(Re-)Registration of Pesticide Products

The federal requirements for the registration of pesticide products changed significantly when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 was enacted. The law required all pesticides registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) also meet several new safety criteria. These include consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and mitigation of potentially cumulative exposures from direct and indirect methods, such as drinking water, bystander spray drift or residential home and garden uses. FQPA also required additional protection of special subpopulations that may be more susceptible, such as infants and children. The law requires the review every 15 years of all pesticide product registrations, considering any new science or exposure information. The aerial application industry and its customers have been and continue to be affected by FQPA and the registration review process. Under the law, EPA was originally supposed to complete this second FQPA review of all pesticide products before October 1, 2022, but Congress extended the deadline until October 1, 2026, to lessen the threat of legal action.

One of the most critical issues besetting pesticide programs is the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into the registration process. Over the past decade, EPA has been sued on numerous occasions for its failure to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services) about the impact of EPA-registered pesticides on endangered species and species habitat. These lawsuits cover hundreds of endangered species and numerous pesticide active ingredients. EPA and the Services have different approaches to pesticide risk assessment and have not been able to resolve their differences despite a continuous effort over the past decade. The Services also lack the resources to complete ESA consultations for all registered pesticide products.

There are several stages during the registration review process. The risk assessments are the first round of documents written by EPA once a product enters the review process. They rely heavily on models to assess the risks pesticides pose to the environment and human health. The proposed interim decisions (PID) are the next phase of the review process. The agency uses the risk assessments as a basis for deciding whether a product should be re-registered and what restrictions should be placed on how it is used. The final interim decision (ID) follows, after the EPA considers comments received on the PID and makes any changes they deem necessary.

The decisions are considered interim instead of a full re-registration of a product because EPA must still complete an Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as well as an endocrine disruptor screen. The ESA requires that EPA work with the Services to evaluate the potential risks each pesticide represents to threatened and endangered species and their designated habitat. The process begins with the EPA conducting a Biological Evaluation (BE) of how the pesticide could impact endangered species. Then the FWS and NMFS issue Biological Opinions (BiOps) that further examine how the pesticide will impact endangered species and their habitats. Once the BEs and BiOps are completed, EPA consults with FWS and NMFS to issue a final decision on re-registration for the pesticide being reviewed. EPA is encouraging registrants to place additional application restrictions on labels up-front to ease the consultation process. NAAA continues to work with registrants, other stakeholders, and EPA to preserve key aerial uses during the registration review process. These include USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP) to assist the office as it weighs in with EPA on product benefits and risk assessments. In addition to working with USDA, EPA, registrants and grower groups, NAAA is represented on the EPA’s Pesticide Policy Dialogue Committee (PPDC). The PPDC is a federal advisory committee that provides a forum for a diverse group of stakeholders to provide feedback to the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs on various pesticide regulatory, policy and program implementation issues. Stakeholders include academia, state and local regulatory officials, environmental activists, grower groups and pesticide manufacturers themselves.

