7 U.S.C. § 136p
Exemption of Federal and State agencies
The Administrator may, at the Administrator’s discretion, exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of this subchapter if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require such exemption. The Administrator, in determining whether or not such emergency conditions exist, shall consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Governor of any State concerned if they request such determination.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Am. Farm Bureau v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2000).
Am. Farm Bureau v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2000). “7 U.S.C. § 136p. FIFRA further provides that if the EPA later determines that additional scientific data are required to maintain in effect an existing pesticide registration, the EPA must notify all registrants of the pesticide in what is termed a “data call-in” to provide…”
MacIas v. State of California, 897 P.2d 530 (Cal. 1995). “§ 136v(c)(1)) and an emergency exception, pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. § 136p), authorizing an unregistered use of the chemical to meet the Medfly emergency.”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “§ 1536 (permitting an Endangered Species Committee made up of high-ranking executive branch officials to suspend the otherwise applicable requirements of the Endangered Species Act for particular projects); 7 U.S.C. § 136p (allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to…”
FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Pa. 2005). “20 See 7 U.S.C. § 136p. The EPA is required to act “as expeditiously as possible” on any application for registration of a pesticide which proposes the initial or amended registration of an end-use pesticide that, if registered as proposed, would be identical or substantially…”
Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Blum, 458 F. Supp. 650 (D.D.C. 1978). “7 U.S.C. § 136p (1976). Second, it must determine, as stated by the House Report on the House bill, “that' the proposed emergency use will not endanger man or adversely affect the environment.”
Washington Toxics Coalition v. United States Dep't of Interior, 457 F. Supp. 2d 1158 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “” 7 U.S.C. § 136p. The counterpart regulations permit EPA to “choose” to employ the emergency consultation procedures on FIFRA section 18 actions — in other words, permitting EPA ■to delay formal consultation on FIFRA section 18 actions.”
Migrant Clinicians Network v. Usepa, 88 F.4th 830 (9th Cir. 2023). “See 7 U.S.C. § 136p; 40 C.F.R. 10 MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V.”
State of Louisiana v. Train, 392 F. Supp. 564 (W.D. La. 1975). “§§ 136 -136y, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 136p and the regulations issued thereunder, 40 C.”
Talevich v. Voss, 734 F. Supp. 425 (C.D. Cal. 1990). “The authorization is in the form of a special quarantine exemption for emergency conditions to control the introduction or spread of a pest new to an area, under Section 18 of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136p; 40 C.F.R. § 166.2 (b). Complaint,…”
Application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 & 205 to Fed. Employees Detailed to State & Local Governments (OLC 1980). “See also 7 U.S.C. § 136p (in an emergency, EPA can exempt state agency from provisions of Act).”
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.