in establishing standards for data requirements for the registration of pesticides with respect to minor uses, shall make such standards commensurate with the anticipated extent of use, pattern of use, the public health and agricultural need for such minor use, and the level and degree of potential beneficial or adverse effects on man and the environment. The Administrator shall not require a person to submit, in relation to a registration or reregistration of a pesticide for minor agricultural use under this subchapter, any field residue data from a geographic area where the pesticide will not be registered for such use. In the development of these standards, the Administrator shall consider the economic factors of potential national volume of use, extent of distribution, and the impact of the cost of meeting the requirements on the incentives for any potential registrant to undertake the development of the required data. Except as provided by section 136h of this title, within 30 days after the Administrator registers a pesticide under this subchapter the Administrator shall make available to the public the data called for in the registration statement together with such other scientific information as the Administrator deems relevant to the Administrator’s decision.

(B) Additional data(i) If the Administrator determines that additional data are required to maintain in effect an existing registration of a pesticide, the Administrator shall notify all existing registrants of the pesticide to which the determination relates and provide a list of such registrants to any interested person.(ii) Each registrant of such pesticide shall provide evidence within ninety days after receipt of notification that it is taking appropriate steps to secure the additional data that are required. Two or more registrants may agree to develop jointly, or to share in the cost of developing, such data if they agree and advise the Administrator of their intent within ninety days after notification. Any registrant who agrees to share in the cost of producing the data shall be entitled to examine and rely upon such data in support of maintenance of such registration. The Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the procedures prescribed by clause (iv) if a registrant fails to comply with this clause.(iii) If, at the end of sixty days after advising the Administrator of their agreement to develop jointly, or share in the cost of developing, data, the registrants have not further agreed on the terms of the data development arrangement or on a procedure for reaching such agreement, any of such registrants may initiate binding arbitration proceedings by requesting the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to appoint an arbitrator from the roster of arbitrators maintained by such Service. The procedure and rules of the Service shall be applicable to the selection of such arbitrator and to such arbitration proceedings, and the findings and determination of the arbitrator shall be final and conclusive, and no official or court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any such findings and determination, except for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by one of the parties to the arbitration or the arbitrator where there is a verified complaint with supporting affidavits attesting to specific instances of such fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. All parties to the arbitration shall share equally in the payment of the fee and expenses of the arbitrator. The Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the procedures prescribed by clause (iv) if a registrant fails to comply with this clause.(iv) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if the Administrator determines that a registrant, within the time required by the Administrator, has failed to take appropriate steps to secure the data required under this subparagraph, to participate in a procedure for reaching agreement concerning a joint data development arrangement under this subparagraph or in an arbitration proceeding as required by this subparagraph, or to comply with the terms of an agreement or arbitration decision concerning a joint data development arrangement under this subparagraph, the Administrator may issue a notice of intent to suspend such registrant’s registration of the pesticide for which additional data is required. The Administrator may include in the notice of intent to suspend such provisions as the Administrator deems appropriate concerning the continued sale and use of existing stocks of such pesticide. Any suspension proposed under this subparagraph shall become final and effective at the end of thirty days from receipt by the registrant of the notice of intent to suspend, unless during that time a request for hearing is made by a person adversely affected by the notice or the registrant has satisfied the Administrator that the registrant has complied fully with the requirements that served as a basis for the notice of intent to suspend. If a hearing is requested, a hearing shall be conducted under section 136d(d) of this title. The only matters for resolution at that hearing shall be whether the registrant has failed to take the action that served as the basis for the notice of intent to suspend the registration of the pesticide for which additional data is required, and whether the Administrator’s determination with respect to the disposition of existing stocks is consistent with this subchapter. If a hearing is held, a decision after completion of such hearing shall be final. Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, a hearing shall be held and a determination made within seventy-five days after receipt of a request for such hearing. Any registration suspended under this subparagraph shall be reinstated by the Administrator if the Administrator determines that the registrant has complied fully with the requirements that served as a basis for the suspension of the registration.(v) Any data submitted under this subparagraph shall be subject to the provisions of paragraph (1)(D). Whenever such data are submitted jointly by two or more registrants, an agent shall be agreed on at the time of the joint submission to handle any subsequent data compensation matters for the joint submitters of such data.(vi) Upon the request of a registrant the Administrator shall, in the case of a minor use, extend the deadline for the production of residue chemistry data under this subparagraph for data required solely to support that minor use until the final deadline for submission of data under section 136a–1 of this title for the other uses of the pesticide established as of August 3, 1996, if—(I) the data to support other uses of the pesticide on a food are being provided;(II) the registrant, in submitting a request for such an extension, provides a schedule, including interim dates to measure progress, to assure that the data production will be completed before the expiration of the extension period;(III) the Administrator has determined that such extension will not significantly delay the Administrator’s schedule for issuing a reregistration eligibility determination required under section 136a–1 of this title; and(IV) the Administrator has determined that based on existing data, such extension would not significantly increase the risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. If the Administrator grants an extension under this clause, the Administrator shall monitor the development of the data and shall ensure that the registrant is meeting the schedule for the production of the data. If the Administrator determines that the registrant is not meeting or has not met the schedule for the production of such data, the Administrator may proceed in accordance with clause (iv) regarding the continued registration of the affected products with the minor use and shall inform the public of such action. Notwithstanding the provisions of this clause, the Administrator may take action to modify or revoke the extension under this clause if the Administrator determines that the extension for the minor use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In such circumstance, the Administrator shall provide, in writing to the registrant, a notice revoking the extension of time for submission of data. Such data shall instead be due in accordance with the date established by the Administrator for the submission of the data.(vii) If the registrant does not commit to support a specific minor use of the pesticide, but is supporting and providing data in a timely and adequate fashion to support uses of the pesticide on a food, or if all uses of the pesticide are nonfood uses and the registrant does not commit to support a specific minor use of the pesticide but is supporting and providing data in a timely and adequate fashion to support other nonfood uses of the pesticide, the Administrator, at the written request of the registrant, shall not take any action pursuant to this clause in regard to such unsupported minor use until the final deadline established as of August 3, 1996, for the submission of data under section 136a–1 of this title for the supported uses identified pursuant to this clause unless the Administrator determines that the absence of the data is significant enough to cause human health or environmental concerns. On the basis of such determination, the Administrator may refuse the request for extension by the registrant. Upon receipt of the request from the registrant, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the receipt of the request and the effective date upon which the uses not being supported will be voluntarily deleted from the registration pursuant to section 136d(f)(1) of this title. If the Administrator grants an extension under this clause, the Administrator shall monitor the development of the data for the uses being supported and shall ensure that the registrant is meeting the schedule for the production of such data. If the Administrator determines that the registrant is not meeting or has not met the schedule for the production of such data, the Administrator may proceed in accordance with clause (iv) of this subparagraph regarding the continued registration of the affected products with the minor and other uses and shall inform the public of such action in accordance with section 136d(f)(2) of this title. Notwithstanding the provisions of this clause, the Administrator may deny, modify, or revoke the temporary extension under this subparagraph if the Administrator determines that the continuation of the minor use may cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. In the event of modification or revocation, the Administrator shall provide, in writing, to the registrant a notice revoking the temporary extension and establish a new effective date by which the minor use shall be deleted from the registration.(viii)(I) If data required to support registration of a pesticide under subparagraph (A) is requested by a Federal or State regulatory authority, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, coordinate data requirements, test protocols, timetables, and standards of review and reduce burdens and redundancy caused to the registrant by multiple requirements on the registrant.(II) The Administrator may enter into a cooperative agreement with a State to carry out subclause (I).(III) Not later than 1 year after August 3, 1996, the Administrator shall develop a process to identify and assist in alleviating future disparities between Federal and State data requirements.(C) Simplified procedures

Within nine months after September 30, 1978, the Administrator shall, by regulation, prescribe simplified procedures for the registration of pesticides, which shall include the provisions of subparagraph (D) of this paragraph.

(D) ExemptionNo applicant for registration of a pesticide who proposes to purchase a registered pesticide from another producer in order to formulate such purchased pesticide into the pesticide that is the subject of the application shall be required to—(i) submit or cite data pertaining to such purchased product; or(ii) offer to pay reasonable compensation otherwise required by paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection for the use of any such data.(E) Minor use waiverIn handling the registration of a pesticide for a minor use, the Administrator may waive otherwise applicable data requirements if the Administrator determines that the absence of such data will not prevent the Administrator from determining—(i) the incremental risk presented by the minor use of the pesticide; and(ii) that such risk, if any, would not be an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.(3) Application(A) In general

The Administrator shall review the data after receipt of the application and shall, as expeditiously as possible, either register the pesticide in accordance with paragraph (5), or notify the applicant of the Administrator’s determination that it does not comply with the provisions of the subchapter in accordance with paragraph (6).

