Pesticide Regulation (FIFRA)

Every pesticide sold or distributed in the United States — from agricultural herbicides to household insect sprays — must first be registered by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.). Registration requires the manufacturer to demonstrate that the pesticide, when used as labeled, will not cause "unreasonable adverse effects" on human health or the environment — a risk-benefit standard that weighs agricultural and economic utility against potential harms. Approximately 18,000 pesticide products based on several hundred active ingredients are currently registered. All registered pesticides undergo a mandatory 15-year re-registration review cycle, during which EPA reassesses safety data as science evolves — a process that has led to restrictions on chlorpyrifos (banned for food use in 2021) and ongoing battles over glyphosate (Roundup), whose carcinogenicity is disputed between EPA ("not likely carcinogenic") and the WHO's IARC ("probably carcinogenic"), driving billions in civil litigation. Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) — those too toxic for general sale — require a certified applicator license. Violations carry civil penalties up to $25,000/day and criminal penalties up to $50,000 plus one year imprisonment for commercial violators.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 7 U.S.C. § 136 — Definitions (active ingredient, pesticide, restricted use, tolerance, unreasonable adverse effects)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136a — Registration of pesticides (mandatory EPA registration before sale; data requirements, conditional registration)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136a-1 — Reregistration (systematic review of pre-1984 active ingredients)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136c — Experimental use permits (testing unregistered pesticides under controlled conditions)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136d — Administrative review and suspension (cancellation, emergency suspension, existing stocks)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136e — Registration of establishments (manufacturing facilities must register with EPA)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136g — Inspection (EPA authority to inspect pesticide storage and distribution facilities)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136h — Trade secret protection (confidential business information from registrants)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136i — Restricted use pesticide applicator certification (federal certification standards, state programs)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136i-1 — Pesticide recordkeeping (certified applicators must maintain use records)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136j — Unlawful acts (selling unregistered pesticides, misuse, false labeling)
• 7 U.S.C. § 136l — Penalties (civil and criminal penalties for violations)

Implementing Regulations (CFR)

• 40 CFR Part 150 — Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA Office of Pesticide Programs addresses, contacts, and organizational information)

• 40 CFR Part 152 — Pesticide Registration and Classification (74 sections covering the full registration process from application through classification):

  • § 152.10 — Products that are not pesticides (exclusions from FIFRA registration — e.g., nitrogen fertilizers, treated articles, pheromones used for mating disruption at certain concentrations)
  • § 152.15 — Products required to be registered (scope of registration mandate — any pesticide "intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest")
  • § 152.100–102 — Application initiation: all registration applications must be published in the Federal Register so interested parties can participate in the review; publication is mandatory, not discretionary
  • §§ 152.104–152.105 — Completeness requirement: the applicant bears full responsibility for accuracy and completeness; EPA will not begin or continue review of an incomplete application — a common rejection point for first-time registrants who submit data packages missing required chemistry or toxicology studies
  • § 152.110 — Timeline: EPA reviews "as expeditiously as possible" — no hard statutory deadline exists for standard registrations; expedited review (90 days) is available for minor uses, public health pesticides, and products under PRIA (the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act), which imposes fee-supported timelines
  • § 152.111 — Standard of review: EPA has discretion to apply either the unconditional registration standard (§3(c)(5) — all necessary data submitted, no unreasonable adverse effects) or the conditional registration standard (§3(c)(7) — registration allowed for limited time pending additional data when use is in the public interest)
  • §§ 152.112–152.114 — Approval criteria: unconditional registration requires that the pesticide, when used as directed, will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; conditional registration is available for products substantially similar to already-registered products (no new active ingredient) or for new active ingredients when additional data are required; in the latter case, conditions specify what data must be submitted and by when
  • § 152.115 — Conditions of registration: substantially similar products and new-use registrations that reference existing data must agree to data compensation requirements if the original data submitter objects — the "me-too" registrant must either wait out the data exclusivity period or negotiate a data access agreement
  • § 152.175 — Restricted use classification: EPA classifies a pesticide as restricted use when, even when used as directed, it presents unacceptable risk to the applicator, public, or environment without requiring that it be handled only by certified professionals; restricted use pesticides require certified applicator purchase and application

• 40 CFR Part 174 — Procedures and Requirements for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (69 sections — EPA's FIFRA framework for pesticides that are genetically engineered into crops rather than sprayed on them; "plant-incorporated protectant" or PIP is the regulatory term for what are commonly called built-in or transgenic pest resistance traits):

  • § 174.3 — Definitions: a plant-incorporated protectant is a pesticidal substance produced by a plant, plus the genetic material necessary for the plant to produce that substance; both the protein and the trait gene are considered the "pesticide product"; this definitional framework allows EPA to apply FIFRA to GMO pest resistance traits — Bt corn's Cry proteins are pesticides, and the gene encoding them is the inert ingredient
  • § 174.21 — General exemption qualifications: PIPs are presumptively subject to FIFRA registration, but many qualify for exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA; to qualify for exemption, the PIP must meet conditions showing it poses no dietary risk — most commercially deployed Bt proteins qualify
  • § 174.25 — Exemption for conventionally bred traits: when a pesticidal substance moves into a crop through conventional cross-breeding with a sexually compatible plant (not genetic engineering), it is exempt from FIFRA PIP requirements; this prevents FIFRA from capturing traditional plant breeding, even when the trait in question confers pest resistance
  • § 174.26 — Exemption for genetic engineering from sexually compatible plant: when the PIP gene comes from a plant that could naturally interbreed with the crop (no cross-kingdom gene transfer), the PIP may be exempt; limits the scope of what counts as a "novel" regulated pesticide
  • § 174.27 — Loss-of-function PIPs: plants engineered to reduce or silence their own susceptibility to pests (rather than producing a toxin) may be exempt — the regulatory line tracks whether there is a produced pesticidal substance, not just whether genetic engineering was used
  • §§ 174.500+ — Specific tolerance exemptions: individual sections list each registered or exempted Bt protein by name (Cry1A.105, Cry1F, Vip3Aa, Cry2Ab2, etc.) and the crops in which it is exempt from tolerance requirements; these are the regulatory authorizations for commercial Bt corn, Bt cotton, Bt soybean, and similar biotech crops

  The PIP framework represents a unique regulatory intersection: EPA registers the trait gene as the pesticide and manages the pesticidal protein as a food additive (through the tolerance/exemption system under FFDCA), while USDA's APHIS separately evaluates the GMO crop for environmental safety under the Plant Protection Act. FDA's voluntary consultation process handles the food safety aspects. A single biotech crop with insect resistance and herbicide tolerance (e.g., Bt + Roundup Ready corn) may require approvals from all three agencies. No major Part 174 amendments in the last 5 years — the Bt protein exemption framework is well established; EPA periodically adds new Bt protein varieties via individual exemption notices.

