2026 US Pesticide Regulatory Tracker

The pesticide regulatory tracker below is the canonical 2026 reference for federal and state rules governing pesticide use on US lawns, turf, and ornamental landscapes. It covers EPA registration reviews in progress at the Office of Pesticide Programs, the FIFRA preemption fight on the Supreme Court docket (Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068), the wave of state neonicotinoid restrictions enacted from 2016 through 2026, and the patchwork of municipal cosmetic pesticide ordinances that operate underneath state preemption regimes. Each entry cites the underlying federal docket, statute, court case, or state agency program page. Data verified as of June 16, 2026.

The big picture: a regulatory regime under stress

The United States pesticide regime is structured as a federal registration system overlaid by a state and local patchwork. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., gives EPA authority to register pesticides and approve product labels, while states retain authority to register, restrict, or prohibit pesticide uses within their borders. The Congressional Research Service summary of FIFRA preemption (LSB11304) confirms that FIFRA does not preempt most state or local regulation. However, after Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991), 43 state legislatures enacted state preemption provisions that restrict local pesticide ordinances. According to the National Sea Grant Law Center FIFRA preemption analysis, only seven states (Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, and Vermont) decline to preempt local pesticide regulation.

The result is a three-layer system: EPA sets federal label requirements; state lead agencies (state departments of agriculture, environmental conservation, or pesticide regulation) issue applicator licenses, register products, and may impose state-specific restrictions; and a small group of municipalities in non-preemption states adopt cosmetic pesticide ordinances stricter than state law. This tracker covers all three layers and the active US Supreme Court litigation that could redraw the failure-to-warn boundary for the entire industry.

Comparison table: state cosmetic pesticide bans, 2016 to 2026

State	Statute / bill	Scope	Effective date	Primary source
Maryland	HB 211 / SB 198 (Pollinator Protection Act of 2016)	Bars consumer purchase and use of neonicotinoid products; exempts certified applicators, farmers, and veterinarians	January 1, 2018	LegiScan MD HB211
Maine	LD 316 / LD 155 (2021, codified at 7 MRSA c. 103)	Prohibits commercial use of clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, or thiamethoxam on outdoor residential landscapes (lawn, turf, ornamental vegetation)	January 1, 2022	Maine BPC Neonicotinoids page
Massachusetts	MDAR Pesticide Board Subcommittee reclassification, Feb. 2021	Reclassifies outdoor non-structural and non-agricultural neonicotinoid products (lawn, turf, ornamentals, gardens) from general use to state restricted use	July 1, 2022	UMass CAFE summary
New York	S1856-A / A7640 (Birds and Bees Protection Act)	Phases out neonic-treated corn, soybean, and wheat seed; bans outdoor ornamental and turf uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, acetamiprid	January 1, 2027	NY Senate S1856-A text
Vermont	Act 182 of 2024 (H.706)	Bans outdoor application of neonicotinoids to crops in bloom and to soybeans or cereal grains; corn and soybean neonic seed treatment phaseout starts 2029	July 1, 2025	Vermont Act 182 text
Connecticut	SB 9 of 2025	Bans neonicotinoid applications on residential lawns and golf courses (about 500,000 acres of turfgrass) absent DEEP permission	October 2027	CT Mirror coverage of SB 9

Sources: state legislative bill trackers; state lead pesticide agencies. Effective dates are statutory; agency rule-makings may stagger implementation.

EPA registration review pipeline: what is due in 2026

EPA reevaluates every registered pesticide on a 15-year cycle under FIFRA section 3(g), 7 U.S.C. 136a(g). The current cycle covers all pesticides registered before October 1, 2007, and EPA confirmed on its registration review deadline page that the statutory completion deadline is now October 1, 2026, reflecting the four-year extension provided in the FY 2023 budget. The Office of Pesticide Programs publishes the master schedule at epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules.

Glyphosate. Glyphosate registration review proceeds under docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361. EPA issued its 2020 Interim Registration Review Decision finding no human health risks of concern under current labeling, but the Ninth Circuit vacated parts of that decision in 2022 and remanded for further analysis. EPA’s draft risk assessments page commits to completing an updated human health risk assessment in 2026.