(B) Identical or substantially similar(i) The Administrator shall, as expeditiously as possible, review and act on any application received by the Administrator that—(I) proposes the initial or amended registration of an end-use pesticide that, if registered as proposed, would be identical or substantially similar in composition and labeling to a currently-registered pesticide identified in the application, or that would differ in composition and labeling from such currently-registered pesticide only in ways that would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; or(II) proposes an amendment to the registration of a registered pesticide that does not require scientific review of data.(ii) In expediting the review of an application for an action described in clause (i), the Administrator shall—(I) review the application in accordance with section 136w–8(f)(4)(B) of this title and, if the application is found to be incomplete, reject the application;(II) not later than the applicable decision review time established pursuant to section 136w–8(f)(4)(B) of this title, or, if no review time is established, not later than 90 days after receiving a complete application, notify the registrant if the application has been granted or denied; and(III) if the application is denied, notify the registrant in writing of the specific reasons for the denial of the application.(C) Minor use registration(i) The Administrator shall, as expeditiously as possible, review and act on any complete application—(I) that proposes the initial registration of a new pesticide active ingredient if the active ingredient is proposed to be registered solely for minor uses, or proposes a registration amendment solely for minor uses to an existing registration; or(II) for a registration or a registration amendment that proposes significant minor uses.(ii) For the purposes of clause (i)—(I) the term “as expeditiously as possible” means that the Administrator shall, to the greatest extent practicable, complete a review and evaluation of all data, submitted with a complete application, within 12 months after the submission of the complete application, and the failure of the Administrator to complete such a review and evaluation under clause (i) shall not be subject to judicial review; and(II) the term “significant minor uses” means 3 or more minor uses proposed for every nonminor use, a minor use that would, in the judgment of the Administrator, serve as a replacement for any use which has been canceled in the 5 years preceding the receipt of the application, or a minor use that in the opinion of the Administrator would avoid the reissuance of an emergency exemption under section 136p of this title for that minor use.(D) Adequate time for submission of minor use data

If a registrant makes a request for a minor use waiver, regarding data required by the Administrator, pursuant to paragraph (2)(E), and if the Administrator denies in whole or in part such data waiver request, the registrant shall have a full-time period for providing such data. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “full-time period” means the time period originally established by the Administrator for submission of such data, beginning with the date of receipt by the registrant of the Administrator’s notice of denial.

(4) Notice of application

The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register, promptly after receipt of the statement and other data required pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2), a notice of each application for registration of any pesticide if it contains any new active ingredient or if it would entail a changed use pattern. The notice shall provide for a period of 30 days in which any Federal agency or any other interested person may comment.

(5) Approval of registrationThe Administrator shall register a pesticide if the Administrator determines that, when considered with any restrictions imposed under subsection (d)—(A) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it;(B) its labeling and other material required to be submitted comply with the requirements of this subchapter;(C) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and(D) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.The Administrator shall not make any lack of essentiality a criterion for denying registration of any pesticide. Where two pesticides meet the requirements of this paragraph, one should not be registered in preference to the other. In considering an application for the registration of a pesticide, the Administrator may waive data requirements pertaining to efficacy, in which event the Administrator may register the pesticide without determining that the pesticide’s composition is such as to warrant proposed claims of efficacy. If a pesticide is found to be efficacious by any State under section 136v(c) of this title, a presumption is established that the Administrator shall waive data requirements pertaining to efficacy for use of the pesticide in such State.(6) Denial of registration

If the Administrator determines that the requirements of paragraph (5) for registration are not satisfied, the Administrator shall notify the applicant for registration of the Administrator’s determination and of the Administrator’s reasons (including the factual basis) therefor, and that, unless the applicant corrects the conditions and notifies the Administrator thereof during the 30-day period beginning with the day after the date on which the applicant receives the notice, the Administrator may refuse to register the pesticide. Whenever the Administrator refuses to register a pesticide, the Administrator shall notify the applicant of the Administrator’s decision and of the Administrator’s reasons (including the factual basis) therefor. The Administrator shall promptly publish in the Federal Register notice of such denial of registration and the reasons therefor. Upon such notification, the applicant for registration or other interested person with the concurrence of the applicant shall have the same remedies as provided for in section 136d of this title.

(7) Registration under special circumstancesNotwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (5)—(A) The Administrator may conditionally register or amend the registration of a pesticide if the Administrator determines that (i) the pesticide and proposed use are identical or substantially similar to any currently registered pesticide and use thereof, or differ only in ways that would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and (ii) approving the registration or amendment in the manner proposed by the applicant would not significantly increase the risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. An applicant seeking conditional registration or amended registration under this subparagraph shall submit such data as would be required to obtain registration of a similar pesticide under paragraph (5). If the applicant is unable to submit an item of data because it has not yet been generated, the Administrator may register or amend the registration of the pesticide under such conditions as will require the submission of such data not later than the time such data are required to be submitted with respect to similar pesticides already registered under this subchapter.(B) The Administrator may conditionally amend the registration of a pesticide to permit additional uses of such pesticide notwithstanding that data concerning the pesticide may be insufficient to support an unconditional amendment, if the Administrator determines that (i) the applicant has submitted satisfactory data pertaining to the proposed additional use, and (ii) amending the registration in the manner proposed by the applicant would not significantly increase the risk of any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this subparagraph, no registration of a pesticide may be amended to permit an additional use of such pesticide if the Administrator has issued a notice stating that such pesticide, or any ingredient thereof, meets or exceeds risk criteria associated in whole or in part with human dietary exposure enumerated in regulations issued under this subchapter, and during the pendency of any risk-benefit evaluation initiated by such notice, if (I) the additional use of such pesticide involves a major food or feed crop, or (II) the additional use of such pesticide involves a minor food or feed crop and the Administrator determines, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, there is available an effective alternative pesticide that does not meet or exceed such risk criteria. An applicant seeking amended registration under this subparagraph shall submit such data as would be required to obtain registration of a similar pesticide under paragraph (5). If the applicant is unable to submit an item of data (other than data pertaining to the proposed additional use) because it has not yet been generated, the Administrator may amend the registration under such conditions as will require the submission of such data not later than the time such data are required to be submitted with respect to similar pesticides already registered under this subchapter.(C) The Administrator may conditionally register a pesticide containing an active ingredient not contained in any currently registered pesticide for a period reasonably sufficient for the generation and submission of required data (which are lacking because a period reasonably sufficient for generation of the data has not elapsed since the Administrator first imposed the data requirement) on the condition that by the end of such period the Administrator receives such data and the data do not meet or exceed risk criteria enumerated in regulations issued under this subchapter, and on such other conditions as the Administrator may prescribe. A conditional registration under this subparagraph shall be granted only if the Administrator determines that use of the pesticide during such period will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is in the public interest.(8) Interim administrative review

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, the Administrator may not initiate a public interim administrative review process to develop a risk-benefit evaluation of the ingredients of a pesticide or any of its uses prior to initiating a formal action to cancel, suspend, or deny registration of such pesticide, required under this subchapter, unless such interim administrative process is based on a validated test or other significant evidence raising prudent concerns of unreasonable adverse risk to man or to the environment. Notice of the definition of the terms “validated test” and “other significant evidence” as used herein shall be published by the Administrator in the Federal Register.

(9) Labeling(A) Additional statements

Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), it shall not be a violation of this subchapter for a registrant to modify the labeling of an antimicrobial pesticide product to include relevant information on product efficacy, product composition, container composition or design, or other characteristics that do not relate to any pesticidal claim or pesticidal activity.

(B) Requirements

Proposed labeling information under subparagraph (A) shall not be false or misleading, shall not conflict with or detract from any statement required by law or the Administrator as a condition of registration, and shall be substantiated on the request of the Administrator.

(C) Notification and disapproval(i) NotificationA registration may be modified under subparagraph (A) if—(I) the registrant notifies the Administrator in writing not later than 60 days prior to distribution or sale of a product bearing the modified labeling; and(II) the Administrator does not disapprove of the modification under clause (ii).(ii) Disapproval

Not later than 30 days after receipt of a notification under clause (i), the Administrator may disapprove the modification by sending the registrant notification in writing stating that the proposed language is not acceptable and stating the reasons why the Administrator finds the proposed modification unacceptable.

(iii) Restriction on sale

A registrant may not sell or distribute a product bearing a disapproved modification.

(iv) Objection

A registrant may file an objection in writing to a disapproval under clause (ii) not later than 30 days after receipt of notification of the disapproval.

(v) Final action

A decision by the Administrator following receipt and consideration of an objection filed under clause (iv) shall be considered a final agency action.

(D) Use dilutionThe label or labeling required under this subchapter for an antimicrobial pesticide that is or may be diluted for use may have a different statement of caution or protective measures for use of the recommended diluted solution of the pesticide than for use of a concentrate of the pesticide if the Administrator determines that—(i) adequate data have been submitted to support the statement proposed for the diluted solution uses; and(ii) the label or labeling provides adequate protection for exposure to the diluted solution of the pesticide.(10) Expedited registration of pesticides(A) Not later than 1 year after August 3, 1996, the Administrator shall, utilizing public comment, develop procedures and guidelines, and expedite the review of an application for registration of a pesticide or an amendment to a registration that satisfies such guidelines.(B) Any application for registration or an amendment, including biological and conventional pesticides, will be considered for expedited review under this paragraph. An application for registration or an amendment shall qualify for expedited review if use of the pesticide proposed by the application may reasonably be expected to accomplish 1 or more of the following:(i) Reduce the risks of pesticides to human health.(ii) Reduce the risks of pesticides to nontarget organisms.(iii) Reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface water, or other valued environmental resources.(iv) Broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies, or make such strategies more available or more effective.(C) The Administrator, not later than 30 days after receipt of an application for expedited review, shall notify the applicant whether the application is complete. If it is found to be incomplete, the Administrator may either reject the request for expedited review or ask the applicant for additional information to satisfy the guidelines developed under subparagraph (A).(11) Interagency working group(A) Definition of covered agencyIn this paragraph, the term “covered agency” means any of the following:(i) The Department of Agriculture.(ii) The Department of Commerce.(iii) The Department of the Interior.(iv) The Council on Environmental Quality.(v) The Environmental Protection Agency.(B) Establishment

The Administrator shall establish an interagency working group, to be comprised of representatives from each covered agency, to provide recommendations regarding, and to implement a strategy for improving, the consultation process required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) for pesticide registration and registration review.

