Board of Pesticides Control Update
Stay up to date with the latest from the Board of Pesticides Control. This update covers everything you need to know about upcoming meetings, new rules, and important reminders to keep you and your community safe. We’re here to keep you informed, and we’d like to hear your thoughts—drop us an email anytime at pesticides@maine.gov.
The next Board Meeting is November 21, 2025 it will be hybrid at the Deering Building in Rm 101 in Augusta, ME 04330, and on Microsoft Teams. The meeting starts at 9:00 AM. For more information, visit the Board Meetings Page.
The following program has been approved for pesticide recertification credits. More recertification opportunities may be found on the BPC Credit Calendar.
November 15 – 17, 2025 – Aerial Application Technology Research Session
The BPC maintains a list of registered products on the front page of its website. For a list of the current Maine registrations.
License Renewal Reminder
Renewal notices will be emailed to all companies and individuals with SCF, CMA, COA, GPD and/or RPD licenses that are expiring at the end of the calendar year. The notices will include links and all other applicable information for completing your license renewal(s). Please ensure licenses are renewed in a timely manner.
**UPDATED** Anonymous Rodenticide Stakeholder Survey, October 2025
In 2025, the 132nd legislature passed LD 356 Resolve, Directing the Board of Pesticides Control to Prohibit the Use of Rodenticides in Outdoor Residential Settings (PL 2025 c. 47). This bill asks the BPC to prohibit the use of rodenticides in outdoor residential settings unless applied by a certified applicator. The bill goes into effect on September 25, 2025.
The Board is interested in hearing from affected parties prior to entering rulemaking. If you or your business will be affected by the restriction or prohibition of rodenticides, please fill out the survey below. This information will remain anonymous and only the answers to questions will be shared at the public board meetings. Answers must be in by December 15, 2025 to be considered.
This survey will ask several questions about different types of anticoagulants, including first-generation anticoagulants, second-generation anticoagulants, and products that are not anticoagulants. An explanation for these types can be found below or on EPA’s website.
Take the Survey now
Resistance to the active ingredient in pesticides poses an economic threat to farmers, which on a broader level could potentially disrupt food and national security. Microevolution underpins pests’ ability to respond to stress in the environment and develop resistance to pesticides; this has been documented in insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, and herbicides. However, pesticide resistance can be limited- and even prevented- by wise management and using best practices.
The Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) classifies active ingredients in herbicides by their mode of action in an attempt to prevent resistance in weeds and non-target plants. (Side note: categorization of insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides are managed respectively by IRAC, FRAC, and RRAC). Resistance can be thwarted when pesticides from different groups are rotated over the course of a growing season.
HRAC currently recognizes 33 different classes of active ingredients in herbicides; or stated another way, there are 33 different modes of action that makes these pesticides effective. These modes of action include targeting photosynthesis, amino acid metabolism, plant hormones, plant cell division, etc. For example, Group 1 contains twenty-four unique active ingredients that all inhibit lipid synthesis in plants. Group 2 contains the most active ingredients (~52 chemicals that all inhibit the synthesis of branched chain amino acids). In contrast, several groups only contain one active ingredient (e.g. Groups 9, 18, 28, 31-33). Herbicidal active ingredients with an unknown mode of action are binned into Group 0 (n=24).
This classification scheme is vital to preventing resistance, as it provides a clear and simple way to differentiate pesticides based on their mode of action. Using eight different active ingredients that all belong to group 2 in one season is dangerous, as it accelerates the pace microevolution in weeds and ultimately increases the risk of herbicidal resistance. This could ultimately render the herbicides in Group 2 ineffective, which would limit the tools and choices a grower has at his/her disposal.
Next month’s Tox Talk will discuss a cutting edge technique that allows the rapid detection of herbicide resistance in weeds.