Neonicotinoids. Acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam are in proposed interim decision status. EPA’s January 2020 proposed interim decisions include the cancellation of imidacloprid spray uses on residential turf under the Food Quality Protection Act, application rate reductions, timing restrictions, and spray drift measures. EPA reopened the comment period at 85 FR 30024 (May 19, 2020) and has continued to layer ESA-driven mitigation on top of the proposed interim decisions.

Atrazine. EPA’s December 2024 Federal Register notice (89 FR 96577) announces an updated mitigation proposal that incorporates the revised aquatic plant community level of concern at 9.7 micrograms per liter. The comment period closed February 3, 2025.

Dicamba. EPA proposed in 2025 to approve three end-use dicamba products for over-the-top use on dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean for the 2026 and 2027 growing seasons only, not as a permanent registration. The comment period closed August 22, 2025.

2,4-D. 2,4-D is in late-stage review with no final interim decision published as of June 2026; EPA’s individual pesticide registration review portal (epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/individual-pesticides-registration-review) provides docket access for tracking.

Common turf and ornamental active ingredients including sulfentrazone, prodiamine, mesotrione, and glufosinate are tracked in the same individual-pesticides portal, with dockets searchable via the chemical name on regulations.gov. None of these had a registration cancellation or major label restriction issued in the 2024 to 2026 window, although mesotrione and other broadleaf actives are now subject to the Herbicide Strategy mitigation menus described below.

Monsanto v. Durnell: the FIFRA preemption question on the Supreme Court docket

On April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, No. 24-1068. The Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether FIFRA, specifically 7 U.S.C. 136v(b), preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning. The SCOTUSblog case page and the Cornell LII docket aggregate the briefs and oral argument transcript. Solicitor General representative Sarah Harris appeared as amicus curiae supporting Monsanto; Paul Clement argued for Monsanto; Ashley Keller argued for Durnell.

The case turns on whether Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), still controls. Bates held that FIFRA section 24(b) preempts state law labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements, but does not preempt state common-law claims that merely impose “parallel” labeling requirements equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding provisions. Monsanto argues that a Missouri failure-to-warn verdict requiring a cancer warning on Roundup was not “parallel” to any EPA labeling requirement and therefore was preempted. Durnell argues that Missouri tort law mirrors FIFRA’s misbranding standard at 7 U.S.C. 136(q)(1)(G) and falls inside the Bates safe harbor.

The outcome will reshape failure-to-warn litigation across the pesticide industry. A reversal in Monsanto’s favor narrows the field for state tort recovery in Roundup, paraquat, and dicamba drift cases. An affirmance preserves Bates and keeps the door open for thousands of pending state-court claims. The HMNDP Monsanto v. Durnell explainer and the Bayer Roundup residential exit analysis track the downstream commercial impact for the residential lawn care market.

State Category 3A applicator licensing: who can spray turf and ornamentals

EPA’s pesticide applicator certification rule at 40 CFR Part 171 sets minimum standards for state certification programs. States issue commercial applicator licenses in categories that mirror EPA’s federal categories. Category 3A (Ornamental and Turf) is the operative category for residential and commercial landscape pesticide application across most states. Below is a representative selection of state licensing authorities; the full 50-state map is maintained at the HMNDP Category 3A licensing tracker.

State	Lead agency	Category	Citation
California	Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)	Qualified Applicator License (QAL) Category B: Landscape Maintenance Pest Control	cdpr.ca.gov
Texas	Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA)	Category 3A Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control: Landscape Maintenance ($200/year)	texasagriculture.gov
Florida	FDACS Bureau of Licensing and Enforcement	Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control License or Limited Lawn and Ornamental Certification	fdacs.gov
New York	NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)	Commercial Applicator, Category 3A (Ornamental and Turf)	dec.ny.gov
Georgia	Georgia Department of Agriculture	Commercial Pesticide Applicator, Category 24 Ornamental and Turf	agr.georgia.gov
North Carolina	NCDA&CS Structural Pest Control and Pesticides Division	Commercial Applicator, Subclassification O (Ornamental and Turf)	ncagr.gov
Arizona	Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA)	Qualified Applicator Certification, Category 3A Ornamentals and Turf	agriculture.az.gov
Colorado	Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA)	Commercial Applicator, Category 207 Turfgrass	ag.colorado.gov
Minnesota	Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA)	Commercial Pesticide Applicator, Category E Turf and Ornamental	mda.state.mn.us
Washington	Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA)	Commercial Pesticide Applicator License, Category 03 Landscape	agr.wa.gov

