THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Department of Agricultural Resources
225 Turnpike Road, 3rd Floor, Southborough, MA 01772
www.mass.gov/agr
MAURA T. HEALEY KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL REBECCA L. TEPPER ASHLEY E. RANDLE
Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner
TO: Senate and House Clerks and the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture
FROM: Taryn LaScola, Director of Crop and Pest Services
DATE: August 29, 2023
REGARDING: Federal Fiscal Year 2022 (October 1st, 2021, through September 30th, 2022) End of Year
Report
INTRODUCTION
The Massachusetts Department Agricultural Resources (“MDAR”) is the lead state agency for pesticide oversight
and regulation in the Commonwealth under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) as
well as the Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act (M.G.L. c. 132B) (“Act”) and its regulations promulgated at 333
CMR (“Regulations”). Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 132B, § 5A, MDAR is required to submit an annual report to Clerks of
the Senate and the House of Representatives and the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture
describing the efforts taken and the progress made toward reducing pesticide use.
The Pesticide Program, which falls under the Division of Crop and Pest Services within MDAR, carries out the day-
to-day responsibilities of regulating pesticides in the Commonwealth, including the licensing of pesticide
applicators, the registration of pesticide products, and the enforcement of the Act and Regulations. In addition,
the Pesticide Program carries out other pesticide related activities in support of the regulatory mandate, such as
education, outreach, and water monitoring. The Pesticide Program also acts as support staff for the Pesticide
Board, Pesticide Board Subcommittee, Pesticide Applicator Advisory Council, and Conservationist Advisory
Council.
While MDAR enforces the Act and Regulations, the following groups are established by law to help support its
work:
• Pesticide Board (“Board”): Thirteen-member board that is made up of state agencies and members of
the public. The Board’s role is to advise MDAR on the implementation of the Act and Regulations. It is
also the authority on approving any regulatory change. See M.G.L. c. 132B, § 3.
• Pesticide Board Subcommittee (“Subcommittee): Five-member board that is made up of state
agencies and members of the public. The Subcommittee registers products for use in the state. See
M.G.L. c. 132B, § 3A.
• Pesticide Applicator Advisory Council: Five-member advisory board established by the Board and
comprised of individuals in the pesticide industry. Its role is to advise the Board relative to the
development of policy or the adoption, amendment, or repeal of regulation. See 333 CMR 4.00.
• Conservationist Advisory Council: Five-member board established by the Board and comprised of
individuals who are experienced in the conservation and protection of the environment. Its role is to
advise the Board relative to the development of policy or the adoption, amendment, or repeal of
regulation. See 333 CMR 4.00 et seq.
Each year, MDAR staff must prioritize where MDAR’s efforts should be made. Considerations taken when
prioritizing include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Resources (staff and funds);
• Federal Responsibilities;
• Legislative Mandates (state and federal);
• Changes in Regulation;
• Enforcement Trends;
• Complaints (take precedent over routine inspections); and
• Stakeholder/Public Requests and Needs.
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement Program
The enforcement program is charged with ensuring that the use—which includes, but is not limited to, the
application of pesticides—is performed within the confines of the Act and Regulations as well as FIFRA. In the
federal Fiscal Year of 2022 (October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022), MDAR had the following staff in the
enforcement program:
• Pesticide Inspector (3)
• Rights of Way Inspector (1)
• Chief Inspector (1)
Inspectors conduct inspections that include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Record Inspections
• Worker Protection Standard Inspections
• Marketplace Inspections
• Producer Establishment Inspections
• School Inspections
• Use Observations
• Rights of Way Inspections
• Investigations
• License checks
• Dealer Inspections
If violations are found, enforcement actions are issued. Enforcement actions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Letter of Warning
• Administrative Order
• Notice of Assessments (Fine)
• License Revocation
• License Suspension
Page 2 of 7
Inspections Completed
MDAR continued to monitor pesticide use, storage, sales, and labeling throughout the Commonwealth. Overall, a
total of 313 pesticide inspections covering a wide range of pesticide use in the Commonwealth were completed in
FY22 (See Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1. FY22 Inspections Projected and Completed
* Worker Protection Standard (“WPS”) inspections are reported as a subset of Agricultural Use Inspections.