Source:
Additional Resistance Resources:
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL – BPC would like to remind all pesticide users that storage and disposal of pesticide products are regulated at the Federal and State level. Just like the use of a pesticide must follow the directions on the label, storage and disposal of the product is also a required element of the label that must be followed. “The label is the law” also applies to storage and disposal. There are no exemptions for following the storage and disposal directions on the label. Storage requirements may vary but often include the following:
Pesticide Storage: Keep out of reach of children and animals. Store in original containers only. Store in a cool, dry place and avoid excess heat. Carefully open containers. After partial use replace lids and close tightly. Do not put concentrate or dilute material into food or drink container.
Disposal requirements may vary, but often include the following:
Pesticide Disposal: Pesticide wastes are toxic. Do not contaminate water, food or feed by storage or disposal. Improper disposal of excess pesticide, spray mixture, or rinsate is a violation of Federal Law. Dispose of excess or waste pesticide by use according to label directions, or contact your State Pesticide or Environmental Control Agency, or the Hazardous Waste representative at the nearest EPA Regional Office for guidance.
Container Disposal: Plastic Container: Non-refillable container. Do not reuse or refill this container. Triple rinse as follows: Empty the contents into application equipment or a mix tank and drain for 10 seconds after flow begins to drip. Fill container ¹⁄₄ full with water and recap. Shake for 10 seconds. Pour rinsate into application equipment or mix tank or store rinsate for later use or disposal. Drain for 10 seconds after the flow begins to drip. Repeat this procedure two more times. Then offer for recycling, if available or reconditioning, if appropriate, or puncture and dispose of in a sanitary landfill, or incineration, or if allowed by state and local authorities, by burning. If burned, stay out of smoke.
Please note that while this language may exist on the label, open burning of any waste container in Maine is prohibited under Title 12, §9324: Prohibited acts.
Lastly, storage and disposal are also regulated under CMR 01-026 Chapter 20: Special Provisions, Section 3:
Section 3. Pesticide Storage and Disposal
A. Unused pesticides, whether in sealed or open containers, must be kept in a secure enclosure and otherwise maintained so as to prevent unauthorized use, mishandling or loss; and so as to prevent contamination of the environment and risk to public health.
B. Obsolete, expired, illegal, physically or chemically altered or unusable pesticides, except household pesticide products, shall be either:
- stored in a secure, safe place under conditions that will prevent deterioration of containers or any contamination of the environment or risk to public health, or
- returned to the manufacturer or formulator for recycling, destruction, or disposal as appropriate, or
- disposed of in a licensed hazardous waste facility or other approved disposal site that meets or exceeds all current requirements of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for facilities receiving such waste.
More information about State and Federal container regulations can be found in topics discussed at the August 2022 BPC Board meeting.
Released October 9, 2025
Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a major step to evaluate and optimize key pesticide registration functions by releasing two evaluations of EPA programs. The first report provides the results of a third-party audit focused on assessing the operational performance of the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and provides recommendations for improvement. The second report evaluates OPP’s training and education gaps to support implementation of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA 5). The agency is sharing this information in an effort to help improve the registration process for pesticide registrants and other stakeholders. This action supports Administrator Zeldin’s work to advance permitting reform by increasing efficiency and providing more regulatory certainty for companies that make pesticides and the businesses that use them to control pests and ensure our country’s food supply.
In December 2022, PRIA 5 was reauthorized with new mandates designed to enhance the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of EPA’s pesticide registration process. PRIA 5 called for a third-party process assessment to evaluate and improve OPP’s operational performance, as well as the training needs and potential gaps in existing materials. The results of these assessments are being released today.
Additionally, PRIA 5 provided for an independent workforce assessment to evaluate the adequacy of staffing resources implementing PRIA. The workforce assessment is tentatively scheduled to be conducted next year.
Operational Performance Report
The operational review report released today was informed by the review of more than 100 process documents and interviews with nearly 80 EPA staff and registrants. This third-party process assessment identified operational improvements that could reduce backlogs, streamline reviews and strengthen internal coordination. The evaluation of OPP’s core registration and registration review functions included the initial content screen, the preliminary technical screen and efforts to reduce the backlogs of PRIA and non-PRIA registration submissions.