Key Activities

• NAAA has commented to EPA on the need to use Tier 3 rather than Tier 1 of the AgDRIFT atmospheric software that models aerial pesticide movement after the application. Tier 3, compared to Tier 1, takes into account much more realistic aerial droplet sizes, aircraft, boom drop systems and other setups and practices standard in today’s aerial application industry.
• Commenting to EPA on the need to make all buffer zones wind-directional.
• NAAA has commented to EPA on the need to increase maximum allowed wind speed for aerial applications from 10 mph to 15 mph.
• NAAA has educated EPA about the aerial application industry’s education and training program results. For example, the PAASS (Professional Aerial Applicator Support System) program and Operation S.A.F.E. (Self-regulating Application & Flight Efficiency) fly-ins, C-PAASS (Certified Professional Aerial Applicator Safety Steward)
• NAAA continuously monitors the Federal Register for all new registrations, registration reviews, and other proposed rules to ensure pesticides can be applied by aerial application.
• Since 2017 NAAA has submitted the following to EPA
  • Comments for 240 pesticides
  • 299 total comments and other letters
• Major policy victories include:
  • Many products are now registered with a 15-mph wind speed limit.
    • Requires 65% boom for fixed wing aircraft and 75% boom for helicopters in 11 to 15 mph winds
    • Requires ¾ upwind swath displacement in 11 to 15 mph winds on downwind edge.
  • Use of American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) standard S572.1 to specify the required droplet size on the label instead of language using specific nozzle types and operating parameters which can change with technological advances.
  • EPA switching from Tier 1 to Tier 3 model in AgDRIFT
  • EPA moving towards wind-directional buffers in almost all cases
• Other common aerial restrictions being proposed for labels during registration review process:
  • Not spraying during inversions
  • Requires 75% boom for fixed wing aircraft and 85% boom for helicopters in winds up to 10 mph
  • 1/2 upwind swath displacement in 11 to 15 mph winds on downwind edge
  • Maximum application height of 10 feet unless higher is needed for pilot safety
• Chlorpyrifos
  • In November 2023 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2021 rule prohibiting chlorpyrifos use on food or feed crops.
  • As a result of the above action EPA reinstated the previous allowed tolerances for chlorpyrifos
  • EPA indicated they will move ahead with the 2020 chlorpyrifos PID, released before the 2021 ban
    • Restricts chlorpyrifos to the following uses: alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet, wheat, and wheat (winter).
    • Additional mitigations may also be required, including a potential ban on aerial applications.
  • Beginning in June of 2024, registrants began voluntarily canceling certain products or amending registrations to restrict their use to the 11 crops
  • December of 2024  – EPA released the proposal to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances for all crops except alfalfa, apple, asparagus, cherry, citrus, cotton, peach, soybean, strawberry, sugar beet, wheat, and wheat (winter). The revised PID is expected in 2026.
  • 2025 – NAAA submitted comments on EPA’s proposal to revoke tolerances to all but the above mentioned 11 crops highlighting the importance of aerial applications of chlorpyrifos and recommending EPA reconsider the revocation, particularly for corn and sunflowers
• Paraquat
  • In 2021 PID for paraquat proposed banning all aerial applications of paraquat
  • After NAAA comments, final ID allows aerial but limits many applications to 350 per day per pilot for all aerial applications except cotton and soybean desiccation. This was based on inhalation concern for pilots.
  • In 2024 NAAA commented to an EPA reconsideration on paraquat ID asking EPA to increase allowable daily acres aerial applications of paraquat for herbicidal uses.
• New Weather measuring requirements in fall of 2023.
  • Weather forecast must be checked 12 hours before application.
  • Wind speed and direction must be measured on site at the application height
  • Must be rechecked every 15 minutes during application.
• Dicamba
  • 2025- NAAA commented on the proposed registration of three new formulations of dicamba for use on dicamba tolerant crops. As in the prior attempts to register these products for dicamba tolerant  crops, aerial application was prohibited. NAAA commented in favor of allowing aerial application, focusing on the importance of timely applications and drift mitigation options, as detailed in the herbicide strategy, that would allow aerial applications to be made safely.  Grower groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation were also interested in NAAA’s position and supported NAAA’s position that aerial application should be allowed for over the top dicamba applications.
• Isocycloseram was registered in November 2025. NAAA worked with Syngenta to support aerial applications for their new insecticide isocycloseram. EPA’s initial registration proposal was only going to allow aerial applications of the insecticide on cotton. In the final registration EPA approved aerial applications of isocycloseram for only corn, soybean, potatoes, and cotton. For corn and soybean, aerial applications will only be allowed in a limited number of states. For corn, aerial application of isocycloseram will only be allowed in CO, KS, NE, OK, and TX; for soybean, aerial applications would only be allowed in AL, AR, GA, LA, MS, MO, NC, OK, SC, TN, and TX. NAAA will work with Syngenta to document to the EPA the need for aerial application of isocycloseram on corn and soybeans in all states and how the insecticide strategy would allow these applications to occur and protect endangerd species.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Activities