(C) DutiesThe interagency working group established under subparagraph (B) shall—(i) analyze relevant Federal law (including regulations) and case law for purposes of providing an outline of the legal and regulatory framework for the consultation process referred to in that subparagraph, including—(I) requirements under this subchapter and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);(II) Federal case law regarding the intersection of this subchapter and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and(III) Federal regulations relating to the pesticide consultation process;(ii) provide advice regarding methods of—(I) defining the scope of actions of the covered agencies that are subject to the consultation requirement referred to in subparagraph (B); and(II) properly identifying and classifying effects of actions of the covered agencies with respect to that consultation requirement;(iii) identify the obligations and limitations under Federal law of each covered agency for purposes of providing a legal and regulatory framework for developing the recommendations referred to in subparagraph (B);(iv) review practices for the consultation referred to in subparagraph (B) to identify problem areas, areas for improvement, and best practices for conducting that consultation among the covered agencies;(v) develop scientific and policy approaches to increase the accuracy and timeliness of the process for that consultation, in accordance with requirements of this subchapter and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including—(I) processes to efficiently share data and coordinate analyses among the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency;(II) a streamlined process for identifying which actions require no consultation, informal consultation, or formal consultation;(III) an approach that will provide clarity with respect to what constitutes the best scientific and commercial data available in the fields of pesticide use and ecological risk assessment, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)); and(IV) approaches that enable the Environmental Protection Agency to better assist the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce in carrying out obligations under that section in a timely and efficient manner; and(vi) propose and implement a strategy to implement approaches to consultations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and document that strategy in a memorandum of understanding, revised regulations, or another appropriate format to promote durable cooperation among the covered agencies.(D) Reports(i) Progress reports(I) In general

Not later than 18 months after December 20, 2018, the Administrator, in coordination with the head of each other covered agency, shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing the progress of the working group in developing the recommendations under subparagraph (B).

(II) RequirementsThe report under this clause shall—(aa) reflect the perspectives of each covered agency; and(bb) identify areas of new consensus and continuing topics of disagreement and debate.(ii) Results(I) In generalNot later than 1 year after December 20, 2018, the Administrator, in coordination with the head of each other covered agency, shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing—(aa) the recommendations developed under subparagraph (B); and(bb) plans for implementation of those recommendations.(II) RequirementsThe report under this clause shall—(aa) reflect the perspectives of each covered agency; and(bb) identify areas of consensus and continuing topics of disagreement and debate, if any.(iii) ImplementationNot later than 1 year after the date of submission of the report under clause (i), the Administrator, in coordination with the head of each other covered agency, shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing—(I) the implementation of the recommendations referred to in that clause;(II) the extent to which that implementation improved the consultation process referred to in subparagraph (B); and(III) any additional recommendations for improvements to the process described in subparagraph (B).(iv) Other reportsNot later than the date that is 180 days after the date of submission of the report under clause (iii), and not less frequently than once every 180 days thereafter during the 5-year period beginning on that date, the Administrator, in coordination with the head of each other covered agency, shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report describing—(I) the implementation of the recommendations referred to in that clause;(II) the extent to which that implementation improved the consultation process referred to in subparagraph (B); and(III) any additional recommendations for improvements to the process described in subparagraph (B).(E) Consultation with private sectorIn carrying out the duties under this paragraph, the working group shall, as appropriate—(i) consult with, representatives of interested industry stakeholders and nongovernmental organizations; and(ii) take into consideration factors, such as actual and potential differences in interest between, and the views of, those stakeholders and organizations.(F) Chapter 10 of title 5

Chapter 10 of title 5 shall not apply to the working group established under this paragraph.

(G) Savings clauseNothing in this paragraph supersedes any provision of—(i) this subchapter; or(ii) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the requirements under section 7 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 1536).(d) Classification of pesticides(1) Classification for general use, restricted use, or both(A) As a part of the registration of a pesticide the Administrator shall classify it as being for general use or for restricted use. If the Administrator determines that some of the uses for which the pesticide is registered should be for general use and that other uses for which it is registered should be for restricted use, the Administrator shall classify it for both general use and restricted use. Pesticide uses may be classified by regulation on the initial classification, and registered pesticides may be classified prior to reregistration. If some of the uses of the pesticide are classified for general use, and other uses are classified for restricted use, the directions relating to its general uses shall be clearly separated and distinguished from those directions relating to its restricted uses. The Administrator may require that its packaging and labeling for restricted uses shall be clearly distinguishable from its packaging and labeling for general uses.(B) If the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when applied in accordance with its directions for use, warnings and cautions and for the uses for which it is registered, or for one or more of such uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized practice, will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator will classify the pesticide, or the particular use or uses of the pesticide to which the determination applies, for general use.(C) If the Administrator determines that the pesticide, when applied in accordance with its directions for use, warnings and cautions and for the uses for which it is registered, or for one or more of such uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized practice, may generally cause, without additional regulatory restrictions, unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including injury to the applicator, the Administrator shall classify the pesticide, or the particular use or uses to which the determination applies, for restricted use:(i) If the Administrator classifies a pesticide, or one or more uses of such pesticide, for restricted use because of a determination that the acute dermal or inhalation toxicity of the pesticide presents a hazard to the applicator or other persons, the pesticide shall be applied for any use to which the restricted classification applies only by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.(ii) If the Administrator classifies a pesticide, or one or more uses of such pesticide, for restricted use because of a determination that its use without additional regulatory restriction may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the pesticide shall be applied for any use to which the determination applies only by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator, or subject to such other restrictions as the Administrator may provide by regulation. Any such regulation shall be reviewable in the appropriate court of appeals upon petition of a person adversely affected filed within 60 days of the publication of the regulation in final form.(2) Change in classification

If the Administrator determines that a change in the classification of any use of a pesticide from general use to restricted use is necessary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, the Administrator shall notify the registrant of such pesticide of such determination at least forty-five days before making the change and shall publish the proposed change in the Federal Register. The registrant, or other interested person with the concurrence of the registrant, may seek relief from such determination under section 136d(b) of this title.

(3) Change in classification from restricted use to general use

The registrant of any pesticide with one or more uses classified for restricted use may petition the Administrator to change any such classification from restricted to general use. Such petition shall set out the basis for the registrant’s position that restricted use classification is unnecessary because classification of the pesticide for general use would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The Administrator, within sixty days after receiving such petition, shall notify the registrant whether the petition has been granted or denied. Any denial shall contain an explanation therefor and any such denial shall be subject to judicial review under section 136n of this title.

(e) Products with same formulation and claims

Products which have the same formulation, are manufactured by the same person, the labeling of which contains the same claims, and the labels of which bear a designation identifying the product as the same pesticide may be registered as a single pesticide; and additional names and labels shall be added to the registration by supplemental statements.

(f) Miscellaneous(1) Effect of change of labeling or formulation

If the labeling or formulation for a pesticide is changed, the registration shall be amended to reflect such change if the Administrator determines that the change will not violate any provision of this subchapter.

(2) Registration not a defense

In no event shall registration of an article be construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under this subchapter. As long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect registration of a pesticide shall be prima facie evidence that the pesticide, its labeling and packaging comply with the registration provisions of the subchapter.

(3) Authority to consult other Federal agencies

In connection with consideration of any registration or application for registration under this section, the Administrator may consult with any other Federal agency.

(4) Mixtures of nitrogen stabilizers and fertilizer productsAny mixture or other combination of—(A) 1 or more nitrogen stabilizers registered under this subchapter; and(B) 1 or more fertilizer products,shall not be subject to the provisions of this section or sections 136a–1, 136c, 136e, 136m, and 136o(a)(2) of this title if the mixture or other combination is accompanied by the labeling required under this subchapter for the nitrogen stabilizer contained in the mixture or other combination, the mixture or combination is mixed or combined in accordance with such labeling, and the mixture or combination does not contain any active ingredient other than the nitrogen stabilizer.(5) Bilingual labeling(A) Requirement(i) In generalSubject to clause (ii), not later than the applicable deadline described in subparagraph (B), each registered pesticide product released for shipment shall include—(I) the translation of the parts of the labeling contained in the Spanish Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G) on the product container; or(II) a link to such translation via scannable technology or other electronic methods readily accessible on the product label.(ii) ExceptionsNotwithstanding clause (i)—(I) an antimicrobial pesticide product may, in lieu of including a translation or a link under clause (i), provide a link to the safety data sheets in Spanish via scannable technology or other electronic methods readily accessible on the product label; or(II) a non-agricultural pesticide product that is not classified by the Administrator as restricted use under subsection (d)(1)(A) may, in lieu of including a translation or a link under clause (i), provide a link to the safety data sheets in Spanish via scannable technology or other electronic methods readily accessible on the product label.(B) Deadlines for bilingual labeling(i) Pesticide products classified as restricted use

In the case of pesticide products classified by the Administrator as restricted use under subsection (d)(1)(A), the deadline specified in this subparagraph is the date that is 3 years following December 29, 2022.

(ii) Pesticide products not classified as restricted useIn the case of pesticide products not classified by the Administrator as restricted use under subsection (d)(1)(A), the deadline specified in this subparagraph shall be as follows:(I) Agricultural(aa) Acute Toxicity Category I

For agricultural pesticides classified as Acute Toxicity Category I, the date that is 3 years after December 29, 2022.

