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 October 3, 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.
Upcoming Credit Meetings
The following program has been approved for pesticide recertification credits. More recertification opportunities may be found on the BPC Credit Calendar.
August 28, 2025 and August 29, 2025– Rodent Academy 2 Day In-Person
Location: Portland Regency Hotel, 20 Milk Street, Portland, ME, 8 AM to 5 PM
Join us for a focused, practical training on Rodent Integrated Pest Management (IPM), led by nationally recognized rodent expert Dr. Bobby Corrigan. This event is hosted by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry and is designed for professionals in structural pest control, public health, housing, and facilities management. This will be held in Portland, Maine with more details on the venue to come.
This two-day training offers pesticide credits for both Maine and New Hampshire applicators. Dr. Corrigan brings decades of real-world experience and has been featured in PBS’s Human Footprint, Morgan Spurlock’s Rats documentary, and widely respected podcasts like Ologies and Daily Detroit. He is frequently consulted by outlets including NPR, The New York Times, and The Atlantic for his expertise in rodent behavior and control. Space is limited and tends to fill quickly.
Registration is only open until July 28th, 2025. Please see the official Rodent Academy Signup page for more details. Applicants must pay to secure their spot for the program.
Artificial Intelligence: Not a Label Replacement
Artificial intelligence (AI) is finding its way into many aspects of our daily lives. You may have an AI assistant on your phone, use a chatbot (like ChatGPT or Google Gemini) for aspects of your work, or use an AI service to edit your emails. This new technology can seem exciting and may be a useful tool to help people navigate their daily lives.
However, it has come to the attention of the BPC that some applicators have attempted to use chatbots and artificial intelligence to research pesticides or as a substitute for container labels. Applicators must understand fully that the answers given by AI to these prompts are not an acceptable alternative to reading the label and are often inaccurate.
AI uses the entirety of the internet to answer questions and relies heavily on its training to determine what you are trying to do. Pesticide training takes time and effort, and AI has not read the BPC core manual or spoken to the BPC staff; therefore it is not likely to be accurate in its responses. Additionally, we have no control over the answers it delivers to Maine applicators. Chatbots can present you with a list of products you should use on your crop, but the sources it draws from may be regional suggestions from any of the 50 states, or a combination of multiple state lists, even if you ask specifically about Maine’s regulations.
We have tested AI with some questions an applicator may ask and consistently receive incorrect answers and suggestions that are not registered. When corrected, the chatbot had some pretty good advice: to “always, always, always” check the specific product label and confirm with your local extension office or state pesticide regulatory board.
When asked which products a producer should use on a particular crop in Maine, AI gave unregistered product suggestions. When corrected by BPC staff, this was its response:
The label is law, and AI is not a pesticide label. Applicators are responsible for their pesticide use, even if AI gave you inaccurate information. Do not put yourself at risk by taking the AI shortcut, as it is likely to bring you in the wrong direction. Remember that all pesticides and adjuvants used in Maine have to be registered with the Maine Board of Pesticides Control to be used within Maine.
Contact the BPC if you are having trouble interpreting a label, have questions about whether a product is registered in Maine, or need resources to assist in finding products that fit your needs.
Obsolete Pesticide Collection Events: Registration is Open
BPC and DEP are hosting the annual obsolete pesticide collection events. Registrations are open for the 2025 season. See the flyer below for more details.
This is a FREE program for Maine residents that would like to safely dispose of their pesticide and adjuvant waste. This program is open to homeowners, gardeners, and family-owned farms. Registration is required to participate. Registrants will receive a packet in October with more information about the late October events held in Presque Isle, Bangor, Augusta, and Portland. For more information, scan the QR code below or visit our Pesticide Disposal Resources webpage for more details.
This program is not open for commercial pesticide waste. Commercial applicators are encouraged to reach out to hazardous waste contractors for their excess or unusable pesticides.
Toxicology Corner
There are thousands of pesticides, and every now and then I come across an unfamiliar category of pesticides. Last week it was for a good reason.
Lampricides are a class of pesticides to control lampreys, which are a class of jawless fish. The most popular lampricide is 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol, and conveniently goes by the acronym TMN. This pesticide has been applied to the Great Lakes to control invasive lampreys, where they can parasitize native fish (they are very rarely a threat to humans). In contrast, sea lampreys are native to Maine’s rivers and ocean.1,2 In fact, sea lamprey populations have recently rebounded in the Penobscot River.3 Therefore, TMN is not a registered pesticide in Maine for good reason: lampreys are native to Maine and their population is controlled by predators and other ecological factors; there is no need to control their population with chemical means. Lastly, because TMN is a PFAS-pesticide, it is unlikely this lampricide will ever be registered in Maine.