• 40 CFR Part 155 — Registration Review (initiation and conduct of periodic pesticide registration review; procedures for EPA's 15-year review cycle of registered active ingredients)

• 40 CFR Part 160 — Good Laboratory Practice Standards for Conducting Laboratory Studies Under FIFRA (30 sections — the EPA quality assurance framework for laboratory studies that generate data submitted to EPA in support of pesticide registration; and its companion 40 CFR Part 792 for TSCA studies):

  • § 160.1 — Scope: Part 160 prescribes GLP standards for studies submitted to EPA in support of pesticide registration decisions under FIFRA; studies subject to Part 160 include: physicochemical studies (solubility, stability, vapor pressure), toxicology studies (acute/chronic/reproductive toxicity), residue studies (how pesticide breaks down in crops and animals), and environmental fate studies (persistence in soil and water); GLP compliance is not required for fundamental research but is required for any study submitted to EPA as part of a regulatory submission
  • § 160.10 — Applicability to grants and contracts: when a sponsor contracts out laboratory work, the sponsor must ensure the contractor follows Part 160; the sponsor's compliance obligation does not transfer to the contractor — the registrant/petitioner bears ultimate responsibility for GLP compliance in the submitted studies; this provision prevents registrants from using non-GLP contractors and then disclaiming responsibility for data quality
  • § 160.12 — Statement of compliance: any person submitting a study to EPA must include a compliance statement certifying that the study was conducted in compliance with Part 160 or identifying any departures from the standards and explaining why compliance was not feasible; a false compliance statement constitutes fraud; EPA may reject studies that lack a compliance statement
  • § 160.15 — Inspection authority: testing facilities must permit EPA inspectors to enter, inspect facilities and equipment, review records, and conduct surveillance audits at any reasonable time; inspectors may copy records and remove samples; testing facilities that refuse inspection risk having their studies rejected; EPA conducts a program of surveillance inspections of commercial testing facilities (contract research organizations) specifically to verify GLP compliance
  • § 160.35 — Quality Assurance Unit (QAU): every testing facility must have a QAU composed of persons not involved in the studies being monitored; the QAU must inspect each study at intervals adequate to ensure data integrity; the QAU submits signed compliance certifications to facility management; this internal audit function is the primary compliance mechanism — EPA relies on QAU records during surveillance inspections
  • § 160.120 — Protocol requirement: each study must be conducted according to a written, approved protocol that specifies the study objectives, experimental design, methodology, and statistical analysis plan; the protocol must be approved by the Study Director before the study begins; retrospective protocol amendments require documentation and justification
  • § 160.130 — Conduct of study: the study director has overall responsibility for technical conduct; all data must be recorded promptly, directly, accurately, and legibly in ink; corrections to raw data must be made with a single line through the error, dated, and initialed — electronic data systems must have audit trails that provide equivalent documentation; GLP raw data must be retained for at least 5 years after the study report submission to EPA

  EPA's GLP Standards serve a different purpose from FDA's GLP (21 CFR Part 58 for clinical studies) — they ensure reproducibility and data integrity of toxicological and environmental fate studies, not human safety directly. EPA has used Part 160 violations to reject pesticide registration data, require additional studies, and refer serious data fraud cases to DOJ for prosecution. The parallel 40 CFR Part 792 contains identical GLP requirements for TSCA studies — the technical content is the same but the regulatory authority (FIFRA § 17 for Part 160; TSCA § 4/13 for Part 792) and the types of studies covered differ. Recent rulemakings: 73 FR 75597 (December 2008) — electronic records update.

• 40 CFR Part 156 — Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and Devices: the EPA regulations specifying exactly what information must appear on every pesticide product label. The label is both the legal authorization for sale and use and the enforcement document — using a pesticide in any way inconsistent with its label is a federal violation regardless of outcome. Key provisions:

  • § 156.10 — General labeling requirements: every pesticide product must bear a label showing clearly: (1) the product name, brand, or trademark; (2) the name and address of the registrant; (3) the EPA registration number; (4) the EPA establishment number; (5) net contents; (6) an ingredient statement (active and inert ingredients by name or by generic chemical name); (7) directions for use; (8) warning/caution statements; and (9) the signal word (DANGER, WARNING, or CAUTION, based on toxicity); the label must be in English, though additional languages may be included; label claims and directions must be substantiated by data in the registration record
  • § 156.10(f) — Signal words and precautionary statements: pesticide toxicity categories require specific signal words: Category I (highly toxic; LD50 ≤50 mg/kg oral) — DANGER/POISON with skull and crossbones; Category II (moderately toxic) — WARNING; Category III (slightly toxic) — CAUTION; Category IV (practically nontoxic) — CAUTION (optional); the signal word placement and size requirements are strictly prescribed; misclassification of toxicity category (using CAUTION when WARNING is required) is a registration violation
  • Subpart D — Human hazard and precautionary statements: EPA prescribes standardized statements for each toxicity category covering routes of exposure (oral, dermal, inhalation, eye) — e.g., "HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED," "CAUSES EYE IRRITATION," "DO NOT BREATHE DUST/SPRAY MIST"; the statements must appear regardless of whether the specific product has caused harm — they are based on the registration data; products with systemic toxicity must include statements about delayed health effects; first aid instructions are required and must correspond to the actual toxicity pathways
  • Subpart E — Environmental hazard statements: required when the pesticide poses risk to non-target organisms; examples: "This pesticide is toxic to birds and mammals," "This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates," "Do not apply when bees are foraging," "Do not apply directly to water"; EPA prescribes which environmental precautionary statements apply based on the product's ecological risk profile; pollinators receive specific protections under a 2022 label improvement initiative requiring spray buffer zones for certain products
  • §§ 156.140–156.159 — Container labeling: non-refillable containers must display specific label statements about triple-rinsing or pressure-rinsing before disposal; refillable containers have separate requirements; the container labeling requirements address the significant contamination risk from improperly rinsed pesticide containers — a major route of agricultural worker and environmental exposure
  • Subpart K — Worker Protection statements: products that may be used in agricultural settings must bear Worker Protection Standard (WPS) statements specifying restricted entry intervals, personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, and notification obligations; the label PPE statement is the specific worker protection requirement that applies to the product under 40 CFR Part 170; handler PPE requirements (gloves, respirators, protective eyewear) are listed for mixing/loading, application, and clean-up activities

  The FIFRA phrase "the label is the law" has real legal bite. The pesticide label is incorporated by reference into 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(2)(G), which makes it a federal violation to use any registered pesticide "in a manner inconsistent with its labeling." The label is both product and regulation — EPA approves the label text as part of registration, making every word legally significant. Label interpretation disputes (what does "apply to affected area" mean?) are a significant area of EPA guidance and litigation. Because labels are the primary communication mechanism with applicators, EPA has invested heavily in label readability — the current label format (signal words, use directions, environmental hazards) was standardized after research showed that complex, dense labels led to misuse. Recent rulemakings: 88 FR 30834 (May 2023) — proposed amendments to strengthen pollinator protection statements, requiring enhanced bee precautionary language and spray buffer zones for products applied while bees are foraging.