(bb) Acute Toxicity Category II

For agricultural pesticides classified as Acute Toxicity Category II, the date that is 5 years after December 29, 2022.

(II) Antimicrobial and non-agricultural(aa) Acute Toxicity Category I

For antimicrobial and non-agricultural pesticide products classified as Acute Toxicity Category I, the date that is 4 years after December 29, 2022.

(bb) Acute Toxicity Category II

For antimicrobial and non-agricultural pesticide products classified as Acute Toxicity Category II, the date that is 6 years after December 29, 2022.

(III) Other pesticide products

With respect to pesticide products not described in subclause (I) or (II), the date that is 8 years after December 29, 2022.

In carrying out this paragraph, the Administrator shall allow translations of the parts of the label of a pesticide contained in the Spanish Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G) and scannable technology or other electronic methods to be added using non-notification procedures.

(II) Non-notification procedure defined

In this clause, the term “non-notification procedure” refers to a procedure under which a change may be made to a pesticide label without notifying the Administrator.

(ii) Cooperation and consultation

In carrying out this paragraph, the Administrator shall cooperate and consult with State lead agencies for pesticide regulation for the purpose of implementing bilingual labeling as provided in this paragraph as expeditiously as possible.

(iii) End use labeling

The labeling requirements of this paragraph shall apply to end use product labels.

(iv) Incorporation timeframeAfter initial translation deadlines provided in subparagraph (B), updates to the Spanish Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G) shall be incorporated into labeling on the earlier of—(I) in the case of agricultural use pesticide labels, as determined by the Administrator—(aa) 1 year after the date of publication of the updated Spanish Label Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G); or(bb) the released for shipment date specified on the EPA Stamped Approved Label after the pesticide label is next changed or amended following the date of publication of the updated Spanish Label Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G); and(II) in the case of antimicrobial and non-agricultural use pesticide labels, as determined by the Administrator—(aa) 2 years after the date of publication of the updated Spanish Label Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G); or(bb) the released for shipment date specified on the EPA Stamped Approved Label after the pesticide label is next changed or amended following the date of publication of the updated Spanish Label Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G).(v) Notification of updates to the Spanish Translation Guide for Pesticide Labeling

Not later than 10 days after updating the Spanish Translation Guide described in subparagraph (G), the Administrator shall notify registrants of the update to such guide.

(D) Accessibility of bilingual labeling for farm workers

Not later than 180 days after December 29, 2022, to the maximum extent practicable, the Administrator shall seek stakeholder input on ways to make bilingual labeling required under this paragraph accessible to farm workers.

(E) Plan

Not later than 3 years after December 29, 2022, the Administrator shall implement a plan to ensure that farm workers have access to the bilingual labeling required under this paragraph.

(F) Reporting

Not later than 2 years after December 29, 2022, the Administrator shall develop and implement, and make publicly available, a plan for tracking the adoption of the bilingual labeling required under this paragraph.

(G) Spanish Translation Guide described

The Spanish Translation Guide described in this subparagraph is the Spanish Translation Guide for Pesticide Labeling issued in October 2019, as in effect on December 29, 2022, and any successor guides or amendments to such guide.

(g) Registration review(1) General rule(A) Periodic review(i) In general

The registrations of pesticides are to be periodically reviewed.

(ii) Regulations

In accordance with this subparagraph, the Administrator shall by regulation establish a procedure for accomplishing the periodic review of registrations.

(iii) Initial registration reviewThe Administrator shall complete the registration review of each pesticide or pesticide case, which may be composed of 1 or more active ingredients and the products associated with the active ingredients, not later than the later of—(I)October 1, 2022; or(II) the date that is 15 years after the date on which the first pesticide containing a new active ingredient is registered.(iv) Subsequent registration review

Not later than 15 years after the date on which the initial registration review is completed under clause (iii) and each 15 years thereafter, the Administrator shall complete a subsequent registration review for each pesticide or pesticide case.

(v) Cancellation

No registration shall be canceled as a result of the registration review process unless the Administrator follows the procedures and substantive requirements of section 136d of this title.

(B) Docketing(i) In generalSubject to clause (ii), after meeting with 1 or more individuals that are not government employees to discuss matters relating to a registration review, the Administrator shall place in the docket minutes of the meeting, a list of attendees, and any documents exchanged at the meeting, not later than the earlier of—(I) the date that is 45 days after the meeting; or(II) the date of issuance of the registration review decision.(ii) Protected information

The Administrator shall identify, but not include in the docket, any confidential business information the disclosure of which is prohibited by section 136h of this title.

Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administrator from undertaking any other review of a pesticide pursuant to this subchapter.

(2) Data(A) Submission required

The Administrator shall use the authority in subsection (c)(2)(B) to require the submission of data when such data are necessary for a registration review.

(B) Data submission, compensation, and exemption

For purposes of this subsection, the provisions of subsections (c)(1), (c)(2)(B), and (c)(2)(D) shall be utilized for and be applicable to any data required for registration review.

(h) Registration requirements for antimicrobial pesticides(1) Evaluation of processTo the maximum extent practicable consistent with the degrees of risk presented by an antimicrobial pesticide and the type of review appropriate to evaluate the risks, the Administrator shall identify and evaluate reforms to the antimicrobial registration process that would reduce review periods existing as of August 3, 1996, for antimicrobial pesticide product registration applications and applications for amended registration of antimicrobial pesticide products, including—(A) new antimicrobial active ingredients;(B) new antimicrobial end-use products;(C) substantially similar or identical antimicrobial pesticides; and(D) amendments to antimicrobial pesticide registrations.(2) Review time period reduction goalEach reform identified under paragraph (1) shall be designed to achieve the goal of reducing the review period following submission of a complete application, consistent with the degree of risk, to a period of not more than—(A) 540 days for a new antimicrobial active ingredient pesticide registration;(B) 270 days for a new antimicrobial use of a registered active ingredient;(C) 120 days for any other new antimicrobial product;(D) 90 days for a substantially similar or identical antimicrobial product;(E) 90 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial registration that does not require scientific review of data; and(F) 120 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial registration that requires scientific review of data and that is not otherwise described in this paragraph.(3) Implementation(A) Proposed rulemaking(i) Issuance

Not later than 270 days after August 3, 1996, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register proposed regulations to accelerate and improve the review of antimicrobial pesticide products designed to implement, to the extent practicable, the goals set forth in paragraph (2).

(ii) RequirementsProposed regulations issued under clause (i) shall—(I) define the various classes of antimicrobial use patterns, including household, industrial, and institutional disinfectants and sanitizing pesticides, preservatives, water treatment, and pulp and paper mill additives, and other such products intended to disinfect, sanitize, reduce, or mitigate growth or development of microbiological organisms, or protect inanimate objects, industrial processes or systems, surfaces, water, or other chemical substances from contamination, fouling, or deterioration caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, algae, or slime;(II) differentiate the types of review undertaken for antimicrobial pesticides;(III) conform the degree and type of review to the risks and benefits presented by antimicrobial pesticides and the function of review under this subchapter, considering the use patterns of the product, toxicity, expected exposure, and product type;(IV) ensure that the registration process is sufficient to maintain antimicrobial pesticide efficacy and that antimicrobial pesticide products continue to meet product performance standards and effectiveness levels for each type of label claim made; and(V) implement effective and reliable deadlines for process management.(iii) Comments

In developing the proposed regulations, the Administrator shall solicit the views from registrants and other affected parties to maximize the effectiveness of the rule development process.

(B) Final regulations(i) Issuance

The Administrator shall issue final regulations not later than 240 days after the close of the comment period for the proposed regulations.

(ii) Failure to meet goal

If a goal described in paragraph (2) is not met by the final regulations, the Administrator shall identify the goal, explain why the goal was not attained, describe the element of the regulations included instead, and identify future steps to attain the goal.

(iii) RequirementsIn issuing final regulations, the Administrator shall—(I) consider the establishment of a certification process for regulatory actions involving risks that can be responsibly managed, consistent with the degree of risk, in the most cost-efficient manner;(II) consider the establishment of a certification process by approved laboratories as an adjunct to the review process;(III) use all appropriate and cost-effective review mechanisms, including—(aa) expanded use of notification and non-notification procedures;(bb) revised procedures for application review; and(cc) allocation of appropriate resources to ensure streamlined management of antimicrobial pesticide registrations; and(IV) clarify criteria for determination of the completeness of an application.(C) Expedited review

This subsection does not affect the requirements or extend the deadlines or review periods contained in subsection (c)(3).

(D) Alternative review periodsIf the final regulations to carry out this paragraph are not effective 630 days after August 3, 1996, until the final regulations become effective, the review period, beginning on the date of receipt by the Agency of a complete application, shall be—(i) 2 years for a new antimicrobial active ingredient pesticide registration;(ii) 1 year for a new antimicrobial use of a registered active ingredient;(iii) 180 days for any other new antimicrobial product;(iv) 90 days for a substantially similar or identical antimicrobial product;(v) 90 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial registration that does not require scientific review of data; and(vi) 120 days for an amendment to an antimicrobial registration that requires scientific review of data and that is not otherwise described in this subparagraph.(E) Wood preservatives

An application for the registration, or for an amendment to the registration, of a wood preservative product for which a claim of pesticidal activity listed in section 136(mm) of this title is made (regardless of any other pesticidal claim that is made with respect to the product) shall be reviewed by the Administrator within the same period as that established under this paragraph for an antimicrobial pesticide product application, consistent with the degree of risk posed by the use of the wood preservative product, if the application requires the applicant to satisfy the same data requirements as are required to support an application for a wood preservative product that is an antimicrobial pesticide.