Common patterns across the 50-state map: a written General Standards (core) exam plus one or more category exams; one-year to three-year license terms; continuing education credit requirements ranging from 4 to 24 CEUs per cycle; commercial pesticide business licenses required in addition to individual applicator credentials in most states.

Restricted-Use Products: federal floor, state record-keeping

EPA classifies certain pesticides as Restricted-Use Products (RUPs) under FIFRA section 3(d), 7 U.S.C. 136a(d), based on the agency’s finding that unrestricted use could cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment or applicator injury. The current RUP list lives at 40 CFR 152.175. EPA also publishes a consolidated RUP report updated periodically.

RUPs may be applied only by certified applicators or persons under their direct supervision. Federal recordkeeping under FIFRA section 11, 7 U.S.C. 136i, requires certified private applicators to maintain RUP application records for at least two years; commercial applicator records are kept under state law for a minimum of two years and longer in many states. The information that must be recorded includes the brand or product name, EPA registration number, total amount applied, location, application date, applicator name and certification number, and the site, crop, or commodity treated.

State turf and ornamental implications: imidacloprid products were reclassified as state RUPs in Massachusetts effective July 1, 2022 (MDAR rule); Maine restricts the same actives as state RUPs under Maine BPC neonicotinoid policy; California treats numerous turf products including certain prodiamine and oxadiazon formulations as RUPs requiring permit conditions from the county agricultural commissioner.

EPA Endangered Species Act strategies: the new label mitigation regime

EPA’s Herbicide Strategy, finalized August 20, 2024, establishes a three-step framework to identify runoff, erosion, and spray drift mitigation to protect more than 900 listed species during herbicide registration and reevaluation. The strategy introduces a mitigation menu with a point system, where registrants accumulate mitigation credits via vegetative buffers, cover crops, reduced application rates, equipment choice, and Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs).

EPA followed in April 2025 with its final Insecticide Strategy, covering 850+ listed species including pollinators (Poweshiek skipperling, rusty patched bumble bee, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly). The Insecticide Strategy released April 29, 2025 received over 26,000 public comments on the draft. Both strategies feed mitigation language directly into product labels through registration review.

For landscape applicators, the practical effect is label-level expansion of buffer zones, runoff mitigation requirements, and Bulletins Live Two (epa.gov/endangered-species/bulletins-live-two-view-bulletins) county-specific use limitations that crews must check before applications in PULAs. The labels are now the operative ESA compliance document.

Pollinator-specific federal action and the monarch butterfly listing

The US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the monarch butterfly as threatened on December 12, 2024 (89 FR 100662), with a 4(d) rule providing flexibility for routine activities such as some pesticide applications and habitat work. The comment period was reopened in March 2025 through May 19, 2025. In December 2025, USFWS shifted the rule from “proposed rule stage” to “long-term action,” meaning a final decision is not expected for at least another year, per the agency’s Unified Agenda entry.

If finalized, the listing would activate ESA section 7 consultation requirements that pull into the EPA Insecticide Strategy mitigation menu and could trigger PULA-style restrictions in monarch overwintering and breeding habitat. The HMNDP New York neonicotinoid ban explainer traces the state-level pollinator regulation cascade through 2027.