• 40 CFR Part 170 — Worker Protection Standard (WPS): EPA's FIFRA-based occupational safety regulation for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses (effective 2017 in its current form, 81 FR 82790). Two parallel subparts apply to distinct populations:

  Subpart C — Agricultural Workers (§§ 170.102–170.160): applies to workers who do any agricultural task — harvesting, weeding, pruning, scouting, planting — on a farm or greenhouse that uses pesticides:

  • § 170.110 — Entry restrictions: workers may not enter a treated area during a pesticide application; after application, workers may not enter until the restricted entry interval (REI) on the label has elapsed; REIs range from 4 hours (minimum for most products) to several days for the most toxic materials; the employer must know the REI for every pesticide used and must post or communicate it to workers
  • § 170.112 — Entry restriction exceptions: emergency entry during the REI (for example, to rescue an injured worker or prevent environmental harm) requires specified protective equipment
  • § 170.120 — Notification in greenhouses: workers must be notified of pesticide applications in enclosed spaces before application begins — the confined space creates higher exposure risk
  • § 170.122 — Application information access: workers must be able to see the EPA-required pesticide application information on the posting board (application date, pesticide name, EPA registration number, REI) for any pesticide used during the last 30 days; employers cannot restrict access to this information
  • § 170.130 — Safety training: all agricultural workers must complete pesticide safety training within 30 days of beginning work on an agricultural establishment and annually thereafter; training must cover health effects, how to recognize pesticide-related illness, first aid, safe handling of pesticide containers, the right to information, and how to obtain emergency assistance
  • § 170.135 — Safety information posting: a pesticide safety poster (EPA WPS safety poster or equivalent) must be posted at a central location workers can access; the central location must also display current pesticide application records within 30 days
  • § 170.150 — Decontamination: the employer must provide water for washing, soap, and single-use towels within ¼ mile of workers working in areas where pesticides were applied in the last 30 days; decontamination supplies are specific — eyewash water must be immediately accessible if pesticides are applied with a label eye-hazard statement
  • § 170.160 — Emergency assistance: if there is reason to believe a person has been exposed to pesticides, the employer must promptly make transportation available and provide information about the pesticide (name, EPA registration number, first aid statement, antidote) to treating healthcare providers

  Subpart D — Pesticide Handlers (§§ 170.202–170.280): applies to handlers — employees who mix, load, apply, or otherwise handle pesticides:

  • Handler employers face all the same notification, training, decontamination, and emergency assistance requirements as agricultural employers, plus additional requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls when the pesticide label specifies them; enclosed-cab systems reduce required PPE under specified conditions
  • § 170.230 — Handler training: handlers must be trained before performing any handler tasks (not 30-day grace period available for agricultural workers); training must include safe pesticide handling procedures, correct use and removal of PPE, and symptoms of overexposure
  • § 170.240 — Personal protective equipment: handlers must use all PPE specified on the pesticide label; the WPS establishes minimum PPE standards for handlers even when the label is silent

  The 2015 WPS update (effective January 2, 2017) was the first major revision since 1992. It added the annual training requirement (previously every 5 years), minimum age 18 for handling the most hazardous pesticides, mandatory posting of application-specific information, and the decontamination water proximity requirement.

• 40 CFR Part 180 — Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food (748 sections). The tolerance is the legal maximum residue level allowed for a pesticide in or on a specific food commodity, expressed in parts per million (ppm). EPA sets tolerances under FFDCA § 408 (21 U.S.C. § 346a), not FIFRA — a food with pesticide residues above the tolerance is adulterated and subject to seizure by FDA. Key framework rules:

  • § 180.1 — Definitions: "raw agricultural commodity" includes fresh fruits and vegetables in natural form; tolerances apply to the finished edible portion, not just the peel or rind
  • § 180.3 — Related pesticide chemicals: pesticides with related pharmacological effects (cholinesterase inhibitors, organochlorines, metallic dithiocarbamates) are treated as having additive toxicity; a combined residue limit may apply across multiple related compounds
  • § 180.5 — Zero tolerances: established when safe levels in animal diets cannot be determined or when the chemical is carcinogenic in test animals; no detectable residue is permitted
  • § 180.7 — Petition process: any person may petition EPA to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance; the petition must include residue chemistry data, toxicology data, and an environmental fate assessment; filing fee is $80,950 for a new tolerance plus $2,025 per additional commodity above nine (§ 180.33)
  • § 180.29 — Administrator-initiated tolerances: EPA may propose a new or modified tolerance on its own initiative with a 60-day public comment period
  • § 180.31 — Temporary tolerances: EPA may grant time-limited tolerances during experimental use permit periods; used when a pesticide needs to be evaluated on food crops before registration
  • § 180.40–41 — Crop group tolerances: a single tolerance may be established for an entire commodity group (e.g., "leafy vegetables") rather than each individual crop; reduces petitioning burden for broad-spectrum pesticides
  • Subpart C (422 sections) — Specific tolerances: individual tables for hundreds of pesticide active ingredients, each listing the ppm limit for every covered commodity (e.g., § 180.103 for captan, § 180.110 for malathion)
  • Subpart D (306 sections) — Exemptions: pesticides determined to be of minimal risk may be exempted from tolerance requirements; exemptions cover naturally occurring substances (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, diatomaceous earth), certain biological control agents (Bacillus thuringiensis), and inert ingredients that pose no dietary risk

• 40 CFR Part 158 — Data Requirements for Pesticides (115 sections — the master data-submission framework specifying exactly what studies EPA requires before it will register a conventional, biochemical, or microbial pesticide). Key provisions:

