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 July 18, 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.
July 16, 2025 –Sustainable Agriculture Field Day
Location: University of Maine Rogers Farm, 914 Bennoch Road, Old Town, ME
Passed Bills from the 132nd Maine Legislature & Upcoming Rulemaking
This legislative season, several bills related to pesticides were introduced to the Maine legislature. In May and June, some of these bills finally reached the governor’s desk, where they could then be passed signed, passed unsigned, or veto’d. In total, there were three major bills that passed the full legislative process. Below is a list of the bills that passed and a summary, along with links to the legislative websites where they are published.
LD 356: Resolve, Directing the Board of Pesticides Control to Prohibit the Use of Rodenticides in Outdoor Residential Settings
This bill directs the board to prohibit the use of rodenticides in outdoor residential settings. Certified applicators (commercial, private, or ag basic) are exempt from this prohibition. The board must submit a report to the Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Committee on the progress of this prohibition by January 15, 2026. This bill will require rulemaking, likely under Chapter 40 or 41.
LD 1323: Resolve, Directing the Board of Pesticides Control to Evaluate the Impact of Neonicotinoids on Pollinators, Humans and the Environment
This bill directs the board to complete a full research report and evaluation on seven topics related to neonicotinoid pesticides and neonicotinoid-treated seeds. An interim report is due to the legislature on January 15, 2026 and the full report is due to the legislature on January 15, 2027. The estimated cost of this research is $156,000.
LD 1697: An Act to Increase Penalties to Deter Violations of the Laws Regarding Improper Pesticide Use
This bill changes statute under 7 MRSA §616-A to create larger penalties for pesticide violations. The language is broken up into two sections: Section 1 is for commercial applicators and unlicensed individuals, where fines for a single violation can reach as much as $10,000, with additional fines for individuals that may benefit from penalties and those that repeatedly violate pesticide laws over a 4-year period; and Section 2 is for private and agricultural basic applicators, where fines were increased to a maximum of $1,000 to $2,000 for those that repeatedly violate pesticide laws over a 4-year period. Additionally, this bill directs the board to:
Establish a penalty schedule for violations of the laws and rules governing pesticides to create transparency for future penalties assessed;
Provide the means by which separate civil suits may be brought against the same violator of the laws and rules governing pesticides if pesticide migration through soil or bedrock occurs affecting more than one property;
Provide for the restoration of affected property and replacement of vegetation as penalties for violations of the laws and rules governing pesticides in addition to monetary penalties; and
Designate pesticides with the active ingredient tebuthiuron as state restricted use pesticides.
This bill will require rulemaking, likely under Chapter 40, to restrict the use of tebuthiuron, as well as policy creation for the penalty schedule for violations under the new law.
All of these bills have been and will continue to be discussed at board meetings. Any rulemaking will require the board to follow the Maine APA (Administrative Procedures Act) 5 MRSA §8001-§11008, where the board will give public notice of proposed rulemaking and solicit public comment at public hearings. Notices will be on the BPC’s rulemaking website, through this GovDelivery listserv, and through 5 newspapers in Maine as required by the APA.
Toxicology Corner
While trade wars capture some headlines, tradeoffs are the focus of this month’s pesticide toxicology corner.
Maine is quickly approaching its prime growing season, as peak daylight hours and the temperature of soil and air allow maximum photosynthetic rates. However, summer coincides with an increased likelihood that pests will forage on the same plants that many Mainers- farmers, home gardeners, and nature lovers- wish to harvest or enjoy. The Maine Board of Pesticide Control strongly encourages an integrated pest management plan (IPM) to control insects, and the use of a synthetic insecticide as a last result if other protective measures are unsuccessful. (For more information on implementing an IPM, visit the IPM webpage.
The use of any insecticide is associated with some degree of risk, which factors in both toxicity and exposure. The potential risk of insecticides include adverse effects on human health, impacts on non-target organisms, and the environment (e.g. risk of leaching or bioaccumulation). Therefore, risk is not a “one-size fits-all” assessment, and is complicated by many factors and considerations. This makes an overall comparative risk-assessment between different classes of insecticides (e.g. neonicotinoids, carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids) challenging. For example, although neonicotinoids are less toxic to humans and mammals compared to other insecticides, they are also more toxic to bees and earthworms. Additionally, neonicotinoids are very water-soluble; this feature makes them susceptible to leaching into groundwater, yet at the same time prevents their bioaccumulation in the food chain. In contrast, many of the insecticides that are more toxic to humans- such as organophosphates- are less toxic to honeybees and are not prone to leaching or bioaccumulating in the soil. Pyrethroids are not as toxic to humans as organophosphates and have a very low risk of leaching; however, they have a tendency to bioaccumulate and are very toxic to bees. All these insecticides have their tradeoffs. The active ingredient in any insecticide will carry some “toxic baggage,” which makes a simplistic toxicological risk assessment difficult, if not futile.