Inspection Type Inspections Physical Documentary
Completed Samples Samples
Collected Collected
Agricultural Use 7 0 3
*WPS Tier I 7 0 0
*WPS Tier II 6 0 0
Agricultural Use 11 31 0
Follow-up
Non-Ag Use 84 40 5
Non-Ag Use Follow-up 49 43 0
Producer Establishment 4 3 2
Marketplace 69 0 0
Applicator Records 63 0 1
Restricted Use Pesticide 13 0 0
Dealer
Total 306 117 11
Table 2. FY22 Enforcement Actions
Inspection Type Warning Fine Licensing Criminal SSURO Admin. Referrals Other
Letter Action Action Hearings to EPA
Agricultural Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agricultural Use 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
Follow-up
Non-Ag Use 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Ag Use 34 3 0 0 0 0 1 2
Follow-up
Producer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Establishment
Marketplace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Applicator 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Records
Restricted Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Pesticide Dealer
Total 47 6 0 0 0 0 1 7
Compliance Verification was documented by three methods:
1. First, a re-inspection of the violating firm within time constraints set forth in the specific Letter of
Warning or Administrative Order issued;
Page 3 of 7
 2. Next, the Pesticide Program sends a written document describing any and all documented violations
to a firm which has been found to be out of compliance. This document contains a statement that
describes how and when compliance was attained and is signed by the respondent and notarized; and
3. Finally, the receipt of payment for case assessed fines. There were 6 case assessed fines during FY22.
Rights of Way (ROW) Program
333 CMR 11.00 provides requirements relative to applications of herbicides to manage ROW. It requires that
Vegetation Management Plans (“VMP”) and Yearly Operational Plans (“YOP”) be developed and submitted to the
MDAR for review and approval.
The ROW Program received forty YOPs. YOPs consist of the product name(s), rates and use amounts of pesticides
to be applied along a specific Right of Way. It also identifies the individual areas to be applied to, and as
applicable, the identification of “sensitive areas” (as defined in 333 CMR 11.00) where limits or prohibitions in
application practices are warranted. The plans are reviewed and, if needed, comments and/or edits are made by
the ROW Coordinator. This process closed with the acceptance of forty finalized YOPs.
Vegetation Management Plans (“VMP”) provide a comprehensive overview of vegetation control for a given Right
of Way. VMPs describe potential methods of vegetation control which may include the following: herbicides;
mechanical and biological methods; or a combination of the three. Integrated Pest Management (“IPM”) and—in
the case of ROWs—Integrated Vegetation Management (“IVM”) play a prominent role in the MDAR ROW
Program. As such, the IPM-IVM approach for the specific ROW is outlined in the VMP and the YOP. The VMPs are
valid for five years, and then the plan process must start over again. A proposed VMP is part of the public record
for the Commonwealth, and comments are sought in written format as well as at public hearings held in areas
traversed by the Right of Way. For FY22, 11 VMPs were reviewed by the ROW Advisory Panel and MDAR staff and
approved by the Commissioner in accordance with 333 CMR 11.00.
Pesticides and Bees/Pollinators
The Pesticide Inspectors work closely with the Apiary Inspectors when following up on allegations of pesticide
related bee kills. The Apiary Program will vet the call first to determine if a pesticide may be the cause of the
issue. If they believe it is, then they will reach out to the Pesticide Inspectors and begin following up on the
complaint together.
The Apiary Program received 20 alleged pesticide complaints. After initial vetting, five were followed up on.
Samples were collected, and pesticides showed positive in three instances. Of the three positives, the cause of the
bee kill was determined to be due to pesticides in two. The origin of the pesticide was not able to be determined.
Pesticide application pollinator outreach was conducted during FY22. Approximately five trainings either had
pollinator topics in the presentation or consisted solely of a pollinator presentation. MDAR will continue to
provide this outreach to applicators across the use spectrum.
PRODUCT REGISTRATION AND PESTICIDE LICENSING
Pesticide Product Registration
Any person who has obtained a pesticide product registration from the EPA must then apply for a registration
with MDAR. The registrant, or an agent acting on behalf of the registrant, is required to submit an “Application for
New Pesticide Registration,” a Material Safety Data Sheet (“MSDS”), and a product label. New products are
usually registered by the Subcommittee on a monthly basis. Every product label is thoroughly reviewed for
compliance with state and federal laws and then brought to the Subcommittee for consideration.
Page 4 of 7
 • State Restricted Use Pesticide (“SRUP”) classification: A Federal General Use pesticide product
registered by the Commonwealth may be classified as either general use or reclassified as State
Restricted Use based upon its use pattern or the potential to become a groundwater contaminant.
• Special Local Needs (“SLN”) registration: When a particular agricultural problem exists that can only
be mitigated through the use of a pesticide that is not federally registered for that specific purpose, a
Special Local Need registration may be issued by the state under Section 24c of FIFRA.