  • § 158.1 — Purpose and scope: Part 158 specifies the data EPA needs to evaluate whether a pesticide causes "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment"; the requirements vary by pesticide type (conventional chemical vs. biochemical vs. microbial), use pattern (indoor, agricultural, non-agricultural), and the nature of the claim being registered
  • § 158.100 — Use patterns: EPA organizes data requirements around six general use patterns — agricultural, greenhouse, indoor, outdoor non-agricultural, aquatic, and forestry; the applicable data requirements depend on which use patterns a product's label covers; a pesticide registered for both agricultural and aquatic use must satisfy both data packages
  • § 158.110–158.130 — R/CR/NR system: data requirements tables throughout Part 158 use three symbols — R (required in all cases), CR (conditionally required based on the product's specific use or properties), and NR (not required); registrants must evaluate each table row and justify conditional determinations; EPA reviewers verify this determination at the submission stage
  • §§ 158.1000–158.1070 — Applicator exposure data: required when workers or handlers may be exposed during mixing, loading, application, or re-entry into treated areas; the data requirements integrate with the Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR Part 170) — the exposure data drives the label's restricted entry interval (REI) and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements
  • §§ 158.1300 — Environmental fate: data requirements for soil degradation, runoff potential, groundwater leaching, and aquatic fate; EPA uses these data to model whether pesticide residues will reach drinking water sources above levels of concern — a key data driver for Safe Drinking Water Act risk assessments
  • §§ 158.1400–158.1410 — Residue chemistry: for pesticides used on food or feed crops, registrants must provide plant and animal residue data showing how the pesticide breaks down and what residues remain at harvest; these data support EPA's tolerance-setting process under 40 CFR Part 180

  Part 158 defines the scientific evidence a manufacturer must generate before EPA will evaluate a registration application. Because generating the required studies — particularly two-year rodent carcinogenicity studies, multi-generation reproductive toxicity studies, and environmental fate studies — costs $50–150 million per active ingredient, Part 158 is a significant market entry barrier. Data requirements can be satisfied by referencing existing data from prior registrations of the same active ingredient — triggering the data compensation provisions under FIFRA § 3(c)(1)(F) and 40 CFR Part 152 — or by conducting new studies. EPA uses the requirements to ensure that every registration decision is made on a consistent scientific basis.

• 40 CFR Part 176 — Time-Limited Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions: the companion regulation to FIFRA § 18 emergency exemptions (40 CFR Part 166) that governs how EPA establishes the food residue tolerances necessary when states or USDA obtain emergency use authorizations for unregistered or out-of-label pesticide applications. A FIFRA § 18 emergency exemption allows a use that hasn't gone through full registration, but if the pesticide is used on a food crop, EPA must also establish a temporary tolerance under FFDCA § 408 (21 U.S.C. § 346a) — or no food with that residue can be legally sold. Part 176 provides the procedural framework for those time-limited tolerances. Key provisions:

  • § 176.1 — Scope: covers tolerances and exemptions established in connection with FIFRA § 18 emergency exemptions and crisis exemptions — uses authorized for public health emergencies, crop emergencies, and other urgent situations where the normal registration timeline is impractical
  • § 176.5 — Establishment criteria: EPA will establish a time-limited tolerance only if it can determine the tolerance is "safe" — meaning there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure (the FFDCA § 408(b)(2) safety standard); EPA must make the same safety finding for emergency tolerance as for a permanent tolerance; the emergency urgency does not relax the safety standard
  • § 176.7 — Information required: to establish a time-limited tolerance, EPA needs residue chemistry data showing expected residue levels at the proposed use rate and pre-harvest interval, plus toxicological data sufficient to complete a dietary risk assessment; for genuine emergencies, EPA may use existing data from similar uses or registered uses of the same active ingredient
  • § 176.9 — Publication: tolerances established under Part 176 are published in the Federal Register as final rules, effective upon publication; the Federal Register notice specifies the commodity, active ingredient, tolerance level in ppm, and expiration date
  • § 176.11 — Duration and expiration: time-limited tolerances automatically expire and are revoked without further action at the end of the specified period (typically tied to the § 18 exemption period); the tolerance may be extended under § 176.13 if additional emergency uses are authorized or if pre-harvest intervals require more time before the crop can be harvested and the tolerance expires
  • § 176.15 — Relationship to Part 166: the establishment of a Part 176 tolerance does not alter the § 18 exemption requirements of Part 166 — facilities and applicators still must comply with all Part 166 conditions; the two regulations operate in tandem, with Part 166 authorizing the use and Part 176 authorizing the food sale

  Part 176 tolerances are the routine mechanism by which EPA manages the food safety side of the roughly 30–40 FIFRA § 18 emergency exemptions granted each year (primarily to states for crop pest emergencies). Common scenarios: a new aphid species invades a vegetable crop before any registered products cover that pest; drought creates an unusual fungal disease; a quarantine pest requires fumigation of a commodity with an available but unregistered fumigant. The tolerance process is fast — EPA can establish a temporary tolerance in days for genuine crop emergencies — and the resulting tolerances are listed in 40 CFR Part 180 if they are later converted to permanent tolerances, or they simply expire at the end of the emergency season.

• 40 CFR Part 165 — Pesticide Management and Disposal (25 sections across 5 subparts — EPA's FIFRA § 19 regulations governing the design of pesticide containers, the repackaging of pesticides into refillable containers, and the construction of containment structures at pesticide distribution facilities; authority: 7 U.S.C. § 136q; effective 2006). Part 165 addresses the downstream end of the pesticide distribution chain — what happens to containers after use, how bulk pesticides are safely dispensed, and how spills at distribution facilities are contained before they reach soil and water:

  • Subpart B — Nonrefillable Container Standards (§§ 165.20–165.27): nonrefillable containers (single-use pesticide jugs, bottles, bags, and drums) must meet DOT packaging standards for non-hazardous materials if they're not DOT hazardous materials, or must meet the applicable DOT hazardous material container standards if they are; the pesticide label must include instructions for proper disposal or recycling of the nonrefillable container; most agricultural pesticide containers must carry triple-rinse or pressure-rinse instructions (as already required under Part 156 labeling), and users must actually perform the rinse before disposal — an improperly rinsed pesticide container that leaches residues into groundwater can trigger cleanup liability under RCRA
  • Subpart C — Refillable Container Standards (§§ 165.40–165.47): refillable containers (bulk pesticide tanks, totes, and other reusable containers) must meet DOT structural requirements and must be marked with the container's rated capacity, test pressure, and the registrant's product information; only specific pesticide products may be put into a given refillable container — containers designed and approved for one pesticide cannot be filled with a different pesticide without explicit authorization; the registrant must maintain records of each container including the container identification number
  • Subpart D — Repackaging Standards (§§ 165.60–165.75): governs who may repackage (transfer bulk pesticide into refillable containers for distribution); repackaging is a regulated activity that may only be done by (a) the registrant itself, (b) a person who has obtained the registrant's written permission to refill under specified protocols, or (c) a "refiller" operating under a formal written agreement with the registrant; the registrant must train all refillers on safe handling procedures and must audit refilling operations; unauthorized repackaging of a pesticide product is a FIFRA violation — the repackaged product is treated as an unregistered pesticide, exposing the refiller to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation
  • Subpart E — Pesticide Containment Structures (§§ 165.80–165.97): the most operationally significant subpart for commercial pesticide dealers and distributors — requires any facility with stationary refillable pesticide containers (bulk tanks, totes, or other containers remaining at the facility for 30+ days) and pesticide dispensing areas where refillable containers are filled to have containment pads and, for large tanks, secondary containment units; containment pads must be constructed of steel or reinforced concrete (or equivalent impervious material), be capable of holding the largest container's full volume plus 10%, and be sloped to prevent runoff; records of inspections and maintenance must be kept for 3 years; states that adopted their own containment programs before August 2006 may apply for EPA authorization to continue using their state standards as an alternative to Part 165

  Part 165 completed the pesticide container regulatory framework that FIFRA § 19 directed EPA to establish. Before the 2006 rule, container design was governed only by label instructions — Part 165 added structural requirements. The containment pad requirement has been the most consequential for agricultural chemical dealers (Ag retailers, cooperative elevators, and custom applicators maintaining bulk tanks) — any facility storing pesticides in stationary refillable containers above 1 gallon capacity must have compliant containment or face EPA and state enforcement. State agricultural departments often have concurrent enforcement authority. The most common violations found at agricultural chemical dealers are inadequate containment capacity (pad too small for the largest tank) and missing inspection records.

• 40 CFR Part 172 — Experimental Use Permits (26 sections across 3 subparts): implements FIFRA § 5 (7 U.S.C. § 136c), which authorizes EPA and authorized states to issue Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) allowing field testing of unregistered pesticides or registered pesticides being tested for new uses — without the full pre-market registration review. The EUP framework creates a controlled pathway for pesticide developers to gather the field efficacy and environmental data that registration applications require, using the actual pesticide in actual field conditions, before the registration itself is approved.

  Federal EUP framework (Subpart A, §§ 172.2–172.11):

  • § 172.3 — When an EUP is required: an EUP is required for any field testing of an unregistered pesticide or a registered pesticide tested for a use not covered by its existing registration (a new crop, pest, or application method), unless the testing is confined to laboratory or greenhouse settings, involves quantities of 10 acres or 1 acre of water or less, or involves certain naturally occurring substances; the 10-acre/1-acre threshold is the key exemption — small-scale bench and greenhouse studies do not require an EUP, but replicated field trials at commercial scale do
  • § 172.4 — Application requirements: applications must be submitted as far in advance as possible and not less than 90 days before the intended testing start date; applications must describe the pesticide, the proposed test program (acreage, crops, geographic scope, environmental fate data expected), the use restrictions during testing (no food use without a temporary tolerance or exemption), and the disposition of all treated crops (treated crops must be destroyed or disposed of in a FIFRA-compliant manner unless EPA establishes a tolerance or exemption)
  • § 172.11 — Federal Register publication: upon receiving an EUP application for a pesticide that has not been previously registered, EPA must publish a notice in the Federal Register and provide 15 days for public comment before acting; notice is not required for applications to amend or renew existing EUPs; EPA may issue the EUP, deny it, or condition it; conditions typically specify maximum acreage, geographic boundaries, required monitoring, and crop/product disposition
  • § 172.10 — Refusal and revocation: EPA may refuse to issue or may revoke an EUP if the testing would pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment; EPA may impose conditions to reduce such risks; violations of EUP conditions are FIFRA violations subject to civil penalties of $5,000 per offense for commercial users (FIFRA § 14)

  State EUP programs (Subpart B, §§ 172.20–172.26): FIFRA § 5(f) authorizes states to issue their own EUPs under EPA-approved state plans:

  • § 172.23 — State plan approval: a state submits a plan to EPA describing its EUP program (application procedures, review criteria, monitoring, enforcement); EPA approves plans that are consistent with the federal framework; once approved, the state's designated agency (typically the state department of agriculture) may issue EUPs for testing within the state
  • § 172.24 — State issuance authority: states may issue EUPs under the same scope as federal EUPs — for unregistered pesticides and new uses of registered pesticides; state-issued EUPs are generally valid only within the issuing state; testing across state lines requires a federal EUP
  • § 172.26 — EPA review: within 10 days of issuing an EUP, the state must notify EPA; EPA may review any state-issued EUP and may disapprove or impose additional conditions; EPA retains oversight authority even after approving a state plan — the state program operates under federal delegation, not independent authority

  Microbial pesticide notifications (Subpart C, §§ 172.43–172.60): a special streamlined pathway for small-scale testing of microbial pesticides (bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and other microorganisms used as pest control agents) — separate from the standard EUP process because microbial pesticide risks (primarily containment and potential ecosystem transfer) differ from synthetic chemical risks:

  • § 172.45 — Persons planning small-scale testing of a microbial pesticide that does not meet standard EUP exemptions must submit a notification to EPA at least 60 days before testing; unlike an EUP application, notifications are reviewed on a 60-day timeline and are automatically approved unless EPA objects; this lighter touch reflects that most microbial organisms used in small field tests pose lower systemic risks than synthetic chemicals
  • § 172.48 — Tiering system: EPA evaluates microbial notifications based on whether the organism is native to the environment, has known metabolite concerns, or poses containment challenges (viable organisms can spread beyond test plots); tier assignments determine whether a full EUP or simply a notification is adequate

  EUPs are the practical bridge between laboratory development and commercial registration — the period when agrochemical companies, biotech firms, and public research institutions gather the efficacy trials, residue data, and environmental fate data that the EPA registration data requirements demand. A failed EUP (where field testing reveals unexpectedly high environmental persistence, non-target organism impacts, or efficacy failures) prevents commercialization — the EUP system thus acts as a second screening gate before market entry. As of 2025, EPA grants approximately 200–300 federal EUPs per year; state programs issue additional hundreds annually. The most active EUP categories are experimental herbicides and fungicides for specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, nuts), biological pesticides, and new formulations of existing active ingredients.

How It Works

FIFRA is the primary federal law governing the sale, distribution, and use of pesticides in the United States. Unlike most environmental laws that focus on controlling pollution after it occurs, FIFRA operates as a pre-market registration system — no pesticide can be legally sold or used unless EPA has first evaluated its risks and registered it.