• EPA resolved longstanding litigation (megasuit) covering over 1,000 pesticide products, allowing EPA to fulfill its obligations to protect endangered species while conducting reviews and approvals of pesticides. It Required EPA to develop mitigation measures as detailed in ESA workplan, vulnerable species pilot project (VSPP), herbicide strategy, and forthcoming rodenticide strategy, insecticide strategy, and fungicide strategy which will identify ESA mitigation measures for entire classes of pesticides.
• NAAA ensured aircraft smokers and other types of meteorological measuring technology can be used to verify wind; now on labels
• ESA Workplan – lays out plan for EPA to improve EPA’s efficiency with meeting its ESA obligations and reduce the need to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. 
• Result of settlement agreement in the “Mega Lawsuit”, filed by numerous environmental activists groups alleging EPA has failed to abide by ESA.
• ESA Workplan update
  • Details how pesticide labels will use Endangered Species Bulletins Live! Two (BLT) website to show applicators’ location of ESA pesticide use limitation areas (PULA) are located and provide access to any additional mitigations needed when applying near the species.
  • Proposes use of wind-directional buffers
• Vulnerable Species Pilot Project (VSPP): focused on a group of 27 species that are particularly vulnerable to harm from pesticides; NAAA submitted comments.
  • Some PULAs would be specific, others  vague.
  • Proposed wind-directional buffers
  • Acknowledged need to move from Tier 1 to Tier 3 in AgDRIFT
  • Update based on public comments narrowed species range maps, clarified non-ag uses, and revised mitigations.
• Herbicide strategy
  • Draft released in July 2023; NAAA submitted comments
  • Protect ESA species and habitat from herbicides in lower 48 states
  • Drift mitigations proposed for aerial applications focused on wind directional buffer zones
  • Uses BLT to show PULAs and access bulletins with mitigations
  • PULAs unnecessarily large – based on range instead of locations; would increase cropland affected by ESA mitigations
  • Update released in 2024 suggesting refined PULAs and move to Tier 3
  • Final strategy released in August of 2024
    • All buffer zones downwind
    • Distance based on risk of species and pesticide in question; will range from 50 to 320 feet.
    • Buffer distances can be reduced by increasing droplet size, using a drift reduction adjuvant, when applying to a small field only requiring a few passes, when there is a windbreak or similar vegetative barrier present, and when humidity is higher than 60%.
    • Managed areas such as other fields, roads, managed wetlands, field borders, etc. can all be included as part of the buffer
    • Mitigations and managed areas will be expanded upon as new data becomes available.
• Hawaii strategy – because of its unique nature, Hawaii is receiving an ESA strategy specific to it. NAAA assisted USDA OPMP in determining the extent of aerial applications in Hawaii
• Once finalized, strategies will be implemented as part of registration review or new registration process for every pesticide.
• Insecticide Strategy
  • July of 2024 – draft insecticide strategy released – it was very similar to the final herbicide strategy. Wind directional buffer zones, distance can be reduced by using mitigations including larger droplets, and managed areas will count as part of buffer. NAAA requested boom length reductions be added as a drift mitigation option. The ecological mitigation support document that was released with the insecticide strategy finally accepted NAAA’s recommendations to switch from the Tier 1 to the Tier 3 AgDRIFT model and improve the assumptions. EPA changed the default aircraft to an AT-802 with a corresponding increase in swath width and decrease in the number of passes. The default droplet size was increased to medium, atmospheric stability was set to a level that rules out the presence of an inversion. EPA also changed the height at which wind speed is measured to reflect smokers and onboard meteorological measurement systems and increased the upwind swath displacement to reflect what is actually practiced in the industry. There were two assumptions EPA did not agree with completely on with NAAA – surface roughness and standard boom drop. While EPA did not agree with the values proposed by NAAA, they did not disagree with the logic behind our recommendations.
  • April 2025 – final insecticide strategy released. Wind directional buffer zones are the mitigation option to reduce risk of drift. They can be on label to protect unmanaged areas and on BLT to protect PULAs. Maximum buffer distance is 300 feet for aerial applications; reduced by mananged areas as part of buffer and drift mitigation measures. Each mitigation measure is assigned a percentage reduction for buffer distance; perccentages are cumalitive. It is possible to eliminate the need for a buffer by either managed areas or mitigation measures. See www.epa.gov/pesticides/mitigation-menu for current ist of managed areas and mitigation measures. The use of a website instead of label will allow new application technologies to be added for buffer reduction measures. Growers will need to comply with a mitigation system to reduce off site exposure from runoff/erosion. Commerical applicators will need to require customer records for their application records to confirm compliance. EPA is working on refining the size and scope of PULA’s to better reflect locations where endangered species actually occur.
• EPA’s BiOp for carbaryl proposed a 150-foot non-wind directional buffer zone for aquatic areas for aerial applications; it’s 25 feet for ground applications. It was unclear if the buffers were intended to protect against runoff, drift, or both. NAAA commented that all drift reduction buffer zones should be wind directional, and that if the buffer is intended to protect from runoff there should be no difference between buffer distance for ground and aerial. The issue of non-wind directional buffers for aqutic areas is expected to continue to be an issue.