The BPC has investigated incidents of unauthorized pesticide applications. These have primarily constituted applications made at the wrong address. We have also had several inquiries about what positive property identification criteria are acceptable. The BPC would like to remind commercial applicators that Positive Identification of Proper Treatment Site is a requirement in the rule under
Chapter 20: SPECIAL PROVISIONS.
Section 7. Positive Identification of Proper Treatment Site
A. Commercial applicators making outdoor treatments to residential properties must implement a system, based on Board approved methods, to positively identify the property of their customers. After December 31, 2023, the master applicator responsible for the supervision of certified and noncertified applicators at each branch location must ensure that all applicators under their supervision are trained, annually, on positive identification of proper treatment sites. This master applicator must maintain records of the method of positive identification of proper treatment sites as adopted by the branch location. Appropriate positive identification methods that must be employed include at least one of the following:
Obtain the customer’s electric meter number in advance of the treatment, list it on the work order or invoice, and require the applicator to check for that number before initiating the treatment.
Visit the customer in advance of the treatment, and using a global positioning system (GPS), identify the coordinates of each property to be treated. Include the coordinates on the work order or invoice, equip the applicator with a GPS unit, and require that employee to check for those coordinates before initiating any treatment.
Visit the customer in advance of the treatment and take a digital time/date stamped photo of the home and any distinctive features of the property. Include the photo on the work order or invoice and require the applicator to carefully check the photo before initiating any treatment.
Visit the customer in advance of the treatment and attach a company logo or other unique identifying tag on the property. Include the location of the logo/tag on the work order or invoice and require the applicator to carefully check for its presence before initiating any treatment.
Any methods that were submitted in writing to the Board prior to March 1, 2024. Any methods submitted after this date may be subject to approval by staff.
B. Violations of Chapter 20, Section 7 is grounds for the suspension of certification or licensure under 22 M.R.S.A §1471-D(7).
For a first violation the applicators license/certification may be suspended;
For a second violation under the same master applicator and within the same company within a 5-year period the applicator’s and master’s licensure/certification may be suspended; and
For a third violation violation under the same master applicator and within the same company within a five-year period the applicator’s, master’s, and firm’s licensure/certification may be suspended.
Penalties may also be imposed pursuant to 7 M.R.S.A. § 616-A (2) for violations of Chapter 20, Section 7 in addition to any suspensions imposed under Chapter 20, Section 7 (B)(1), (2) or (3). Nothing in this subsection may be construed as prohibiting the Board from seeking license or certification revocation pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 1471-D(6) and 1471-J where the Board determines revocation is warranted under the circumstances.
EPA Announces Proposed Decision to Approve Registration for New Uses of Dicamba, Outlines New Measures to Protect Human Health, Environment
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is releasing for public comment its proposed registration for three end-use dicamba products for broadleaf weed control in dicamba-tolerant cotton and dicamba-tolerant soybean. EPA has conducted a robust human health risk assessment for these proposed products and has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern. Additionally, the agency is proposing to put several measures in place to protect against the ecological risks found in EPA’s assessment. These new products would give farmers an additional tool to help manage crops and increase yields in order to provide a healthy and affordable food supply for our country.
Dicamba is an herbicide that has historically been used for control of emerged broadleaf weeds in a variety of food and feed crops and in non-agricultural settings. These proposed dicamba products would allow postemergence applications to dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean, commonly referred to as “over-the-top” (OTT) use. OTT dicamba applications aim to remove emerged broadleaf weed species, particularly those resistant to other herbicides that compete with cotton and soybean plants and potentially reduce crop yield. OTT dicamba products have high benefits in both cotton and soybean for controlling these herbicide-resistant weeds and managing resistance to herbicides in the future.
EPA’s Risk Assessments
In addition to its proposed registration decision, EPA has also released its human health risk assessment, benefits and impacts assessment, ecological risk assessment and draft biological evaluation. EPA has not identified any dietary, aggregate, non-occupational or occupational risks of concern for potential human health exposure from the proposed uses of dicamba on dicamba-tolerant cotton and dicamba-tolerant soybean. Additionally, EPA has not identified any risks of concern for aquatic invertebrates, fish or aquatic plants. EPA concluded low risk for honeybees and other non-listed bees from the proposed uses of dicamba.
As expected of an herbicide, dicamba does pose risk to certain plants. In response to those findings, EPA has developed new, additional proposed mitigations to minimize impact to certain species. With these proposed mitigation measures in place, EPA’s draft biological evaluation predicts that the use of dicamba will not result in a likelihood of future jeopardy for the survival of any listed species, or a likelihood of adverse modification for any designated critical habitat. The proposed registrations also would not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment with these mitigations.
Specifically, EPA is proposing the following mitigation measures on the three products being proposed:
A single use maximum application rate of 0.5 lb. acid equivalent (a.e.) dicamba per acre.
No more than two applications allowed with a maximum annual application of 1 lb. a.e. dicamba per acre from all combined dicamba-containing products.