The figure below is a heatmap that tries to encapsulate the relative toxicity of sixteen different insecticides. Red indicates a relatively high toxicity, and blue denotes a relatively low toxicity; importantly, low toxicity does not imply no toxicity. The list includes the top ten insecticides that were applied in the USA in 2020 and six selected neonicotinoids. The figure assesses and compares the pesticides’ risk of potential leaching, bioaccumulation, and the adverse effects on humans, bees, and other animals. The purpose of the heatmap is to visually compare these toxic tradeoffs, rather than endorse a particular active ingredient.
Figure 1. Heat map showing the relative risk of sixteen different pesticides. The data were primarily collected from (i) EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program and the Pesticide Properties Database and (ii) Sancho-Bayo and Goka, 2014, PLOSe94482. Data were then manually assembled into a heap map to show relative risks among the sixteen different insecticides. Red and dark blue colors represent greatest risk and lowest risk, respectively. Slashes represent unavailable data. RfD- reference dose, or the lowest concentration at which no adverse health outcomes are expected over a lifetime.
Enforcement Reminder
The BPC has had several calls regarding the failure to notify members of the 2025 Pesticide Notification Registry. All Spray Contracting Firms and Commercial applicators must ensure that notifications are being made in accordance with Chapter 28: Notification Provisions for Outdoor Pesticide Applications. Failure to notify a registry member is a violation State pesticide regulations. You can find a copy of the 2025 Pesticide Notification Registry and more information about notification rules on the BPC’s notification webpage.
EPA Updates Maps to Protect Endangered Species and Provide Flexibility to Farmers
Released June 12, 2025
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing refined interim core maps identifying areas important to 12 threatened or endangered (listed) species and their critical habitats as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These maps are used for developing pesticide use limitation areas (PULAs) and will allow EPA to protect listed species from the use of pesticides through geographically specific mitigations. The maps identify areas where listed species are likely to be located and areas where they are not, which ensures that measures to protect listed species are only required in these areas where the species are located. By publishing these refined maps, EPA is taking another important step to reduce potential impacts to farmers while continuing to protect endangered species.
As EPA continues to assess potential impacts on listed species, the agency may find that some mitigations are only needed to protect listed species (and not other species) in limited geographic areas. In those cases, EPA would only identify geographically specific areas for the necessary mitigations. This includes 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. The maps are intended to focus mitigations on areas where they are needed to protect populations of specific listed species from the use of pesticides.
When developing a PULA for a specific species, EPA starts by developing a core map, which identifies areas where listed species need additional protection. A core map could consist of the species range, its designated critical habitat, or other locations where the species is known to occur. In cases where existing range maps are broad and include areas where a species is no longer thought to exist, the core maps would only include areas within the species range where the species are likely to occur. After developing a core map for a species, EPA develops a PULA that accounts for pesticide movement from a use site (e.g., spray drift and run-off) by adding adjacent areas to the core map. Developing a core map or a PULA does not alter FWS’s range maps.
EPA released its mapping process in anticipation of public interest in developing species maps. The maps released today were developed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and Compliance Services International (CSI). In cases where EPA does not develop the draft map, EPA reviews the draft map and documentation to ensure that (1) the map and documentation are consistent with EPA’s process; (2) areas included or excluded from the map are consistent with the biology, habitat, and/or recovery needs of the species; (3) data sources are documented and appropriate; and (4) the GIS data and mapping process are appropriate and are identifying the types of areas that the map developer is intending to identify.
The maps released today are considered interim maps, which means that they were developed using EPA’s process and that EPA has reviewed them and agree that these maps are reasonable and can be used to develop pesticide use limitation areas. These maps are based on information developed by FWS and are being made available to the public. These maps will be considered final after FWS species experts review them. EPA expects that dozens more refined maps will be released within the next several months.
EPA’s goal is to develop core maps for all FWS listed species that may require protections with respect to pesticide exposures. Additional information can be found in the core map development process document. Visit EPA’s website to learn more about how EPA’s pesticide program is protecting endangered species in way that minimizes impacts to farmers.
In addition to developing refined maps, EPA is also developing digital tools for growers (like a mobile-friendly web interface) to make it easier to capture credits for drift and runoff mitigations that growers are already implementing and identify PULA areas. EPA expects to continue developing tools and processes to help farmers interpret and follow pesticide labeling.
EPA Announces Proposed Registration of Pesticide Diflufenican
Released June 5, 2025
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released for public comment its proposed registration decision for two products containing the new active ingredient diflufenican, a broad-spectrum herbicide for use for preplant and preemergence control of broad leaf weeds including waterhemp, Palmer amaranth, and other pigweed species in corn and soybean. This new active ingredient 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.