Local cosmetic pesticide ordinances in non-preemption states

In the seven states without local preemption (Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, and Vermont), municipalities can impose pesticide restrictions stricter than state law. Selected ordinances:

• Montgomery County, MD: Bill 52-14, Healthy Lawns Act (2015). Bans non-essential cosmetic pesticides on private lawns and county-owned property; effective July 1, 2016 for county property and January 1, 2018 for private lawns. Maryland Court of Special Appeals 2019 ruling upheld the ordinance against state preemption challenge.
• Takoma Park, MD: Safe Grow Act of 2013. First US municipal ban on cosmetic lawn pesticides on private property. Effective January 1, 2015 (private), March 2014 (commercial applicators). takomaparkmd.gov/safegrow.
• Portland, ME: Pesticide Use Ordinance (2018). 9-0 city council vote restricts synthetic pesticides on all public and private lawns; effective July 1, 2019; fines $100 to $500 per violation. Beyond Pesticides summary.
• South Portland, ME: Pesticide Use Ordinance (2016). Restricts synthetic pesticides on public and private property; emphasizes education over enforcement. southportland.org.
• Ogunquit, ME (2014). Bans synthetic pesticides on all public and private property; first Maine municipality to extend to private property.
• Burlington, VT: Pesticide Ordinance, Sec. 17-9. Originally enacted 1992 under city charter authority to protect waters and public welfare. Burlington Code Sec. 17-9.
• Boulder, CO: Integrated Pest Management Policy. Glyphosate and neonicotinoids banned on city property; rigorous internal review before any pesticide use on city land. bouldercolorado.gov. (Colorado is a preemption state, so the policy binds only city property, not private lawns.)
• Davis, CA: Integrated Pest Management Ordinance. Implements IPM program; some city parks restrict glyphosate. California is a preemption state, so the IPM rules govern city operations only.
• Berkeley, CA. Has not used glyphosate on city property since the 1970s, per the city manager’s office; pest management program prioritizes non-chemical methods.
• Albany, CA. Pesticide reduction policy on city property under IPM framework.
• Marblehead, MA. Reduced pesticide use on public property and school grounds; works within MDAR state restricted-use framework.
• Greensboro, NC. IPM policy on city property; North Carolina is a preemption state.
• Eugene, OR. Integrated pest management policy and pesticide-free parks designation on city property.
• Cuyahoga County, OH: pollinator protection resolution. Restricts neonicotinoid use on county-managed property.
• Carrboro, NC. Integrated Pest Management ordinance for town property.
• Marin County, CA. County IPM ordinance applies to county-managed lands; phased out glyphosate on landscaped county property.

The preemption-state ordinances on the list above are limited to public lands because state law preempts private-property restrictions. The unrestricted private-property ordinances (Montgomery County, Takoma Park, Portland ME, Ogunquit, Burlington) operate in non-preemption states.

NPDES Pesticide General Permit: aquatic application Clean Water Act compliance

EPA’s final 2026 NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP), published at 89 FR 102322 on December 17, 2024, takes effect October 31, 2026 and expires October 30, 2031. The permit governs point-source discharges of biological and chemical pesticides to waters of the United States under section 402 of the Clean Water Act and applies in all 10 EPA regions where EPA is the NPDES permitting authority.

For landscape applicators, the operative use patterns covered by the PGP are mosquito and other flying insect pest control, weed and algae pest control in waters or at the water’s edge, and animal pest control in waters. Routine residential lawn applications above the high-water mark do not trigger the PGP, but applications to ditches, retention ponds, golf course water features, and stream-adjacent areas may require Notice of Intent filing depending on annual treatment area thresholds. Eight states (Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) plus the District of Columbia and territories rely directly on the EPA PGP; the remaining states issue their own NPDES pesticide permits.

OSHA Worker Protection Standard and the 2024 AEZ rule

The Worker Protection Standard at 40 CFR Part 170 governs pesticide safety for agricultural workers and handlers. The current WPS, revised in 2015, requires pesticide safety training every year, hazard communication via central display posting at agricultural establishments, decontamination supplies, personal protective equipment, and notification of pesticide applications.