To register a pesticide, a manufacturer must submit extensive data on the product's chemistry, toxicology, environmental fate (including drinking water contamination), ecological effects, and efficacy. EPA evaluates whether the pesticide causes "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment" — a risk-benefit standard that weighs economic, social, and environmental costs alongside the benefits of the pesticide's use. If the risks are acceptable, EPA registers the product with specific label directions that become legally binding: a pesticide's EPA-approved label specifies exactly how, where, when, and in what quantities it may be used, including application rates, reentry intervals (how long before workers can enter treated fields), pre-harvest intervals, protective equipment requirements, and environmental precautions. Using a pesticide in any manner inconsistent with its labeling is a federal violation. EPA classifies some pesticides as "restricted use" when they pose particular hazards even when used as directed; these can only be purchased and applied by certified applicators — professionals who have passed competency exams. Certification is administered by states under federal standards, with separate categories for commercial and private (farmer) applicators.

EPA reviews all registered pesticide active ingredients on a 15-year cycle to incorporate new science on health and environmental effects, which can result in label changes, cancellation, or continued registration with modifications. EPA can also act outside this cycle — issuing suspension orders when an "imminent hazard" exists, bypassing normal hearing procedures. FIFRA expressly allows states to regulate pesticides more strictly than the federal baseline: states can deny registration to federally approved pesticides and impose additional use restrictions, though they cannot permit sale of a pesticide EPA has not registered. States also run their own applicator certification programs under federal oversight.

How It Affects You

If you're a farmer or commercial pesticide applicator: "The label is the law" is not a slogan — it's an accurate statement of FIFRA enforcement. Using a registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its EPA-approved label is a federal violation, regardless of whether harm results. Restricted use pesticide (RUP) applications require certified applicator status, which means passing your state's certification exam and maintaining continuing education credits for recertification (typically every 3 years). Private applicator certification (for farmers applying to their own land) is less rigorous than commercial certification but still requires demonstrating basic knowledge. Records of RUP applications must be kept for 2 years and be available for inspection — record what was applied, where, when, at what rate, and the EPA registration number. FIFRA civil penalties for label violations reach $5,000 per violation for commercial applicators and $1,000 for private applicators; criminal penalties for knowing violations can result in imprisonment. Find your state's certification requirements through your state department of agriculture or the EPA pesticide applicator certification page at epa.gov/pesticide-applicator-certification.

If you're a homeowner using lawn, garden, or indoor pest products: General use pesticides are available without certification, but they are registered products subject to the same federal labeling requirements as agricultural chemicals. "More is better" is a dangerous assumption — applying at rates higher than the label specifies doesn't improve results and may cause illegal residues, runoff, or liability. The EPA pesticide registration number (EPA Reg. No.) on every product label confirms it's federally registered. For residential use, common mistakes include: applying during rain or high wind (which causes runoff and drift), applying near water features or storm drains, and not observing reentry intervals after application in enclosed spaces. If you suspect a pesticide product has caused harm or is being sold without a label, report it to your state department of agriculture or the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs at epa.gov/pesticides/contact.

If you're a pesticide manufacturer or registrant: Registering a new active ingredient under FIFRA is a significant commitment — EPA requires a data package demonstrating efficacy and establishing safety for human health and the environment, covering toxicology, environmental fate, ecological effects, and residue chemistry. Developing this package for a new active ingredient typically costs $250–$350 million and takes 10+ years. Registration is not permanent: all active ingredients undergo 15-year registration review cycles in which EPA incorporates new science. During review, EPA may impose new label requirements, cancel uses, or suspend registration if an "imminent hazard" exists. Your data submissions are protected as trade secrets from third-party disclosure under FIFRA § 10, but EPA can use the data to support registration decisions for new registrants (with compensation to you after a period). Monitor your EPA Registration Review docket at epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation for active review timelines on your registrations.

If you're a farmworker or worker in an agricultural setting: The Worker Protection Standard (WPS) (40 CFR Part 170) establishes specific protections for agricultural workers and pesticide handlers: required training within 30 days of hire, central posting of safety information, access to pesticide application records, personal protective equipment, decontamination supplies, and reentry interval (REI) protections that prohibit entering treated areas until the label-specified time has passed. REIs range from a few hours for some products to several days for others. If you're in the field and see pesticide application in progress or notice drift from a nearby application, you have the right to know what pesticide is being applied — your employer must provide the product name, EPA registration number, and label safety information. If you've been exposed to pesticides and experience symptoms, contact the National Pesticide Information Center at 1-800-858-7378 (npic.orst.edu) for guidance on health effects and when to seek medical care.

State Variations

State variation is significant under FIFRA:

• State registration: Most states require separate state-level pesticide registration in addition to EPA registration
• Additional restrictions: California's Proposition 65, restricted materials list, and buffer zones are among the most stringent; Hawaii restricts certain pesticides near schools
• Applicator certification: State programs vary in exam content, categories, and recertification requirements
• Preemption: Local governments are generally preempted from regulating pesticides by state law in most states, though some states allow local restrictions

• 40 CFR Part 164 — Rules of Practice Governing Hearings under FIFRA Section 6 — the administrative adjudicatory procedures for the three most consequential adverse actions EPA can take against a pesticide registrant: cancellation, suspension, and classification change. Part 164 creates the procedural framework under which a registrant can contest EPA's proposed adverse action before the proceeding becomes final — the principal legal protection preventing arbitrary or improperly supported cancellation or restriction of a pesticide registration. Key provisions:

  • §§ 164.1–164.30 (Subpart B — Standard Proceedings): the general hearing process for cancellation and classification change proceedings — (a) EPA files a complaint notifying the registrant of the proposed action and the basis; (b) the registrant may request a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) within the specified response period; (c) discovery, evidence submission, and oral argument rules apply; (d) the ALJ issues an initial decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law; (e) any party may file exceptions with the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) within 20 days of the initial decision; (f) the EAB issues a final agency order, which becomes final and effective unless challenged in federal court
  • § 164.100–164.111 (Appeals to Environmental Appeals Board): the EAB's appellate review of FIFRA ALJ decisions; the EAB may review interlocutory orders (§ 164.100) and initial decisions (§ 164.101) on request; the EAB has 90 days from close of hearing to issue a final decision or order (§ 164.103); reconsideration, reopening, and rehearing motions are available but strictly time-limited — motions for reopening must be filed within the time limits in § 164.110
  • §§ 164.120–164.122 (Subpart C — Expedited Hearings for Suspension): when EPA determines that a pesticide presents an imminent hazard and invokes its emergency suspension authority under FIFRA § 6(c), the registrant may request an expedited hearing; the expedited proceeding operates on a compressed timeline to balance the public health emergency against the registrant's due process rights; the expedited hearing produces a recommended finding from the presiding officer within a short period, and the Environmental Appeals Board issues a final order within 7 days of receiving the record (§ 164.122)
  • §§ 164.130+ (Subpart D — Modification Applications): procedures for registrants who seek to modify or reverse a prior cancellation or suspension order under FIFRA §§ 3 and 18 — the "reopening" pathway that allows data from new studies, changed circumstances, or new scientific consensus to be presented to EPA after a final adverse action