Diflufenican is expected to be a useful addition to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Resistance Management (RM) programs, as it can be used in rotation with other herbicides to reduce potential resistance in crops and delay the onset of further herbicide resistance. IPM provides an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest control by focusing on prevention and using pesticides only as needed.
EPA’s Risk Assessments
In addition to its proposed registration decision, EPA has also released its human health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and draft biological evaluation, with the latter including EPA’s Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) determination for diflufenican under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An LAA determination means that EPA reasonably expects at least one listed plant or animal species may be exposed to the pesticide at a sufficient level to have an adverse effect. No human health risks of concern were identified when diflufenican is used according to the proposed label.
Additionally, EPA has not identified any risks of concern for non-listed birds, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians, bees, aquatic and non-bee terrestrial invertebrates, and freshwater and estuarine/marine fish on an acute or chronic exposure basis. Diflufenican is an herbicide and potential risk to terrestrial plants is expected. However, population-level impacts are not likely to extend off the treated field when considering the proposed mitigations required on the draft label.
Proposed Mitigations
EPA is proposing the following mitigation measures to address on- and off-field effects to non-target species, including listed species:
Instructing users to access and follow any applicable endangered species bulletin from the “Bulletins Live Two” web-based system for all additional directions and restrictions.
Instructing users to access the EPA’s Mitigation Menu website and choose among the mitigation and/or mitigation relief measures to meet or exceed the 2-point runoff/erosion mitigations required for diflufenican use on corn and soybean before applying this product.
The registrant voluntarily included geographical restrictions on the label (i.e., adding label language that prohibits the use of these products in the states of California, Alaska, Hawaii, and in most of Florida). The agency believes the proposed mitigations will avoid the potential likelihood of future jeopardy for listed species and/or adverse modification of designated critical habitats.
Next Steps
After considering public comments on the proposed registration decision, the draft risk assessments 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 (FIFRA). If EPA determines that the registration action can be granted, EPA will finalize the biological evaluation. If a final biological evaluation finds that diflufenican may affect any listed species or critical habitats, then EPA will initiate ESA 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. While EPA has made predictions about the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification as part of its biological evaluation, the Services 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, then EPA will work with the registrant to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made.
To read more about the proposed registration of diflufenican and to comment, see docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0435 at www.regulations.gov. The public comment period will be open for 30 days, closing on July 7, 2025.
EPA Announces Proposed Registration of Pesticide Trifludimoxazin
Released June 11, 2025
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released for public comment its proposed registration for one technical and five end-use products containing the new active ingredient trifludimoxazin, a broad-spectrum herbicide used for control of broad leaf and grass weed species. Among five end-use products, three are formulated with trifludimoxazin as the only active ingredient while the other two are co-formulated products with saflufenacil, an already approved active ingredient. This new active ingredient 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.
The trifludimoxazin registrations are supported by human health and ecological risk assessments as well as a biological evaluation for the pesticide under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). No human health risks of concern were identified when trifludimoxazin is used according to the label. EPA did not identify any potential risks of concern for freshwater or estuarine/marine invertebrates, fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, mammals, or birds (surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles) on an acute or chronic exposure basis, or acute direct risks to bees, when trifludimoxazin is used according to the label. EPA did identify potential risks for terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic plants, as well as potential chronic risks to bees and non-Apis terrestrial invertebrates that may forage on fields that have been treated with trifludimoxazin products containing the co-formulant saflufenacil.
The following mitigation measures found on the products’ labeling address on- and off-field effects to non-target species, including listed species:
Instructing users to access and follow any applicable endangered species bulletin from “Bulletins Live! Two” web-based system for all additional directions and restrictions.
Approving use only in the contiguous United States.
Not approving use for any non-agricultural use sites.
Designating 110 ft and 15 ft spray drift buffers to sensitive areas, for aerial and ground applications respectively.
Instructing users to access the EPA’s Mitigation Menu website and choose among the mitigation and/or mitigation relief measures to meet or exceed 6-point runoff mitigations required for trifludimoxazin before applying the product.
With these mitigations in place, EPA’s draft biological evaluation predicts that the use of trifludimoxazin will not result in a likelihood of future jeopardy of any listed species, or a likelihood of adverse modification for any designated critical habitat.
Next Steps
After considering public comments on the proposed registration decision, the draft risk assessments 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 (FIFRA). If EPA determines that the registration action can be granted, EPA will finalize the biological evaluation. If a final biological evaluation finds that trifludimoxazin may affect any listed species or critical habitats, then EPA will initiate ESA 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. While EPA has made predictions about the likelihood of jeopardy and adverse modification as part of its biological evaluation, the Services 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, then EPA will work with the registrant to ensure that any necessary registration or labeling changes are made.
To read more about the proposed registration of trifludimoxazin and to comment, see docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0649 at www.regulations.gov. The public comment period will be open for 30 days, closing on July 11, 2025.
Maine State Government is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