• Experimental Use Permits (“EUP”): EUPs are required to control potential hazards of pesticide ith
experimentation under outdoors, greenhouse, and domestic animal trial conditions. To obtain such a
permit, a state application must be filed with the Subcommittee along with a product label, and a
copy of the EPA EUP.
During FY22 there were 736 new products registered, with ten of those containing new active ingredients.
On July 1, 2022, all products containing neonicotinoids that are labeled for lawn/turf, tree/shrub, or vegetable
gardens were classified as SRUPs. This is a result from the Subcommittee’s review of neonicotinoids in
accordance with a legislative mandate.
Groundwater
As part of its pesticide registration process, MDAR has an on-going program to assess the potential for pesticides
to impact groundwater. Pesticides, which are considered to potentially impact water resources, are restricted.
The use of these chemicals in recharge areas to public water supplies is greatly limited. During FY22, MDAR staff
conducted groundwater exposure assessments for three new active ingredients (“NAIs”) that were registered by
the Subcommittee. The new active ingredients registered were assessed for ground water exposure and included
the chemicals tetraniliprole, fluindapyr, natamycin, 1-aminocyclo-propanecarboxyic acid, picarbutrazox, and
flasulfuron. New biopesticide pesticide active ingredients were Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 / Bacillus velezensis
strain RTI301, Bacillus licheniformis strain FMCH001 /Bacillus subtilis strain FMCH002, and Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens, strain PTA-4838.
The evaluation of new active ingredients and re-evaluation of registered active ingredients include the assessment
of their potential to cause groundwater contamination based on criteria for “Toxicological Concern” and
“Leaching Potential” as defined in 333 CMR 12.02. 1 None of these new active ingredients were classified as a
“potential groundwater contaminant.”
1
333 CMR 12.00 Protection of Groundwater Sources of Public Drinking Water from Non-Point Source Pesticide
Contamination. 12.02 Definitions:
Leaching Potential refers to a pesticide which meets or exceeds the following criteria based upon the most conservative data
and information published in the US EPA Environmental Fate and Groundwater Branch Pesticide Fate One-Line Summaries:
(a) Water solubility greater than or equal to 3 ppm, or;
(b) KOC less than or equal to 1900, or;
(c) KD less than or equal to 20 in the absence of a reported KOC value, and;
(d) Soil half- life greater than or equal to seven days.
An absent or missing reported criterion will be considered as meeting or exceeding the criteria value.
Potential Groundwater Contaminant refers to a pesticide which meets the definitions of "Toxicological Concern" and
"Leaching Potential".
Toxicological Concern refers to a pesticide which meets or exceeds of the following criteria:
(a) Lifetime Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (pMCL), MassDEP Office of
Research and Standards (ORS) Guidelines, or Health Advisory Level (HAL) less than or equal to 20 ppb; or
(b) US EPA classification as a known or probable human carcinogen, categories A, B1 or B2.
Page 5 of 7
PESTICIDE LICENSING
If an individual is going to use a pesticide on property that is not their own, a Massachusetts Pesticide License is
required. MDAR offers the following applicator licenses:
• Commercial Applicator License, allowing the licensee to:
o Apply a general use pesticide; and
o Apply a restricted use pesticide under the direct supervision of an individual with the
appropriate Commercial Certification;
• Commercial Certification License, allowing the licensee to:
o Apply general and restricted use pesticides; and
o Supervise the use of a SRUP.
To obtain a pesticide license from MDAR, an individual must take and pass an exam, provide proof of insurance,
renew every year, and obtain Continuing Education Units (“CEUs”) within a three-year period.
Out of these 2,672 exams taken, 1,738 received a passing score and were offered the opportunity to apply for a
license or certification to be issued by MDAR. Overall, during FY22, there were approximately 10,000 licensed
applicators in the state.
MDAR has begun to update the licensing regulations in 333 CMR 10.00 to obtain compliance with the Federal
Certification and Training Rule set forth in FIFRA. MDAR also is updating the Dealer regulation at 333 CMR 9.00
and the Protection of Children and Families (i.e., school) regulation at 333 CMR 14.00. Public hearings for the
regulations will be held in FY23.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
While continuing education is part of the requirement for an individual to hold and maintain their pesticide
license, MDAR does not provide the education. Outside entities such as academia and industry provide trainings
that offer the CEUs. For a training to qualify for a CEU, the training provider must fill out a form and request a
CEU. The training is reviewed by MDAR staff to ensure that it meets the requirements set forth in 333 CMR 10.00.
These trainings are audited by staff to