While the report recognizes that OPP has made meaningful strides in improving core operations, such as replacing its outdated internal systems with a modern internal tracking system, the assessment identified challenges and barriers that continue to impact efficiency and predictability. These barriers span multiple functions and organizational levels and create ripple effects across application reviews, decision-making, and coordination. Some of the challenges identified include topics such as data quality, underutilized tools, process fragmentation, and knowledge gaps.
Read the final report.
Training Gaps Report
Under PRIA 5, OPP is required to administer training and education programs relating to its regulatory responsibilities and policies. The training gaps analysis was conducted using an inventory of existing pesticide training materials, feedback from interviews with internal OPP points of contact, workflow process maps, and insights from External Stakeholder Feedback Sessions. Common challenges identified include difficulty locating training materials, limited cross-divisional understanding, and inconsistent workflow management.
More than 200 distinct training actions and more than 40 supporting non-training actions are documented as part of the report. The actions identified largely aim to reduce reliance on informal mentoring, improve cross-divisional coordination, and strengthen communication with applicants and registrants by improving consistency, efficiency, and transparency.
As required in PRIA 5, OPP plans to release a solicitation for grant proposals to continue the analysis of training needs and delivery.
Read the final report.
Next Steps
One of EPA’s top priorities is reducing the backlog of pesticide regulatory actions pending review. Since January 20, 2025, EPA has decreased this backlog by over 5,000 actions.
EPA is reviewing the reports to consider how to best implement the recommendations and remains committed to further process improvements and IT efforts to modernize key pesticide registration functions, reduce the pesticide registration backlog and implement gold-standard science.
Read about other PRIA implementation efforts
Released October 7, 2025
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing and seeking public comment on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) draft biological opinions (BiOp) for the pesticides atrazine and simazine. Atrazine and simazine are two widely used herbicides in the United States. The FWS draft biological opinions for atrazine and simazine are available on EPA’s Biological Opinions Webpage and public comments may be submitted to docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0514 at www.regulations.gov. The draft biological opinions will be available for public comment for 60 days.
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), EPA must ensure that its actions, including pesticide registration actions, are not likely to jeopardize federally listed endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify their designated critical habitats. When EPA determines in a biological evaluation that use of a pesticide product may affect listed species or critical habitats, EPA must initiate formal consultation with FWS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), or both (the Services). In response, the Service(s) may develop a biological opinion for EPA’s consideration that determines whether the pesticide will jeopardize listed species or adversely modify critical habitats.
EPA initiated formal consultation with the Services upon completing biological evaluations for these pesticides. The draft biological opinions being released for public comment are part of the ongoing formal consultation with FWS.
FWS Biological Opinions
During the consultations, EPA, FWS and the atrazine and simazine registrants worked together to identify drift and runoff mitigation options consistent with EPA’s Herbicide Strategy. This mitigation also reflects scientific analyses and subsequent updates contained in the final Insecticide Strategy that are relevant to the Herbicide Strategy (e.g., updated spray drift buffer distances). Having Herbicide Strategy mitigations available for consideration helped facilitate a more efficient consultation, leading FWS to conclude that the proposed actions for atrazine and simazine are not likely to jeopardize or adversely modify the majority of species and critical habitats for which EPA made Likely to Adversely Affect determinations in the 2021 biological evaluations. In addition, implementation of label changes to which the registrants voluntarily committed before the biological evaluations, along with label changes agreed to during the development of the draft BiOps, supported a more efficient consultation.
These draft BiOps do not include any likely jeopardy/adverse modification (J/AM) determinations. There are a limited number of species and critical habitats where FWS has not yet made a J/AM determination (either likely or not) and FWS has identified a need for further consideration of these species prior to making a determination. These species may be exposed to pesticides when visiting or residing on treated agricultural fields or non-agricultural use sites (e.g., residential turf), which are scenarios not addressed by the Herbicide Strategy. As the consultation continues, before finalizing the BiOps, additional information on the remaining species and critical habitats that are under consideration may be collected to determine if atrazine and simazine are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species or adversely modify their designated critical habitats and, if so, identify any additional mitigations needed to reduce exposures and avoid J/AM. FWS, EPA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will continue to work with the registrants before the BiOps are finalized to identify any remaining mitigation that may be needed to ensure that the uses of atrazine and simazine are not likely to jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitats.