  The FIFRA hearing framework is the principal mechanism through which controversial pesticide cancellations and suspensions are contested. Major FIFRA administrative hearings have included the glyphosate review (Roundup), the chlorpyrifos proceedings (which ultimately led to a 2021 ban reversed under Trump and reinstated under litigation), and various neonicotinoid reviews concerning effects on pollinators. The hearing process is notable for its adversarial scientific character — registrants often present extensive new toxicological studies and risk assessments to rebut EPA's regulatory record, and the ALJ and EAB must evaluate competing expert testimony on issues where the scientific community itself is divided. Federal courts have limited authority to second-guess EAB factual findings but can review legal conclusions and procedural compliance.

  Recent rulemakings: 38 FR 19371 (1973) — original Part 164 rules. 57 FR 5342 / 5343 (1992) — major revision reorganizing the hearing procedures and establishing the EAB appeals process in its current form. No significant amendments since 1992 — the FIFRA hearing framework is one of the more stable sets of administrative procedures in the environmental regulatory system.

• 40 CFR Part 162 — State Registration of Pesticide Products: the EPA regulations implementing FIFRA § 24(c), which authorizes states to register a pesticide product or new use for a special local need (SLN) that is not addressed by any currently registered product or that has additional uses not already approved under federal registration. SLN registrations allow states to respond to local agricultural pest crises faster than the federal registration track — a state can register a new use in weeks when a novel pest or unusual outbreak creates an emergency that existing products don't cover. Key provisions:

  • § 162.152 — State registration authority: each state is authorized to register a new end-use product, or authorize an additional use for a currently registered product, when (a) the EPA-registered product does not meet the special local need; and (b) the registration is consistent with FIFRA; EPA may disapprove any SLN registration within 90 days of receiving the state's notification; if EPA does not disapprove within 90 days, the registration is deemed approved and the state may issue it; states may not SLN-register active ingredients not registered for any use in the United States, nor may they register a use that EPA has specifically prohibited
  • § 162.153 — State registration procedures: states must require applicants to submit product name, EPA registration number of the base product (if any), active ingredient identity, use pattern, label, efficacy and safety data, and the state's determination of local need; the state issues its own registration certificate and assigns a state-specific registration number; the product label must include both the federal EPA registration number and the state SLN registration number
  • § 162.154 — EPA disapproval: EPA may disapprove a state SLN registration on any reasonable grounds including safety concerns, inadequate data, inconsistency with FIFRA, or because the intended use is already addressed by a federal registration; EPA must provide written notice of disapproval with the reasons; the state may respond and EPA may reconsider
  • § 162.155 — Suspension of state registration authority: if EPA finds that a state has failed to exercise adequate control over its SLN registration program — issuing registrations without sufficient data, failing to follow Part 162 procedures, or allowing distribution of products that present unreasonable risks — EPA may suspend the state's authority to issue SLN registrations; suspension is a significant enforcement tool rarely invoked
  • § 162.156 — Use restrictions: SLN-registered products may only be distributed within the registering state; interstate sale of SLN-registered products is prohibited; the label must include a statement that the product is registered for sale and use only within the issuing state

  SLN registrations (sometimes called "24(c) registrations") are a significant practical tool for state agriculture departments and farming communities. In a typical year, EPA receives 200-400 state SLN notifications. Agricultural states routinely use SLNs to address crop-specific pest problems — for example, a new aphid strain in a specialty crop, a quarantine pest requiring a fumigant not labeled for that use, or a ground cover that needs herbicide treatment where no labeled product is registered. Growers in those states may use SLN-registered products following the state label; growers in other states may not. SLNs interact with the tolerance system — if the SLN use involves a food crop, EPA must also confirm that existing tolerances (or a new temporary tolerance under 40 CFR Part 176) cover the residues from the SLN use before the registration can be issued. No major Part 162 rulemakings in recent years — the FIFRA § 24(c) framework has been stable since the 1994 revisions.

Implementing Regulations — Special Review and Applicator Certification

• 40 CFR Part 154 — Special Review Procedures (16 sections — the regulatory framework for EPA's Special Review process, used when EPA identifies that a registered pesticide may cause "unreasonable adverse effects" warranting cancellation, denial, or reclassification of its registration):

  • § 154.1 — Purpose: the Special Review is the mechanism EPA uses to determine whether to initiate formal cancellation or reclassification proceedings under FIFRA §§ 3(c)(6) and 6; it is triggered when EPA concludes that a pesticide's use may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment or human health — the same risk-benefit standard used in registration, but applied to already-registered products
  • § 154.7 — Criteria for initiating Special Review: EPA considers whether available evidence indicates the pesticide (a) may cause cancer, gene mutations, or reproductive harm in humans; (b) causes adverse effects on non-target species such as fish, wildlife, or endangered species; (c) causes significant reduction in beneficial insect populations; (d) creates secondary pest resurgence; (e) is associated with significant environmental persistence and bioaccumulation; the Special Review criteria are broader than the emergency suspension criteria — they address long-term risk, not imminent hazard
  • § 154.10 — Petitions: any interested person may suggest initiation of a Special Review; EPA may also initiate on its own initiative; no formal petition process required — EPA has complete discretion over whether to initiate
  • § 154.15 — Docket: EPA establishes a public docket when it begins notifying registrants privately that a Special Review may be initiated; the docket includes all information supporting EPA's concern, registrant responses, scientific studies submitted, and correspondence; the docket is publicly accessible throughout the process
  • § 154.21 — Preliminary notification to registrants: if EPA decides it may initiate a Special Review, it sends written notice by certified mail to affected registrants describing the information that supports its concern; registrants receive an opportunity to comment before EPA issues a formal Notice of Special Review
  • §§ 154.25–154.31 — Special Review process: EPA issues a Notice of Special Review (published in Federal Register); registrants and others may submit rebuttals, additional data, and economic analyses; EPA evaluates all evidence using the FIFRA risk-benefit standard; EPA issues a Proposed Decision (not to initiate formal cancellation or to initiate formal cancellation/suspension proceedings); public comment period follows the Proposed Decision; EPA issues a Final Decision
  • § 154.33 — Outcome: if EPA concludes after Special Review that the pesticide presents unreasonable adverse effects, it will initiate formal cancellation proceedings under FIFRA § 6 (using the Part 164 adjudicatory process); if EPA concludes the pesticide does not present unreasonable adverse effects, or that risk mitigation measures are sufficient, the Special Review closes without cancellation

  The Special Review process has been used for some of the most significant pesticide decisions in U.S. regulatory history — including chlorpyrifos (organophosphate insecticide), chlordane/heptachlor (now cancelled), and aldrin/dieldrin. Special Reviews have average timelines of 3–7 years. Recent rulemakings: 53 FR 39617 (1988) — major revision establishing current Special Review procedures.