Prohibition of aerial applications.
Maintaining a 240-ft downwind buffer.
The spray solution must include an approved drift reduction agent and pH buffering volatility reduction agent added to the tank in higher percentages as temperatures increase.
Temperature-dependent application restrictions to manage volatility. Users have flexibility to implement temperature-dependent restrictions by reducing the percent of field treated, including by using precision agriculture techniques, or prohibiting certain tank mixes at higher temperatures.
No applications at temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Users must access and follow any applicable endangered species bulletin from “Bulletins Live! Two” web-based system. Six points of runoff/erosion mitigation will be required in some pesticide use limitation areas where pesticide exposures are likely to impact the continued existence of a listed species, which may include a reduction in survival or recovery of the species.
Applicators are required to wear baseline attire (i.e., long-sleeve shirt, long pants and shoes plus socks) along with personal protective equipment including chemical-resistant gloves when handling these products. A NIOSH-approved dust/mist filtering respirator with any R, P, or HE filter is also required for all handlers of the BAPMA-salt-formulated product. There is a restricted entry interval of 24 hours. Use is restricted to a limited number of approved states by certified applicators only. Applicators are required to complete additional dicamba-specific annual training and maintain records of all applications.
EPA understands that the proposed suite of mitigations is not standard and could present operational challenges for farmers. Therefore, EPA is particularly interested in receiving feedback about the temperature-dependent volatility mitigations, percent of field treated restrictions and any science-backed solutions to manage volatility. Detailed information about these mitigation measures is available in the proposed decision in and around Table 8 and in the Proposed Label Requirements section.
Next Steps
After considering public comments on the proposed registration and the draft effects determinations, EPA will decide whether the registration action meets the standard for registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. If EPA determines that the registration action can be granted, EPA will finalize the biological evaluation. If a final biological evaluation finds that dicamba may affect any listed species or critical habitats, then EPA will initiate Endangered Species Act consultation and share its findings with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively referred to as the Services), as appropriate.
During formal consultation, the Services use the information in EPA’s final biological evaluation to inform their biological opinions. They are responsible for making the final jeopardy/adverse modification findings and have the sole authority to do so. If the Services determine in their final biological opinions that additional mitigations are necessary to address any jeopardy or adverse modification determination or to address any incidental take, EPA will work with the registrants to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made.
To read more about the proposed registration of dicamba and to comment, see docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0154 at www.regulations.gov. The public comment period will be open for 30 days, closing on 8/22/2025.
EPA Seeks Public Comment on New Plan to Streamline Tracking of Bilingual Labeling Adoption and Releases Updated Bilingual Labeling Resources
The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking public comments on a new, streamlined approach for how the agency plans to track the adoption of bilingual pesticide labeling. The agency is also announcing updates to the Bilingual Labeling Questions and Answers (Q&A) webpage, which provides guidance on bilingual labeling requirements for various types of pesticide products.
The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5) requires that some sections of end-use pesticide product labeling be translated into Spanish. Label translations are being implemented on a rolling schedule from December 2025 to 2030, with the translations for the most hazardous and toxic pesticide products required first. All end-use pesticide labels must have translations by 2030.
Proposed Plan to Track Adoption of Bilingual Labelling
PRIA 5 requires that EPA track the adoption of bilingual labeling. EPA previously proposed and received comments on using the annual paper maintenance fee filling form to track adoption of bilingual labeling. Under that proposal, as registrants filled out the worksheet to calculate their maintenance fee payments, they also would have marked a checkbox to indicate whether each of their products included bilingual labeling.
In an effort to streamline the reporting process, EPA is now proposing to track adoption through its electronic MyPeST app. Under this proposal, activities for registrants would be similar to activities in the initial proposal: registrants would still check a box next to each pesticide product indicating whether it includes the required bilingual labeling. However, MyPeST would display product information—such as product type and signal word—to help registrants determine their products’ compliance dates. Additionally, EPA is proposing adding another checkbox to MyPeST to indicate that a pesticide product will not be released for shipment, to better distinguishing between noncompliance and circumstances where the bilingual labeling requirements are not applicable.
MyPeST will allow product information and PRIA 5 compliance information to be in a single location and allow for more efficient transmission, analysis, and publication of data.
Comments can be submitted to docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2025-0049 at www.regulations.gov for 60 days.
Updates to Bilingual Labeling Q&A
EPA is updating its bilingual labeling Q&A to include additional questions and answers on topics relating to enforcement, supplemental distributor labels, QR codes and websites already on the label, how to handle subsequent label changes, and many more.
EPA wants to support registrants, states, and applicators in their transition to bilingual labeling to help with compliance on PRIA 5 requirements and deadlines. The agency intends to update the website resources as PRIA 5 requirements and deadlines are met, and new information is available.