Recent Updates

In April 2026 EPA released the draft fungicide stratety. It followed the same plan as the herbicide and insecticide strategies to use wind-directional buffers to protect endangered species and critical habitat from potential drift from aerial applications. The mitigation options to reduce the buffer distance remained the same except EPA approved the use of oil emulsion drift reduction adjuvants (DRA) for use on fungicides as well as herbicides and insecticides. Guar gum DRAs were added for ground but not aerial application. EPA requested details on how the final strategy might protect endangered vertebrates who could potentially be located on the treated field and directly exposed to fungicide. NAAA comments informed EPA we would be working with the USDA-ARS aerial researchers to study the impact guar gum DRAs have on the droplet size for aerial application. NAAA also submitted data to document that reducing the boom length of helicopters to 50% of rotor diameter reduces drift similiarly to what occurs with airplanes. NAAA cautioned against any proposed mitigations to protect endangered on-field vertebrates that could negatively affect the timely application of fungicides.

Along with comments on the draft fungicide strategy, NAAA submitted two additional letters. One requested that labeld aquatic buffer zones to mitigate potential drift from aerial applications be made wind directional. NAAA also requested that the drift mitigations and managed areas used by the ESA strategies be applied to aquatic buffer zones. The second letter submitted to EPA opjected to how drone drift data submitted to the EPA by the Unmanned Aerial Pesticide Application System Task Force (UAPASTF). The press release compared drone dirft data to the Tier 1 AgDRIFT model instead of the Tier 3 model which is recognized by the EPA as more accurate and better reflecting of modern aerial applications.

In the early part of 2026 pesticide registrants saw significant delays in the EPA registration process. EPA was routinely missing the review times for the registration of new pesticide active ingredients, new uses and new formulated products due to funding constraints, internal process challenges (most prominently trying to comply with Endangered Species Act consultations) and political pressures.  Under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2022 (PRIA 5), EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has implemented several process efficiency improvements designed to address the backlog of pesticide registration actions and has additional improvements planned for the coming year. However, pesticide registrants face a new hurdle in the form of management level reviews (many going all the way to the desk of the EPA Administrator) beyond the Office of Pesticide Programs to address concerns raised by the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement. These delays, which are largely driven by White House personnel, involve all pesticide registration actions, especially those related to fluorinated chemistry or any products restricted in the European Union or other countries.

A Presidential order issued in June 2026 titeled “Advancing Regenerative Agriculture and Strengthening American Farm Resilience” which directed EPA to expediate the registration and review of pesticides. This immediately helped with a backlog of registration activities that had been held up politically by the MAHA movement. Unfortunately the order also directed the EPA to prioritize registration activities that provide alternatives to older pesticides, which could continue to delay growers access to pesticides they rely on. Another concern with the executive order is the directive to review all registered pre-harvest desiccation uses to ensure that they meet all applicable safety and environmental standards, including accurate labeling. This directive, along with an EPA announcement of the creation of $30 million challenge to find alterntives to crop desicants and their proposal to host a paraquat roundtable, suggests the future of paraquat may be in jeapordry. NAAA singned onto a letter with other ag stakeholders to support the focus on getting pesticides reviewed and registered but urging caution about prmoting alternatives at the expense of proven products. NAAA will part of the paraquat roundtable when it convienes.

In August of 2026 EPA has opened a 30-day public comment period for a new open literature search on glyphosate as part of its ongoing registration review. The document lists peer reviewed studies the agency identified since its last search in 2017 and explains the systematic review methods used. EPA will consider these studies, plus any additional high-quality research submitted during this comment window, when preparing the forthcoming human health risk assessment that will address potential dietary risks from residues in food and water. This comment period is focused on identifying studies to include in the assessment rather than critiquing EPA’s conclusions. The focus of the literature review is on the effects of glyphosate to human health, not risk of exposure. NAAA did not comment but is monitoring glyphosate registrartion review activities to ensure aerial application is not singled out.

NAAA commented on the proposed new use for the herbicide isoxaflutole and is currently labeled for use on isoxaflutole-resistant soybean in 34 states. The new use would be on isoxaflutole-resistant cotton and increase the number of states the herbicide can be applied to soybean. NAAA objected to the complete prohibition of aerial applications of isoxaflutole.

NAAA Newsletters on This Issue