On October 4, 2024, EPA published a revised rule on the Application Exclusion Zone at 89 FR 80786, refining how spray quality is defined by reference to ASABE Standard 572 and providing a new immediate-family exemption for farm owners. The AEZ is the area surrounding the application equipment that must remain clear of workers and other persons during application; the 2024 rule changes the radius depending on spray quality and application height. While WPS technically applies to agricultural establishments (farms, forests, nurseries, greenhouses), state lead agencies often apply analogous training and hazard communication standards to commercial turf and ornamental applicators through state code.

OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) requires Safety Data Sheets to be maintained for every pesticide product handled by employees of landscape companies, and the right-to-know posting under state and OSHA regulation provides employees access to those records.

NY DEC Solar Pesticide Applicator Certification Category (DMM-8)

New York State DEC’s Division of Materials Management Program Policy DMM-8, effective December 26, 2025, establishes the acceptable pesticide applicator certification category for vegetation control at solar power generation facilities. The policy resolves a gray area in commercial solar facility maintenance, where vegetation control activity overlaps Category 3A (Ornamentals, Shade Trees, and Turf) and Category 6A (Right-of-Way Industrial Vegetation Control).

DMM-8 establishes that the operative category depends on facility ownership, the legal right to access the treatment area, and the purpose of the facility. The policy is the first US state-level certification regime explicitly tailored to the solar buildout, which has expanded commercial vegetation-management acreage across the rural Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Landscape contractors holding only a Category 3A certificate may not perform vegetation control at facilities classified by DEC as Category 6A.

Reentry intervals (REIs) for major turf and ornamental actives

The Reentry Interval is the time after a pesticide application before unprotected workers may reenter the treated area. REIs are set on the EPA label under the WPS framework at 40 CFR 170.407. Representative REIs for common turf and ornamental actives, all values per current EPA-approved labels available in the EPA Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS):

• Glyphosate (Roundup Pro): 4 hours, until sprays dry
• 2,4-D amine and ester formulations: 48 hours typical; some products 12 hours when sprays dry
• Prodiamine (Barricade): 24 hours
• Mesotrione (Tenacity): 4 hours, until sprays dry
• Sulfentrazone (Dismiss): 12 hours
• Glufosinate (Finale): 12 hours
• Imidacloprid 2F (turf): 12 hours; 48 hours where state RUP rules apply
• Dicamba (Banvel): 24 hours
• Trichlorfon (Dylox): 12 hours; signal word Caution; REI extended on some formulations
• Bifenthrin (Talstar): 12 hours; signal word Caution

Crew leaders are responsible for posting application records and ensuring no reentry by unprotected workers during the REI window. The HMNDP 2026 lawn care cost guide shows how REI scheduling drives multi-crew dispatch logistics.

Drinking water and groundwater rules affecting pesticide applications

The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for pesticide residues in public water supplies, codified at 40 CFR Part 141. Atrazine has an MCL of 3 micrograms per liter, glyphosate 700 micrograms per liter, 2,4-D 70 micrograms per liter, and dalapon 200 micrograms per liter. Public water systems test for these analytes under the Standardized Monitoring Framework, and exceedances trigger consumer notification and treatment requirements.

State source-water protection programs further restrict pesticide use in wellhead protection areas and surface-water source watersheds. Examples include the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Groundwater Protection Area program (cdpr.ca.gov groundwater protection), New York’s principal aquifer designations under 6 NYCRR Part 360, and Florida’s groundwater rules under Chapter 62-550, F.A.C. for sole-source aquifer protection. Many state nutrient management plans also include pesticide application setbacks from sinkholes, wellheads, and surface water.

Pesticide drift and chemical trespass jurisprudence

Pesticide drift creates concurrent FIFRA misapplication enforcement and state tort exposure. The leading state appellate decision establishing landscape applicator liability for ornamental drift damage is Hawkins v. Wright, in which Texas appellate courts held a landscape contractor liable for damage to a neighbor’s ornamental plantings from off-target 2,4-D drift. Multi-state drift cases involving dicamba on dicamba-tolerant soybeans (the Bader Farms family of cases in the Eighth Circuit) and paraquat (multi-district litigation in the Southern District of Illinois) continue to refine the FIFRA preemption boundary post-Bates v. Dow AgroSciences and shape the question that Monsanto v. Durnell will resolve in 2026.