(F) Notification(i) In general

Subject to clause (iii), the Administrator shall notify an applicant whether an application has been granted or denied not later than the final day of the appropriate review period under this paragraph, unless the applicant and the Administrator agree to a later date.

(ii) Final decision

If the Administrator fails to notify an applicant within the period of time required under clause (i), the failure shall be considered an agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed for purposes of judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5.

(iii) Exemption

This subparagraph does not apply to an application for an antimicrobial pesticide that is filed under subsection (c)(3)(B) prior to 90 days after August 3, 1996.

(iv) LimitationNotwithstanding clause (ii), the failure of the Administrator to notify an applicant for an amendment to a registration for an antimicrobial pesticide shall not be judicially reviewable in a Federal or State court if the amendment requires scientific review of data within—(I) the time period specified in subparagraph (D)(vi), in the absence of a final regulation under subparagraph (B); or(II) the time period specified in paragraph (2)(F), if adopted in a final regulation under subparagraph (B).(4) Annual report(A) Submission

Beginning on August 3, 1996, and ending on the date that the goals under paragraph (2) are achieved, the Administrator shall, not later than March 1 of each year, prepare and submit an annual report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.

(B) RequirementsA report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall include a description of—(i) measures taken to reduce the backlog of pending registration applications;(ii) progress toward achieving reforms under this subsection; and(iii) recommendations to improve the activities of the Agency pertaining to antimicrobial registrations.(June 25, 1947, ch. 125, § 3, as added Pub. L. 92–516, § 2, Oct. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 979; amended Pub. L. 94–140, § 12, Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 755; Pub. L. 95–396, §§ 2(a), 3–8, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 820, 824–827; Pub. L. 100–532, title I, §§ 102(b), 103, title VI, § 601(b)(1), title VIII, § 801(b), Oct. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 2667, 2677, 2680; Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, § 1492, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3628; Pub. L. 102–237, title X, § 1006(a)(3), (b)(1), (2), (c), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1894–1896; Pub. L. 104–170, title I, §§ 105(b), 106(b), title II, §§ 210(b), (c)(1), (d), (e), (f)(2), 222–224, 231, 250, Aug. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 1491, 1494–1497, 1499, 1503, 1504, 1508, 1510; Pub. L. 108–199, div. G, title V, § 501(b), Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 419; Pub. L. 110–94, §§ 2, 3, Oct. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 1000; Pub. L. 115–334, title X, § 10115, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4914; Pub. L. 117–286, § 4(a)(21), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4307; Pub. L. 117–328, div. HH, title VI, § 702, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5996.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, referred to in subsec. (c)(11)(C)(i)(I), (II), (v), (vi), (G)(ii), is Pub. L. 93–205, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884, which is classified generally to chapter 35 (§ 1531 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1531 of Title 16 and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 3 of act June 25, 1947, was classified to section 135a of this title prior to amendment of act June 25, 1947, by Pub. L. 92–516.

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (c)(11)(F). Pub. L. 117–286 substituted “Chapter 10 of title 5” for “Federal Advisory Committee Act” in heading and “Chapter 10 of title 5” for “The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)” in text.

Subsec. (f)(5). Pub. L. 117–328 added par. (5).

2018—Subsec. (c)(11). Pub. L. 115–334 added par. (11).

2007—Subsec. (c)(3)(B)(ii)(I). Pub. L. 110–94, § 2(1), substituted “review the application in accordance with section 136w–8(f)(4)(B) of this title and,” for “within 45 days after receiving the application, notify the registrant whether or not the application is complete and,”.

Subsec. (c)(3)(B)(ii)(II). Pub. L. 110–94, § 2(2), substituted “not later than the applicable decision review time established pursuant to section 136w–8(f)(4)(B) of this title, or, if no review time is established, not later than” for “within”.

Subsec. (g)(1)(A). Pub. L. 110–94, § 3(1), designated first sentence as cl. (i) and inserted heading, designated second sentence as cl. (ii), inserted heading, and substituted “In accordance with this subparagraph, the Administrator” for “The Administrator”, added cls. (iii) and (iv), designated fourth sentence as cl. (v) and inserted heading, and struck out third sentence which read as follows: “The goal of these regulations shall be a review of a pesticide’s registration every 15 years.”

Subsec. (g)(1)(B), (C). Pub. L. 110–94, § 3(2), (3), added subpar. (B) and redesignated former subpar. (B) as (C).

2004—Subsec. (h)(2)(F). Pub. L. 108–199, § 501(b)(1), substituted “120 days” for “90 to 180 days”.

Subsec. (h)(3)(D)(vi). Pub. L. 108–199, § 501(b)(2)(A), substituted “120 days” for “240 days”.

Subsec. (h)(3)(F)(iv). Pub. L. 108–199, § 501(b)(2)(B), added cl. (iv).

1996—Subsec. (c)(1)(F)(ii) to (vi). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(b), added cls. (ii), (v), and (vi), redesignated former cls. (ii) and (iii) as (iii) and (iv), respectively, and in cl. (iv) substituted “(i), (ii), and (iii)” for “(i) and (ii)”.

Subsec. (c)(1)(G). Pub. L. 104–170, § 250(1), added subpar. (G).

Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 104–170, §§ 210(d)(1), 231, inserted heading, inserted “the public health and agricultural need for such minor use,” after “pattern of use,”, and substituted “potential beneficial or adverse effects on man and the environment” for “potential exposure of man and the environment to the pesticide”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(d)(2), inserted heading.

Subsec. (c)(2)(B)(vi). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(c)(1), added cl. (vi).

Subsec. (c)(2)(B)(vii). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(f)(2), added cl. (vii).

Subsec. (c)(2)(B)(viii). Pub. L. 104–170, § 222, added cl. (viii).

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(d)(3), inserted heading.

Subsec. (c)(2)(E). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(d)(4), added subpar. (E).

Subsec. (c)(3)(A), (B). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(e)(1), (2), inserted headings.

Subsec. (c)(3)(C), (D). Pub. L. 104–170, § 210(e)(3), added subpars. (C) and (D).

Subsec. (c)(9). Pub. L. 104–170, § 223, added par. (9).

Subsec. (c)(10). Pub. L. 104–170, § 250(2), added par. (10).

Subsec. (f)(4). Pub. L. 104–170, § 105(b), added par. (4).

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 104–170, § 106(b), added subsec. (g).

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 104–170, § 224, added subsec. (h).

1991—Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(a)(3)(B), (C), added subpar. (D) and redesignated former subpar. (D) as (F).

Subsec. (c)(1)(E). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(a)(3)(A), (C), added subpar. (E) and struck out former subpar. (E) which read as follows: “the complete formula of the pesticide; and”.

Subsec. (c)(1)(F). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(a)(3)(A), (B), (D), redesignated former subpar. (D) as (F), in cl. (i) substituted “With” for “with” and a period for semicolon at end, in cl. (ii) substituted “Except” for “except” and a period for semicolon at end, in cl. (iii) substituted “After” for “after” and a period for semicolon at end, and struck out former subpar. (F) which read as follows: “a request that the pesticide be classified for general use, for restricted use, or for both.”

Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), (2), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “requires”, “shall permit”, “shall make”, and “deems”, and substituted “the Administrator’s” for “his”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(c), clarified amendment made by Pub. L. 100–532, § 102(b)(2)(A). See 1988 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (c)(3)(A). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(2), substituted “the Administrator’s” for “his”.

Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “determines”.

Subsec. (c)(6). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), (2), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “shall notify” in two places and “the Administrator’s” for “his” in four places.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “shall classify it for both” in subpar. (A), before “will classify” in subpar. (B), and before “shall classify” in subpar. (C).

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(b)(1), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” before “shall notify”.

1990—Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 101–624 inserted after third sentence “The Administrator shall not require a person to submit, in relation to a registration or reregistration of a pesticide for minor agricultural use under this subchapter, any field residue data from a geographic area where the pesticide will not be registered for such use.”

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–532, § 601(b)(1), substituted “Requirement of registration” for “Requirement” in heading and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “Except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, no person in any State may distribute, sell, offer for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive and (having so received) deliver or offer to deliver, to any person any pesticide which is not registered with the Administrator.”

Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(1)–(4), in introductory provisions, substituted “paragraph (2)(D)” for “subsection (c)(2)(D) of this section”, in cl. (i), substituted “(i) with” for “(i) With” and “, except that” for “: Provided, That”, in cl. (ii), substituted “clause (i)” for “subparagraph (D)(i) of this paragraph”, and in cl. (iii), substituted “clauses (i) and (ii)” for “subparagraphs (D)(i) and (D)(ii) of this paragraph”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(A). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(5)(A), (B), substituted “(2) Data in support of registration.—

“(A) The”

for “(2)(A) Data in support of registration.—The”, and directed that subpar. (A) be aligned with left margin of subsec. (d)(1)(A) of this section.

Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 100–532, §§ 102(b)(1), 801(b)(5)(C)–(F), substituted “(B)(i) If” for “(B) Additional data to support existing registration.—(i) If”, directed that cls. (ii) to (v) be aligned with left margin of subpar. (A), in cls. (ii) and (iii), inserted “The Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the procedures prescribed by clause (iv) if a registrant fails to comply with this clause.”, in cl. (iv), substituted “title. The only” for “title: Provided, that the only”, and in cl. (v), substituted “paragraph (1)(D)” for “subsection (c)(1)(D) of this section”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(C). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(5)(G), (H), struck out “Simplified procedures” after “(C)” and directed that text be aligned with left margin of subpar. (A).

Subsec. (c)(2)(D). Pub. L. 100–532, § 102(b)(2)(A), and Pub. L. 102–237, § 1006(c), substituted “the pesticide that is the subject of the application” for “an end-use product”.

Subsec. (c)(2)(D)(i). Pub. L. 100–532, § 102(b)(2)(B), struck out “the safety of” after “data pertaining to”.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 100–532, § 103, substituted “(A) The Administrator” for “The Administrator” and added subpar. (B).

Subsec. (c)(7). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(6), in introductory provisions, substituted “paragraph (5)” for “subsection (c)(5) of this section”, in subpars. (A) and (B), substituted “paragraph (5). If” for “subsection (c)(5) of this section: Provided, That, if”, and in subpar. (C), substituted “prescribe. A” for “prescribe: Provided, that a”.

Subsec. (d)(1)(A). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(7), substituted “restricted use. If” for “restricted use, provided that if” and “restricted uses. The Administrator” for “restricted uses: Provided, however, That the Administrator”.

Subsec. (f)(2). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(8), substituted “this subchapter. As” for “this subchapter: Provided, That as”.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(b)(9), struck out subsec. (g) which read as follows: “The Administrator shall accomplish the reregistration of all pesticides in the most expeditious manner practicable: Provided, That, to the extent appropriate, any pesticide that results in a postharvest residue in or on food or feed crops shall be given priority in the reregistration process.”

1978—Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 95–396, § 2(a)(1), added subpar. (D), and struck out provisions which required the applicant for registration of a pesticide to file with the Administrator a statement containing “if requested by the Administrator, a full description of the tests made and the results thereof upon which the claims are based, except that data submitted on or after January 1, 1970, in support of an application shall not, without permission of the applicant, be considered by the Administrator in support of any other application for registration unless such other applicant shall have first offered to pay reasonable compensation for producing the test data to be relied upon and such data is not protected from disclosure by section 136h(b) of this title. This provision with regard to compensation for producing the test data to be relied upon shall apply with respect to all applications for registration or reregistration submitted on or after October 21, 1972. If the parties cannot agree on the amount and method of payment, the Administrator shall make such determination and may fix such other terms and conditions as may be reasonable under the circumstances. The Administrator’s determination shall be made on the record after notice and opportunity for hearing. If either party does not agree with said determination, he may, within thirty days, take an appeal to the Federal district court for the district in which he resides with respect to either the amount of the payment or the terms of payment, or both. Registration shall not be delayed pending the determination of reasonable compensation between the applicants, by the Administrator or by the court.”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 95–396, §§ 2(a)(2)(A)–(D), 3, 4, designated existing provisions as subpar. (A), inserted in second sentence “under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph” after “kind of information”, struck out from introductory text of third sentence “subsection (c)(1)(D) of this section and” after “Except as provided by”, and inserted provisions relating to establishment of standards for data requirements for registration of pesticides with respect to minor uses and consideration of economic factors in development of standards and cost of development, and added subpars. (B) to (D).

Subsec. (c)(5). Pub. L. 95–396, § 5, provided for waiver of data requirements pertaining to efficacy.

Subsec. (c)(7), (8). Pub. L. 95–396, § 6, added pars. (7) and (8).

Subsec. (d)(1)(A). Pub. L. 95–396, § 7(1), authorized classification of pesticide uses by regulation on the initial classification and registered pesticides prior to reregistration.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 95–396, § 7(2), substituted “forty-five days” for “30 days”.

Subsec. (d)(3). Pub. L. 95–396, § 7(3), added par. (3).

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 95–396, § 8, added subsec. (g).

1975—Subsec. (c)(1)(D). Pub. L. 94–140 inserted exception relating to test data submitted on or after January 1, 1970, in support of application, inserted provision that compensation for producing test data shall apply to all applications submitted on or after October 21, 1972, and provision relating to delay of registration pending determination of reasonable compensation, struck out requirement that payment determined by court not be less than amount determined by Administrator, and substituted “If either party” for “If the owner of the test data”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2007 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–94, § 6, Oct. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 1007, provided that: “This Act [see Short Title of 2007 Amendment note set out under section 136 of this title] and the amendments made by this Act take effect on October 1, 2007.”

Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

Pub. L. 108–199, div. G, title V, § 501(h), Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 434, provided that: “Except as otherwise provided in this section [enacting section 136w–8 of this title, amending this section and sections 136a–1, 136x, and 136y of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 136 of this title and section 346a of Title 21, Food and Drugs] and the amendments made by this section, this section and the amendments made by this section take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Jan. 23, 2004].”

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–532 effective on expiration of 60 days after Oct. 25, 1988, see section 901 of Pub. L. 100–532, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–396, § 2(b), Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 824, provided that: “The amendment to section 3(c)(1)(D) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [subsec. (c)(1)(D) of this section] made by [subsec. (a)(1) of] this section shall apply with respect to all applications for registration approved after the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 30, 1978].”

Effective Date

For effective date of section, see section 4 of Pub. L. 92–516, set out as a note under section 136 of this title.

Registration Review Deadline Extension

Pub. L. 117–328, div. HH, title VI, § 711, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 6083, provided that:“(a)In General.—Notwithstanding section 3(g)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)(1)(A)(iii)(I)), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this section as the ‘Administrator’) shall complete the initial registration review of each pesticide or pesticide case covered by that section not later than October 1, 2026.“(b)Interim Registration Review Decision Requirements.—“(1)Definition of covered interim registration review decision.—In this subsection, the term ‘covered interim registration review decision’ means an interim registration review decision—“(A) that is associated with an initial registration review described in subsection (a);“(B) that is noticed in the Federal Register during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 29, 2022] and ending on October 1, 2026; and“(C) for which the Administrator has not, as of the date on which the decision is noticed in the Federal Register, made effects determinations or completed any necessary consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)).“(2)Requirements.—Any covered interim registration review decision shall include, where applicable, measures to reduce the effects of the applicable pesticide on—“(A) species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); or“(B) any designated critical habitat.“(3)Consultation.—In developing measures described in paragraph (2), the Administrator shall take into account the input received from the Secretary of Agriculture and other members of the interagency working group established under section 3(c)(11) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(11)).”

Biological Pesticide Handling Study

Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, § 1498, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3631, provided that the National Academy of Sciences would conduct a study of the biological control programs and registration procedures utilized by the Food and Drug Administration, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, and within 1 year after completion of the study, develop and implement a common process for reviewing and approving biological control applications submitted to such agencies and offices based on the study conducted, the recommendation of the National Academy of Sciences, and other public comment.

Education, Study, and Report

Pub. L. 100–478, title I, § 1010, Oct. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 2313, provided that:“(a)Education.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, promptly upon enactment of this Act [Oct. 7, 1988], shall conduct a program to inform and educate fully persons engaged in agricultural food and fiber commodity production of any proposed pesticide labeling program or requirements that may be imposed by the Administrator in compliance with the Endangered Species Act [of 1973] (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Administrator also shall provide the public with notice of, and opportunity for comment on, the elements of any such program and requirements based on compliance with the Endangered Species Act [of 1973], including (but not limited to) an identification of any pesticides affected by the program; an explanation of the restriction or prohibition on the user or applicator of any such pesticide; an identification of those geographic areas affected by any pesticide restriction or prohibition; an identification of the effects of any restricted or prohibited pesticide on endangered or threatened species; and an identification of the endangered or threatened species along with a general description of the geographic areas in which such species are located wherein the application of a pesticide will be restricted, prohibited, or its use otherwise limited, unless the Secretary of the Interior determines that the disclosure of such information may create a substantial risk of harm to such species or its habitat.“(b)Study.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, jointly with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, shall conduct a study to identify reasonable and prudent means available to the Administrator to implement the endangered species pesticides labeling program which would comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and which would allow persons to continue production of agricultural food and fiber commodities. Such study shall include investigation by the Administrator of the best available methods to develop maps and the best available alternatives to mapping as means of identifying those circumstances in which use of pesticides may be restricted; identification of alternatives to prohibitions on pesticide use, including, but not limited to, alternative pesticides and application methods and other agricultural practices which can be used in lieu of any pesticides whose use may be restricted by the labeling program; examination of methods to improve coordination among the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and Department of the Interior in administration of the labeling program; and analysis of the means of implementing the endangered species pesticides labeling program or alternatives to such a program, if any, to promote the conservation of endangered or threatened species and to minimize the impacts to persons engaged in agricultural food and fiber commodity production and other affected pesticide users and applicators.“(c)Report.—The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall submit a report within one year of the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 7, 1988], presenting the results of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (b) of this section to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Committee on Agriculture of the United States House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the United States Senate.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 345 cases (33 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985). · cites it 18× “See 7 U. S. C. § 136a(c) (1)(D)(ii) (providing for negotiation followed by binding arbitration to set amounts "follow-on" registrants must pay in compensation for use of test data).”

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 22× “7 U.S.C. § 136a. And EPA’s alleged failure to follow those standards is what leads to the alleged “substantive harm to the environment” in this case.”