• 40 CFR Part 171 — Certification of Pesticide Applicators (14 sections — federal minimum standards for state, tribal, and federal certification programs for applicators of restricted use pesticides (RUPs); implements FIFRA § 11 (7 U.S.C. § 136i)):

  • § 171.1 — Scope: establishes federal standards for certification and recertification of applicators of restricted use pesticides; covers requirements for state, tribal, and federal agency certification plans; applies to both commercial applicators (anyone who uses or supervises RUP use in exchange for compensation) and private applicators (farmers and ranchers applying RUPs on their own or their employer's agricultural establishment)
  • § 171.101 — Commercial applicator certification categories: 17 defined categories based on application setting and pest type — (a) Agricultural pest control (crop pest control, animal pest control); (b) Forest pest control; (c) Ornamental and turf pest control; (d) Seed treatment; (e) Aquatic pest control; (f) Right-of-way pest control; (g) Industrial, institutional, structural, and health-related pest control; (h) Public health pest control; (i) Regulatory pest control; (j) Demonstration and research pest control; (k) Wood preservation; (l) Soil fumigation; (m) Fumigation of structures; (n) Commodity and space fumigation; (o) Aerial pest control; (p) Sewer/utility line pest control; (q) Antifouling coatings; each category has specific competency requirements beyond the core knowledge standards
  • § 171.103 — Standards for certification of commercial applicators: to receive certification, a commercial applicator must pass a written examination demonstrating competency in the use and handling of RUPs; state and tribal programs must test for: (a) safe handling, transport, storage, and disposal of RUPs and their containers; (b) recognition and management of common pests; (c) reading and following labels; (d) applying pesticides correctly and safely; (e) recognizing pesticide poisoning and first aid; (f) environmental hazard avoidance; (g) laws and regulations; plus category-specific competency for each certification category; passing a written exam is the minimum — states may require additional standards
  • § 171.105 — Standards for certification of private applicators: private applicators must demonstrate competency through written testing or other state-approved methods; private applicator certification does not require a proctored state exam in all states — some states allow private applicators to complete self-study and self-certification for basic categories; private applicators may certify workers (non-certified applicator workers) to apply RUPs under their direct supervision
  • § 171.201 — State, tribal, and federal certification plan requirements: each state must submit a certification plan to EPA for approval; the plan must cover plan administration, examination requirements, categories of certification, record-keeping, and recertification procedures; EPA approves plans that meet Part 171 minimum standards; states may be more stringent
  • § 171.301 — Recertification: certified applicators must be recertified every 5 years through continuing education, re-examination, or other state-approved methods; recertification credits must cover label comprehension, safety, environmental stewardship, and category-specific updates; the 5-year recertification requirement was strengthened in EPA's 2017 revision of Part 171

  The 2017 revision of Part 171 (82 FR 952, Jan. 4, 2017) made the most significant changes to applicator certification requirements since the original 1974 rule. Key changes: mandatory written examination for all applicators (closing a gap where some states allowed oral exams), expanded knowledge requirements for pesticide safety and environmental protection, new requirements for supervision of non-certified applicator workers, and mandatory 5-year recertification. States had until March 2020 to update their programs. Over 300,000 commercial applicators and 1.2 million private applicators are certified in the United States under state programs that meet Part 171 standards.

Pending Legislation

• HR 5564 — Amends FIFRA to improve coordination between EPA and USDA on pesticide registration and review decisions. Status: Introduced.
• S 2324 — Pesticide Injury Accountability Act. Allows private lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers for injuries caused by registered products, creating a right of action alongside the existing regulatory framework. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

EPA has been conducting registration reviews for major pesticide classes including neonicotinoids (linked to pollinator decline), organophosphates, and glyphosate. Court decisions have affected EPA's regulatory approach — notably, cases challenging the agency's human health and ecological risk assessments. The Endangered Species Act's interaction with FIFRA continues to generate litigation and policy changes, as EPA works to incorporate endangered species protections into pesticide registration decisions.

• In February 2026, EPA published tolerances for glufosinate pesticide residues on food commodities under FIFRA and FFDCA.
• Glyphosate registration review — ongoing litigation: EPA's 2020 interim decision concluding that glyphosate (Roundup) is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" remains contested in court. Environmental and farmworker health groups challenged EPA's risk assessment as ignoring the International Agency for Research on Cancer's 2015 classification of glyphosate as a "probable carcinogen." The 9th Circuit vacated EPA's interim decision in 2022 and required a new review; EPA completed a revised draft biological evaluation in 2024, still concluding glyphosate poses no unreasonable risk to humans but finding potential effects on endangered species. The Trump EPA has maintained the human safety conclusion while the ESA consultation process continues.
• Neonicotinoid restrictions — Trump EPA reversal: The Biden EPA had proposed canceling or restricting registrations of several neonicotinoid pesticides (imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam) based on risks to pollinator species under ESA consultation. The Trump EPA reversed course in 2025, withdrawing the proposed cancellation actions and announcing that EPA would rely on "targeted mitigations" (application timing, buffer zones) rather than outright restrictions. Agricultural commodity groups strongly supported the reversal; pollinator and beekeeping advocacy organizations challenged the withdrawal.
• MAHA commission and pesticide review: HHS Secretary Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again commission has focused significant attention on pesticide residues in food and their potential links to chronic disease. MAHA's approach — which emphasizes reducing pesticide exposures as a public health priority independent of EPA's FIFRA risk threshold analysis — has created tension between HHS's health communication role and EPA's regulatory authority under FIFRA. Congress has not altered FIFRA's EPA-centric structure, but MAHA's public messaging has increased consumer demand for organic and low-pesticide products, affecting agricultural market dynamics.