State drift statutes typically allow administrative enforcement (fines and license suspension) plus private right of action. New York agriculture markets law section 33-0701 et seq., Texas Agriculture Code chapter 76, and California Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 et seq. all authorize the state lead agency to enforce against drift incidents independent of any private tort claim.

What this means for operators, homeowners, and suppliers

For operators. The 2026 to 2028 window forces three commercial decisions: (1) reformulate residential turf programs in Northeast states (NY, CT, MA, ME, VT) away from neonicotinoid grub control toward chlorantraniliprole, trichlorfon, or biological alternatives; (2) upgrade Bulletins Live Two compliance workflows because PULA-restricted county applications now require pre-application checks; and (3) build internal training around the Herbicide Strategy and Insecticide Strategy mitigation menus that are appearing on labels in 2026 and beyond. The HMNDP lawn care software guide covers the dispatch and recordkeeping platforms that automate label and REI compliance.

For homeowners. In the seven non-preemption states (and inside the 16+ municipalities listed above), the private-property menu for synthetic pesticide use is shrinking. Consumer-direct neonicotinoid products have been pulled from Maryland and Massachusetts retail shelves for years; New York follows in 2027. The HMNDP drought-tolerant lawn alternatives piece covers the agronomic substitutes for chemical-intensive turf programs.

For suppliers. Distributors and formulators face label refresh costs as registration review interim decisions and ESA strategy mitigation reach individual products. State RUP reclassifications also trigger retail-channel restrictions, separating consumer SKUs from commercial SKUs even for identical active ingredients.

Methodology

This tracker uses the HMNDP 5-tier primary source hierarchy. Tier 3 federal agency sources include EPA Office of Pesticide Programs registration review dockets via regulations.gov, EPA registration review schedule pages, the eCFR codification of 40 CFR Parts 152, 170, and 171, the Federal Register notices cited above, the US Fish and Wildlife Service press releases on the monarch butterfly listing, and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200. Tier 4 state agency sources include New York DEC, California CDPR, Texas TDA, Florida FDACS, Massachusetts MDAR, Maine Board of Pesticides Control, Maryland MDA, and Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets program pages. Tier 5 sources include the Congressional Research Service report LSB11304 on FIFRA preemption and the National Sea Grant Law Center FIFRA report.

Window covered: federal rules effective January 1, 2024 through June 16, 2026; state legislation enacted 2016 through May 2026; municipal ordinances enacted 2013 through May 2026. Inclusion criteria: rules with a verifiable primary source URL and a confirmed effective date. Exclusion criteria: pending legislation without committee vote, ordinances under judicial stay, and proposed federal rules without public Federal Register publication.

Limitations

This tracker does not enumerate every state pesticide registration database action; only major label or scheduling actions through registration review are covered. The Massachusetts H.3247 referenced in policy advocacy contexts (the original brief reference) does not correspond to a pollinator bill; the operative Massachusetts neonicotinoid restriction is the MDAR Pesticide Subcommittee reclassification, not a stand-alone statute. The Connecticut “HB 5500” referenced in some advocacy materials passed in the Senate as SB 9 (2025); we cite the operative bill. Several municipal ordinances in preemption states bind only public lands and are excluded from the private-property restriction count. Bulletins Live Two PULA designations change quarterly and were verified as of June 1, 2026 only. Pending USFWS final rules on the monarch butterfly are not covered as enacted regulation. The tracker does not include workplace personal protective equipment regulation beyond the WPS and AEZ rules.

Future Updates

This tracker refreshes quarterly. Next scheduled refresh: September 16, 2026, to incorporate (a) the Monsanto v. Durnell decision (expected June or July 2026); (b) any final glyphosate registration review action under docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361; (c) status of USFWS monarch butterfly final rule; (d) state legislative sessions concluding in summer 2026. Real-time supplemental coverage runs on the HMNDP regulatory page and the HMNDP news feed.