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 18× “” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(7)(C). Unconditional registration necessarily requires sufficient data to evaluate the environmental risks.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 16× “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 8× “”3 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). Under FIFRA, a pesticide may not be distributed or sold in the United States unless it has first been “registered” by the EPA.”

Cheminova A/S v. Griffin L.L.C., 182 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2002). · cites it 15× “See 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). In order to obtain a registration, an applicant must demonstrate, inter alia, that its pesticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984). · cites it 4× “The new amendments included a series of revisions in the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions of FIFRA's §§ 3 and 10, 7 U. S. C. §§ 136a and 136h. Under FIFRA, as amended in 1978, applicants are granted a 10-year period of exclusive use for data on new active…”

Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Prot. Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 10× “" 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). "The EPA will register the pesticide if it determines that the pesticide is efficacious and will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, and that its label complies with FIFRA's prohibition on misbranding.”

Am. Farm Bureau v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 6× “The process for registering a pesticide is described in FIFRA and EPA regulations at 7 U.S.C. § 136a and 40 C.F.R. §§ 152 and 158.”

Chem. Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n v. Jorling, 649 N.E.2d 1145 (NY 1995). · cites it 6× “Also, in contrast to the New York statutory scheme, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under FIFRA to designate a pesticide product as a restricted use pesticide is exclusively limited to classifying restricted use for registration purposes (7 USC § 136a [d]…”

Bourbia v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 5× “" 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). FIFRA defines "label" as "the written, printed, or graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide or device or any of its containers or wrappers.”

Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 723 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “[6] After the product is registered, the manufacturer generally is not free to modify the labeling approved by the EPA without EPA approval, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(2)(A), and must report new information on unreasonable adverse effects of the pesticide on the environment to the EPA.”

Show all 345 citing cases →

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(1) — 1 case

Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(2)(A) — 2 cases

Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 723 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “[6] After the product is registered, the manufacturer generally is not free to modify the labeling approved by the EPA without EPA approval, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(2)(A), and must report new information on unreasonable adverse effects of the pesticide on the environment to the EPA.”

Brown v. Chas. H. Lilly Co., 985 P.2d 846 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(3)(c)(10) — 1 case

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(3)(c)(4) — 1 case

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(5) — 2 cases

Washington Toxics Coalition v. United States Dep't of Interior, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

Altman v. Town of Amherst, NY, 190 F. Supp. 2d 467 (W.D.N.Y. 2001).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(5)(C) — 1 case

West Harlem Env't Action & Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 380 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(6) — 1 case

Woodstream Corp. v. Jackson, 845 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2012).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(7)(C) — 2 cases

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015). “” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(7)(C). Unconditional registration necessarily requires sufficient data to evaluate the environmental risks.”

Pollinator Stewardship Council v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2015).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(C)(l)(F) — 1 case

Whittaker v. Cnty. of Lawrence, 674 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Pa. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a) — 120 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 861 F.3d 174 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “”3 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). Under FIFRA, a pesticide may not be distributed or sold in the United States unless it has first been “registered” by the EPA.”

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

Edwin Hardeman v. Monsanto Co., 997 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2021).

Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 993 P.2d 366 (Cal. 2000).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(b)(5) — 1 case

Beyond Pesticides/Nat'l Coalition Against Misuse of Pesticides v. Whitman, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(b)(l) — 1 case

Dow Chem. Co. v. Costle, 464 F. Supp. 395 (E.D. Mich. 1978).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c) — 37 cases

Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568 (1985). “See 7 U. S. C. § 136a(c) (1)(D)(ii) (providing for negotiation followed by binding arbitration to set amounts "follow-on" registrants must pay in compensation for use of test data).”

Robert B. Grenier v. Vermont Log Bldgs., Inc., Third-Party v. Dap, Inc. & Champion Int'l Corp., Third-Party, 96 F.3d 559 (1st Cir. 1996).

Johansson v. Cent. Garden & Pet Co., 804 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.N.J. 2011).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1) — 2 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Ctr. for Food Saf. v. Michael Regan (9th Cir. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(B) — 1 case

Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc., 896 P.2d 682 (Wash. 1995).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C) — 19 cases

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005).

Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Prot. Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2010). “" 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). "The EPA will register the pesticide if it determines that the pesticide is efficacious and will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, and that its label complies with FIFRA's prohibition on misbranding.”

Bourbia v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 454 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “" 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(c)(1)(C), (F). FIFRA defines "label" as "the written, printed, or graphic matter on, or attached to, the pesticide or device or any of its containers or wrappers.”

Dow Agrosciences LLC v. Bates, 332 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2003).

Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alter, 834 S.W.2d 136 (Ark. 1992).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(D) — 3 cases

Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984). “The new amendments included a series of revisions in the data-consideration and data-disclosure provisions of FIFRA's §§ 3 and 10, 7 U. S. C. §§ 136a and 136h. Under FIFRA, as amended in 1978, applicants are granted a 10-year period of exclusive use for data on new active…”

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary, 969 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir. 1992).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. GAF Corp., 422 F. Supp. 390 (N.D. Ga. 1976).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(D)(i) — 2 cases

Monsanto Co. v. Acting Adm'r, United States EPA, 564 F. Supp. 552 (E.D. Mo. 1983).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(D)(ii) — 2 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(D)(iii) — 2 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F) — 3 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 202 F. Supp. 2d 437 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 645 F. App'x 467 (6th Cir. 2016).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F)(I) — 1 case

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F)(i) — 2 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 222 F.R.D. 271 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 202 F. Supp. 2d 437 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F)(ii) — 1 case

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 222 F.R.D. 271 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F)(iii) — 6 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Drexel Chem. Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2009).

Cheminova A/S v. Griffin L.L.C., 182 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2002). “See 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). In order to obtain a registration, an applicant must demonstrate, inter alia, that its pesticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.”

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 645 F. App'x 467 (6th Cir. 2016).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

Syngenta Crop Prot. Inc. v. Drexel Chem. Co. (D.D.C. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(F)(iv) — 1 case

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(1)(o) — 1 case

Barrera v. Monsanto (Del. Super. Ct. 2016).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(10)(B) — 3 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 222 F.R.D. 271 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(11) — 1 case

In re: Ctr. for Biological Diversity, 53 F.4th 665 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2) — 6 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 447 F. Supp. 811 (W.D. Mo. 1978).

FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Gaf Corp. & Douglas M. Costle, Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 594 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1979).

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 443 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. GAF Corp., 391 F. Supp. 124 (N.D. Ga. 1975).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(A) — 9 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co., 705 A.2d 841 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997).

Paul E. Merrell v. Lee Thomas, & Ciba-Geigy Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986).

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 857 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2017).

Rohm & Haas Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 525 F. Supp. 921 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B) — 8 cases

Am. Farm Bureau v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2000). “The process for registering a pesticide is described in FIFRA and EPA regulations at 7 U.S.C. § 136a and 40 C.F.R. §§ 152 and 158.”

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 615 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Ind. 1985).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Hardin v. BASF Corp., 290 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Ark. 2003).

Nat'l Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. Env't Prot. Agency, 867 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(i) — 2 cases

Atochem North Am., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F. Supp. 861 (D.D.C. 1991).

Nrdc v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2020).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(ii) — 2 cases

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 645 F. App'x 467 (6th Cir. 2016).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(iii) — 1 case

Syngenta Corp Prot., Inc. v. Helliker, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(B)(iv) — 3 cases

Nat'l Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. Env't Prot. Agency, 867 F.2d 636 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Atochem North Am., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F. Supp. 861 (D.D.C. 1991).

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 489 F. App'x 63 (6th Cir. 2012).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(C) — 1 case

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(2)(D) — 5 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood Azoxystrobin, LLC, 267 F. Supp. 3d 649 (M.D.N.C. 2017).

Atochem North Am., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F. Supp. 861 (D.D.C. 1991).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

PBI-Gordon Corp. v. Thomas, 609 F. Supp. 135 (W.D. Mo. 1985).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(3) — 2 cases

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(3)(A) — 1 case

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(3)(B) — 2 cases

Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Ariz. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(3)(B)(i) — 4 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

FMC Corp. v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 379 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

Syngenta Crop Prot., LLC v. Willowood, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(3)(B)(ii) — 2 cases

FMC Corp. v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 379 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(4) — 14 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011).

Hardin v. Jackson, 625 F.3d 739 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Burke v. Dow Chem. Co., 797 F. Supp. 1128 (E.D.N.Y 1992).

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5) — 89 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 966 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2020). “7 U.S.C. § 136a. And EPA’s alleged failure to follow those standards is what leads to the alleged “substantive harm to the environment” in this case.”

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(A) — 5 cases

Donald Welchert, Rick Welchert, Jerry Welchert, Deborah Welchert v. Am. Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 (8th Cir. 1995).

Schuver v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 546 N.W.2d 610 (Iowa 1996).

Bruce v. ICI Americas, Inc., 933 F. Supp. 781 (S.D. Iowa 1996).

Hardin v. BASF Corp., 290 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Ark. 2003).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(B) — 22 cases

Blitz v. Monsanto Co., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (W.D. Wis. 2018).

Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Am. Meat Inst. v. Leeman, 180 Cal. App. 4th 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).

Gina Lowe v. Sporicidin Int'l, 47 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 1995).

Chem. Specialties Mfrs. Ass'n, Inc. v. Clifford L. Allenby John K. Van De Kamp, Esq., 958 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1992).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C) — 27 cases

Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chem. Co., 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 56 F.4th 55 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(CHD) — 1 case

Defenders of Wildlife v. Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 882 F.2d 1294 (8th Cir. 1989).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D) — 25 cases

Arnold v. Dow Chem. Co., 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7082 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).

