U.S. Code » Title 7 » Chapter CHAPTER 6— INSECTICIDES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ENVIRONMENTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL

7 U.S.C. § 136v

Authority of States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 7 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.

(b) Uniformity

Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter.

(c) Additional uses(1) A State may provide registration for additional uses of federally registered pesticides formulated for distribution and use within that State to meet special local needs in accord with the purposes of this subchapter and if registration for such use has not previously been denied, disapproved, or canceled by the Administrator. Such registration shall be deemed registration under section 136a of this title for all purposes of this subchapter, but shall authorize distribution and use only within such State.(2) A registration issued by a State under this subsection shall not be effective for more than ninety days if disapproved by the Administrator within that period. Prior to disapproval, the Administrator shall, except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, advise the State of the Administrator’s intention to disapprove and the reasons therefor, and provide the State time to respond. The Administrator shall not prohibit or disapprove a registration issued by a State under this subsection (A) on the basis of lack of essentiality of a pesticide or (B) except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection, if its composition and use patterns are similar to those of a federally registered pesticide.(3) In no instance may a State issue a registration for a food or feed use unless there exists a tolerance or exemption under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] that permits the residues of the pesticides on the food or feed. If the Administrator determines that a registration issued by a State is inconsistent with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or the use of, a pesticide under a registration issued by a State constitutes an imminent hazard, the Administrator may immediately disapprove the registration.(4) If the Administrator finds, in accordance with standards set forth in regulations issued under section 136w of this title, that a State is not capable of exercising adequate controls to assure that State registration under this section will be in accord with the purposes of this subchapter or has failed to exercise adequate controls, the Administrator may suspend the authority of the State to register pesticides until such time as the Administrator is satisfied that the State can and will exercise adequate controls. Prior to any such suspension, the Administrator shall advise the State of the Administrator’s intention to suspend and the reasons therefor and provide the State time to respond.(June 25, 1947, ch. 125, § 24, as added Pub. L. 92–516, § 2, Oct. 21, 1972, 86 Stat. 997; amended Pub. L. 95–396, § 22, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 835; Pub. L. 100–532, title VIII, § 801(m), Oct. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 2682.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), is act June 25, 1938, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, which is classified generally to chapter 9 (§ 301 et seq.) of Title 21, Food and Drugs. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 301 of Title 21 and Tables.

Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–532, § 801(m), inserted headings for subsecs. (a) to (c) and realigned margins of pars. (1) to (4) of subsec. (c).

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–396 inserted “federally registered” before “pesticide or device”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–396 substituted “labeling or packaging” and “required under” for “labeling and packaging” and “required pursuant to”, respectively.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 95–396 incorporated existing text in provisions designated par. (1) and substituted “registration for additional uses of federally registered pesticides” for “registration for pesticides”.

Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 95–396 incorporated existing text in provisions designated par. (2), conditioned disapproval of registration on communication of intention to disapprove and reasons for disapproval and provision for time to respond, and restricted authority of Administrator to prohibit or disapprove a State registration.

Subsec. (c)(3). Pub. L. 95–396 added par. (3).

Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 95–396 incorporated existing text in provisions designated par. (4) and authorized suspension of registration authority of the State based on findings of inability or failure to exercise adequate controls following an indication of intention to suspend and reasons for the suspension and provision for time to respond.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 312 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 993 P.2d 366 (Cal. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 993 P.2d 366 (Cal. 2000). · cites it 14× “" (7 U.S.C. § 136v.) In her dissenting opinion, Justice Werdegar views subdivision (b) of this provision, which prohibits states from imposing any "requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter" as preempting only…”
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). · cites it 4× “The District Court granted Dow's motion for summary judgment, rejecting one claim on state-law grounds and dismissing the remainder as expressly pre-empted by 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b), which provides that States "shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or…”
Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991). · cites it 4× “" 7 U. S. C. § 136v. The key portions of that provision state: "(a) .”
Yowell v. Chevron Chem. Co., 836 S.W.2d 62 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 20× “" 7 U.S.C. § 136v reads, in pertinent part: (a) In general A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.”
Jillson v. Vermont Log Bldgs., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 985 (D. Mass. 1994). · cites it 11× “” 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a). Imposition of a common law duty of care in the design and manufacture of *992 harmful chemical products does not permit any sale or use prohibited by FIFRA; nor does it in any way frustrate the will of Congress.”
Higgins v. Monsanto Co., 862 F. Supp. 751 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). · cites it 10× “1 Although the language of 7 U.S.C. § 136v is unambiguous, application of this provision to the instant case is not straightforward.”
MacIas v. State of California, 897 P.2d 530 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 10× “(7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. pt. 162 (1992).”
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011). · cites it 2× “, at 436 (quot ing 7 U. S. C. §136v(b) (2000 ed.)). The Bates Court stated: 16 BRUESEWITZ v.”
City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002). · cites it 2× “There the Court considered a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act authorizing a "State [to] regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State," 7 U.”
Sleath v. West Mont Home Health Servs., Inc., 2000 MT 381 (Mont. 2000). · cites it 6× “Under 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a), states may regulate pesticide sales or use more strictly than the federal government.”
Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chem. Co., 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “” 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a). See also Sen.Rep. No.”
John D. Carson v. Monsanto Co., 72 F.4th 1261 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 7× “The district court ruled that a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b), expressly preempts some of Carson’s claims under Georgia law because the Environmental Protection Agency had approved a label for Roundup that lacked a…”
Show all 312 citing cases →
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a) — 81 cases
Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 993 P.2d 366 (Cal. 2000). “" (7 U.S.C. § 136v.) In her dissenting opinion, Justice Werdegar views subdivision (b) of this provision, which prohibits states from imposing any "requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter" as preempting only…”
City of Columbus v. Ours Garage & Wrecker Serv., Inc., 536 U.S. 424 (2002). “There the Court considered a provision of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act authorizing a "State [to] regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State," 7 U.”
Anderson v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 693 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 2005).
Indian Brand Farms, Inc. v. Novartis Crop Prot. Inc., 617 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Dow Chem. Co. v. Ebling, 753 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001).
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a)(b) — 1 case
Diehl v. Polo Coop. Ass'n, 766 N.E.2d 317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b) — 224 cases
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). “The District Court granted Dow's motion for summary judgment, rejecting one claim on state-law grounds and dismissing the remainder as expressly pre-empted by 7 U.S.C. § 136v(b), which provides that States "shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or…”
Jillson v. Vermont Log Bldgs., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 985 (D. Mass. 1994). “” 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a). Imposition of a common law duty of care in the design and manufacture of *992 harmful chemical products does not permit any sale or use prohibited by FIFRA; nor does it in any way frustrate the will of Congress.”
Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc., 993 P.2d 366 (Cal. 2000). “" (7 U.S.C. § 136v.) In her dissenting opinion, Justice Werdegar views subdivision (b) of this provision, which prohibits states from imposing any "requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchapter" as preempting only…”
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 131 S. Ct. 1068 (2011). “, at 436 (quot ing 7 U. S. C. §136v(b) (2000 ed.)). The Bates Court stated: 16 BRUESEWITZ v.”
Yowell v. Chevron Chem. Co., 836 S.W.2d 62 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). “" 7 U.S.C. § 136v reads, in pertinent part: (a) In general A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(c) — 1 case
Sleath v. West Mont Home Health Servs., Inc., 2000 MT 381 (Mont. 2000). “Under 7 U.S.C. § 136v(a), states may regulate pesticide sales or use more strictly than the federal government.”
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(1) — 4 cases
MacIas v. State of California, 897 P.2d 530 (Cal. 1995). “(7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. pt. 162 (1992).”
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 791 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011).
Schoenhofer v. McClaskey, 861 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2017).
Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson (D.D.C. 2011).
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(3) — 1 case
Burt v. Fumigation Serv. & Supply, Inc., 926 F. Supp. 624 (W.D. Mich. 1996).
— 7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(l) — 2 cases
MacIas v. State of California, 897 P.2d 530 (Cal. 1995). “(7 U.S.C. § 136v(c)(1); 40 C.F.R. pt. 162 (1992).”
Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition v. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 662 P.2d 356 (Or. Ct. App. 1983).
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.