How to cite this report

APA: HMNDP Landscaping. (2026). The 2026 US Pesticide Regulatory Tracker: EPA Reviews, State Bans, and the Active Ingredient Landscape. https://hmndp.org/guides/2026-us-pesticide-regulatory-tracker/

Chicago: HMNDP Landscaping. "The 2026 US Pesticide Regulatory Tracker: EPA Reviews, State Bans, and the Active Ingredient Landscape." 2026. https://hmndp.org/guides/2026-us-pesticide-regulatory-tracker/

MLA: "HMNDP Landscaping. The 2026 US Pesticide Regulatory Tracker: EPA Reviews, State Bans, and the Active Ingredient Landscape." HMNDP Landscaping, 2026, https://hmndp.org/guides/2026-us-pesticide-regulatory-tracker/.

Sources & References

• SCOTUSblog. (2026). “Monsanto Company v. Durnell (24-1068).” https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/monsanto-company-v-durnell/
• Cornell Legal Information Institute. (2026). “Monsanto Company v. Durnell.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/24-1068
• Justia. (2005). “Bates v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/431/
• US EPA. (2026). “Glyphosate.” https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
• US EPA. (2026). “Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for Glyphosate.” https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/draft-human-health-and-ecological-risk-assessments-glyphosate
• US EPA. (2025). “Pesticide Registration Review Deadline: Status Update and Plans for Remaining Work.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pesticide-registration-review-deadline-status-update-and-plans-remaining-work
• US EPA. (2025). “Registration Review Process.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-process
• US EPA. (2025). “Registration Review Docket Opening Schedule.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules
• US EPA. (2025). “Individual Pesticides in Registration Review.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/individual-pesticides-registration-review
• US EPA. (2020). “EPA Releases Proposed Interim Decisions for Neonicotinoids.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-proposed-interim-decisions-neonicotinoids
• Federal Register. (2020). “Pesticide Registration Review; Proposed Interim Decisions for Several Neonicotinoid Pesticides; Notice of Availability.” 85 FR 30024. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/19/2020-10751/pesticide-registration-review-proposed-interim-decisions-for-several-neonicotinoid-pesticides
• Federal Register. (2024). “Atrazine; Updated Proposed Mitigation for the Interim Registration Review Decision.” 89 FR 96577. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/05/2024-28459/atrazine-updated-proposed-mitigation-for-the-interim-registration-review-decision-notice-of
• US EPA. (2025). “EPA Releases Updated Mitigation Proposal for Atrazine.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-updated-mitigation-proposal-atrazine
• US EPA. (2025). “Registration of Dicamba for Use on Dicamba-Tolerant Crops.” https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-dicamba-use-dicamba-tolerant-crops
• US EPA. (2024). “EPA Finalizes First-of-its-Kind Strategy to Protect 900 Endangered Species from Herbicides.” https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-first-its-kind-strategy-protect-900-endangered-species-herbicides
• US EPA. (2024). “Strategy to Protect Endangered Species from Herbicides.” https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/strategy-protect-endangered-species-herbicides
• US EPA. (2025). “EPA Releases Strategy to Better Protect Endangered Species from Insecticides.” https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-releases-strategy-better-protect-endangered-species-insecticides-using-commonsense
• US EPA. (2025). “Strategy to Protect Endangered Species from Insecticides.” https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/strategy-protect-endangered-species-insecticides
• US EPA. (2025). “Bulletins Live Two.” https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/bulletins-live-two-view-bulletins
• Federal Register. (2024). “Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the Application of Pesticides; Reissuance.” 89 FR 102322. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/12/17/2024-29657/final-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system-npdes-pesticide-general-permit-for-point
• US EPA. (2025). “Pesticide Permitting.” https://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticide-permitting
• US EPA. (2025). “Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS).” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/agricultural-worker-protection-standard-wps
• eCFR. (2025). “40 CFR Part 170 (Worker Protection Standard).” https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-170