Next Steps
After the 60-day public comment period, EPA will provide FWS with the comments received for consideration before FWS finalizes the biological opinions. EPA intends to continue working with FWS and the registrants prior to FWS’s final BiOps to ensure that the proposed mitigations are technologically and economically feasible. The final atrazine and simazine BiOps are scheduled to be completed by March 31, 2026, as required by a federal court order. Following completion of the final FWS biological opinions, EPA plans to implement the mitigation measures described in the FWS final biological opinions. The final NMFS biological opinion is scheduled for 2030.
Furthermore, EPA has completed its obligations for atrazine and simazine under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to evaluate how the pesticides may affect estrogen, androgen, and thyroid systems.
Once EPA has completed consultation with the Services, the agency will complete final decisions on atrazine and simazine.
Learn more about atrazine and simazine.
Released September 30, 2025
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing the final biological evaluations (BEs) and response to comments received on the draft BEs for the pesticides bicyclopyrone and benzovindiflupyr on federally threatened and endangered (listed) species and designated critical habitats. These final BEs are part of EPA’s efforts to meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Bicyclopyrone is an herbicide used primarily to control broadleaf weeds as well as some annual grass weeds in agricultural crops including corn, wheat, barley, and other minor crops such as lemon grass and rosemary. Benzovindiflupyr is a fungicide used on a variety of crops including canola, cereals, and corn cotton, as well as non-food uses on turf and ornamentals.
After reviewing public comments on the draft BEs released in September 2024, EPA revised its evaluation of pesticides bicyclopyrone and benzovindiflupyr. EPA’s final BE finds that bicyclopyrone:
- Causes no effect on 477 listed species (27%) and 443 critical habitats (47%) (as compared to 26% and 58%, respectively, from the draft BE).
- Is not likely to adversely affect 300 listed species (17%) and 105 critical habitats (11 %) (as compared to 3% and 2%, respectively, from the draft BE).
- Is likely to adversely affect 803 listed species (46%) and 330 critical habitats (35%) (as compared to 63% and 17%, respectively, from the draft BE) but not cause Jeopardy/Adverse Modification.
- Is likely to adversely affect 155 listed species (9%) and 73 critical habitats (8%) (as compared to 7% and 22%, respectively, from the draft BE) and cause Jeopardy/Adverse Modification.
- EPA’s final BE finds that benzovindiflupyr:
- Causes no effect on 994 listed species (57%) and 550 critical habitats (58%) (as compared to 13% and 25%, respectively, from the draft BE).
- Is not likely to adversely affect 259 listed species (15%) and 135 critical habitats (14%) (as compared to 10% and 20%, respectively, from the draft BE).
- Is likely to adversely affect 441 listed species (26%) and 252 critical habitats (26%) (as compared to 65% and 46%, respectively, from the draft BE) but not cause Jeopardy/Adverse Modification.
- Is likely to adversely affect 41 listed species (2%) and 14 critical habitats (2%) (as compared to 12% and 9%, respectively, from the draft BE) and cause Jeopardy/Adverse Modification.
Next Steps
When EPA determines in a final BE that a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) action may affect listed species or critical habitats, the agency must initiate consultation with the relevant Service(s). Because EPA’s final BEs for bicyclopyrone and benzovindiflupyr made likely to adversely affect determinations for species under both Services’ jurisdiction, EPA will initiate formal consultation with both Services.
During formal consultation, the Services use EPA’s effects determinations to inform their biological opinions. If the Services determine in their final biological opinions that mitigations are necessary to address any jeopardy or adverse modification determinations (that the Services may make) or to address any incidental take beyond those mitigations, then EPA will work to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made.
The final BEs will be available in the bicyclopyrone docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0457) and the benzovindiflupyr docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0458) on regulations.gov.
Learn more about EPA’s work to protect endangered species.
|