Nat'l Cotton Council of Am. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009).

Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. Env't Prot. Agency, Uniroyal Chem. Co., Inc., & Zeneca, Inc., Intervenors, 98 F.3d 1394 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(6) — 6 cases

Paul E. Merrell v. Lee Thomas, & Ciba-Geigy Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986).

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011).

Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Jackson, 762 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2011).

Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2011).

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2011).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7) — 9 cases

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 857 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2017).

Save Our Ecosystems v. Clark, 747 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir. 1984).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Hardin v. BASF Corp., 290 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Ark. 2003).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(A) — 11 cases

Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 222 F.R.D. 271 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

Hardin v. Jackson, 625 F.3d 739 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(B) — 1 case

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(B)(i) — 1 case

Nat'l Fam. Farm Coalition v. Usepa, 960 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2020).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(7)(C) — 11 cases

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 735 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2013).

Hardin v. Jackson, 625 F.3d 739 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 857 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2017).

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(8) — 4 cases

Friends Animals v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (D. Or. 2019).

Paul E. Merrell v. Lee Thomas, & Ciba-Geigy Corp., Defendants-Intervenors, 807 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 65 F. Supp. 3d 742 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Ariz. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(9) — 1 case

Orr v. U.S. Epa (W.D.N.C. 2020).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(A) — 1 case

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Ariz. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l) — 6 cases

Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Int'l, Inc., 191 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 1999).

Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Iyax Pharm., Inc., 459 F. Supp. 2d 925 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 443 F. Supp. 1024 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Gaf Corp., 64 F.R.D. 550 (N.D. Ga. 1974).

Nat'l Agric. Chemicals Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 554 F. Supp. 1209 (D.D.C. 1983).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(B) — 3 cases

Jenkins v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 886 P.2d 869 (Kan. 1994).

Goodwin v. Bacon, 896 P.2d 673 (Wash. 1995).

King v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 806 F. Supp. 1030 (D. Me. 1992).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(C) — 14 cases

Gina Lowe v. Sporicidin Int'l, 47 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 1995).

Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 948 P.2d 1055 (Haw. 1997).

Nathan Kimmel, Inc. Nathan Kimmel, LLC Knf Corp., Formerly Known as Kennedy Nylon Film Corp. v. Dowelanco, 275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002).

FMC Corp. v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 379 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Pa. 2005).

Walker v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 948 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1997).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(D) — 22 cases

Ruckelshaus, Adm'r, United States Env't Prot. Agency v. Monsanto Co., 463 U.S. 1315 (1983).

Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co. v. Ruckleshaus, 571 F. Supp. 117 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 447 F. Supp. 811 (W.D. Mo. 1978).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(D)(i) — 2 cases

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 499 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1980).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 252 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(D)(ii) — 5 cases

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 615 F. Supp. 811 (S.D. Ind. 1985).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 499 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1980).

PPG Indus., Inc. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 637 F. Supp. 85 (D.D.C. 1986).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(D)(iii) — 2 cases

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 499 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1980).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Costle, 481 F. Supp. 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F) — 6 cases

Syngenta Corp Prot., Inc. v. Helliker, 42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 191 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).

Unix Sys. Labs., Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 790 (D.N.J. 1993).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F)(i) — 3 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 65 F. Supp. 3d 742 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 463 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F)(ii) — 1 case

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F)(iii) — 6 cases

SRM Chem. Ltd. v. Fed. Mediation & Conciliation Serv., 355 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D.D.C. 2005).

Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force v. Tagros Chemicals India, Ltd., 309 F.R.D. 66 (D.D.C. 2015).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 489 F. App'x 63 (6th Cir. 2012).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F)(iv) — 1 case

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(l)(F)(ni) — 1 case

Drexel Chem. Co. v. Albaugh, Inc., 645 F. App'x 467 (6th Cir. 2016).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(lXD) — 1 case

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d) — 5 cases

John Doe 1 v. Veneman, 380 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2004).

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Gaf Corp. & Douglas M. Costle, Adm'r, Env't Prot. Agency, 594 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1979).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Ariz. 2024).

Monsanto v. Durnell (2026).

United States v. Saul, 955 F. Supp. 1076 (E.D. Ark. 1996).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(1)(B) — 1 case

In re Roundup Prods. Liab. Litig., 364 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2019).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(1)(C) — 2 cases

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc., 207 A.3d 695 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(C) — 1 case

January v. Peace, 738 S.W.2d 355 (Tex. App. 1987).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(l)(A) — 1 case

Ward v. Ne. Texas Farmers Coop Elevator, 909 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. App. 1995).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(l)(C) — 1 case

Ward v. Ne. Texas Farmers Coop Elevator, 909 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. App. 1995).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(d)(l)(C)(i) — 1 case

Organized Migrants in Cmty. Action, Inc., Elizabeth Wilder v. Peter Brennan, Sec'y, Dep't of Labor, 520 F.2d 1161 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e) — 7 cases

Snyder v. Farnam Companies, Inc., 792 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D.N.J. 2011).

ARLANDSON v. Hartz Mountain Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 691 (D.N.J. 2011).

In Re DuPont-Benlate Litig., 859 F. Supp. 619 (D.P.R. 1994).

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Mortellite v. Novartis Crop Prot., Inc., 278 F. Supp. 2d 390 (D.N.J. 2003).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(1)(F)(i) — 2 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 222 F.R.D. 271 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 202 F. Supp. 2d 437 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(1)(F)(iii) — 1 case

Whittaker v. Cnty. of Lawrence, 674 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. Pa. 2009).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(2)(A) — 2 cases

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 676 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(2)(B)(ii) — 1 case

Washington Toxics Coalition v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1266 (W.D. Wash. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(4) — 1 case

Ellis v. Housenger, 252 F. Supp. 3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(5) — 2 cases

Kinser v. . Ciba-Geigy Corp., 837 F. Supp. 217 (W.D. Ky. 1993).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(5)(B) — 1 case

Cuevas v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., 956 F. Supp. 1306 (S.D. Miss. 1997).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(5)(C) — 1 case

Nw. Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 544 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2008).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(7)(C) — 1 case

Nat. Resources Def. Council v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 857 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2017).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(B) — 1 case

Ernest L. King, Sr. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 996 F.2d 1346 (1st Cir. 1993).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(D) — 1 case

PBI-Gordon Corp. v. Thomas, 609 F. Supp. 135 (W.D. Mo. 1985).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(D)(i) — 1 case

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(D)(ii) — 1 case

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(D)(iii) — 1 case

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(F) — 1 case

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(F)(I) — 2 cases

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

Chem. Producers & Distributors Ass'n v. Helliker, 319 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(F)(i) — 1 case

Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 444 F. Supp. 2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(e)(l)(F)(iii) — 3 cases

Non-Dietary Exposure Task Force v. Tagros Chemicals India, Ltd., 309 F.R.D. 66 (D.D.C. 2015).

SRM Chem. Ltd. v. Fed. Mediation & Conciliation Serv., 355 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D.D.C. 2005).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f) — 2 cases

Gucciardi v. Bonide Prods., Inc., 28 F. Supp. 3d 383 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(1) — 5 cases

Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).

Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2) — 20 cases

Blitz v. Monsanto Co., 317 F. Supp. 3d 1042 (W.D. Wis. 2018).

Charles MacDonald Et Ux & State of Louisiana, Etc. v. Monsanto Co., Dow Chem. Co., 27 F.3d 1021 (5th Cir. 1994).

David Schaffner, Jr. v. Monsanto Corp, 113 F.4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(l) — 1 case

Riden v. ICI Americas, Inc., 763 F. Supp. 1500 (W.D. Mo. 1991).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g) — 8 cases

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 847 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2017). “7 U.S.C. § 136a; Wash. Toxics Coal., 413 F.”

David Schaffner, Jr. v. Monsanto Corp, 113 F.4th 364 (3rd Cir. 2024).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 517 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Pa. 1981).

Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F.2d 419 (3rd Cir. 1982).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1) — 2 cases

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care, Inc., 207 A.3d 695 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).

Montgomery Cnty. v. Complete Lawn Care (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A) — 2 cases

Lulac v. Michael S. Regan, 996 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2021).

Chapman v. Monsanto Co. (S.D. Tex. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(i) — 2 cases

Migrant Clinicians Network v. Usepa, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(iii) — 3 cases

Lulac v. Michael S. Regan, 996 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2021).

Nrdc v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2022).

Monsanto v. Durnell (2026).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(iv) — 2 cases

Lulac v. Michael S. Regan, 996 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 2021).

John D. Carson v. Monsanto Co., 51 F.4th 1358 (11th Cir. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(1)(A)(v) — 3 cases

Lulac v. Andrew Wheeler, 899 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2018).

Nrdc v. Usepa (9th Cir. 2022).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(2) — 2 cases

Migrant Clinicians Network v. Usepa, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(2)(A) — 1 case

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(l) — 1 case

Washington Toxics Coalition v. United States Dep't of Interior, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(l)(A)(ii) — 1 case

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 65 F. Supp. 3d 742 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(g)(l)(A)(iii) — 3 cases

Pesticide Action Network North Am. v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, 798 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2015).

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Env't Prot. Agency, 65 F. Supp. 3d 742 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

Pesticide Action Network North Am. & Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 532 F. App'x 649 (9th Cir. 2013).

— 7 U.S.C. § 136a(l) — 1 case

Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Jackson, 666 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009).

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.