• eCFR. (2025). “40 CFR 152.175 (Pesticides classified for restricted use).” https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-152/subpart-I/section-152.175
• US EPA. (2025). “Restricted Use Products (RUP) Report.” https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/restricted-use-products-rup-report
• Congressional Research Service. (2025). “Preemption in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.” LSB11304. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11304
• National Sea Grant Law Center. (2024). “State and Local Regulation of Pesticides: What Does FIFRA Allow?” https://nsglc.olemiss.edu/projects/ag-food-law/files/regulation-of-pesticides.pdf
• US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2024). “Monarch Butterfly Proposed for Endangered Species Act Protection.” https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-12/monarch-butterfly-proposed-endangered-species-act-protection
• US Fish and Wildlife Service. (2025). “Comment Period Reopened for Monarch Butterfly Listing Proposal.” https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2025-03/comment-period-reopened-monarch-butterfly-listing-proposal
• NY State Senate. (2023). “S1856-A (Birds and Bees Protection Act).” https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S1856/amendment/A
• NY DEC. (2025). “DMM-8: Pesticide Applicator Certification Category for the Maintenance of Vegetation at Solar Power Generation Facilities.” https://dec.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/dmm8.pdf
• NY DEC. (2025). “Pesticide Statutes, Regulations, and Policies.” https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/regulations/pesticide-statutes-regulations-and-policies
• Connecticut Mirror. (2025). “CT Senate advances partial ban on neonics, other pesticides.” https://ctmirror.org/2025/05/15/ct-rat-poison-pesticide-ban/
• Surfrider Foundation. (2025). “Victory in CT: Neonic pesticides banned statewide on 500,000 acres of grass.” https://www.surfrider.org/news/victory-in-ct-neonic-pesticides-banned-statewide-on-500000-acres-of-grass
• Vermont Legislature. (2024). “Act 182 of 2024.” https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2024/Docs/ACTS/ACT182/ACT182%20As%20Enacted.pdf
• Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. (2025). “Neonicotinoids in Vermont.” https://agriculture.vermont.gov/neonicotinoids-vermont
• Maine Board of Pesticides Control. (2022). “Neonicotinoids.” https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/applicators/neonicotinoids.shtml
• Maryland LegiScan. (2016). “HB 211 Pollinator Protection Act.” https://legiscan.com/MD/bill/HB211/2016
• Maryland Department of Agriculture. (2017). “Pollinator Protection Act of 2016.” https://mda.maryland.gov/plants-pests/Documents/PollinatorProtectionActFactSheet.pdf
• UMass Center for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment. (2021). “Change in Registration Status of Neonicotinoids in Massachusetts.” https://ag.umass.edu/turf/news/change-in-registration-status-of-neonicotinoids-in-massachusetts
• California DPR. (2024). “Qualified Applicator License Packet.” https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/qal.pdf
• California DPR. (2025). “Apply for a License.” https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/apply-for-a-license/
• Texas Department of Agriculture. (2025). “Pesticide Commercial/Noncommercial Applicator License.” https://texasagriculture.gov/Regulatory-Programs/Pesticides/Pesticide-Commercial-Noncommercial-Applicator-Lice
• Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2025). “Pesticide Applicator Licenses.” https://www.fdacs.gov/Business-Services/Pesticide-Licensing/Pesticide-Applicator-Licenses
• Montgomery County, MD. (2019). “Maryland Court of Special Appeals Upholds Montgomery County’s Restrictions on Lawn Pesticide Use.” https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=23070
• City of Takoma Park. (2025). “Safe Grow.” https://takomaparkmd.gov/safegrow
• Beyond Pesticides. (2018). “Portland, ME Becomes an Organic City.” https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2018/01/portland-becomes-organic-city-banning-toxic-pesticides-public-private-property/
• City of South Portland, ME. (2025). “Pesticide and Fertilizer Use.” https://www.southportland.org/669/Pesticide-and-Fertilizer-Use
• City of Burlington, VT. (2009). “Pesticide Ordinance Rewrite, Sec. 17-9.” https://www2.burlingtonvt.gov/Archives/cc-archives/agendas/20091005/Health%20%20Pesticide%20Ordinance%20Rewrite%20Sec%2017-9.pdf
• City of Boulder, CO. (2025). “Ecosystem-Based Integrated Pest Management.” https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/ecosystem-based-integrated-pest-management
• US EPA. (2025). “Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS).” https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:1