- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just released draft guidance that could help streamline modifications to registered pesticides. Pesticide makers (registrants) and distributors in the U.S. know very well that you have to "mind your Ps and Qs" when it comes to making labeling and formulation changes to registered pesticides. That is because EPA maintains stringent regulatory control over the registration terms and approved product labels, and compliance has been strictly enforced. But modern-day marketing of pesticides, especially consumer and household use pest control and antimicrobial products, can be fiercely competitive, and a consumer brand seeking to modernize a label or even roll out a new fragrance can first face painstaking submissions and months of review by EPA. Even the most nimble in-house personnel or adept outside consulting services struggle to swiftly navigate EPA's procedures to update a product's consumer-facing profile.
Some relief might be in sight.
On January 5, 2026, EPA opened a 45-day public comment period on draft guidance addressing how to make changes to certain terms of a pesticide registration and product labels. The overall intent of the guidance is to trim the red tape (slightly) and streamline EPA's nearly 30-year-old system for making minor modifications to registrations and labels through abbreviated processes known as "notifications," "non-notifications," and "minor formulation amendments" — though notably not all of the proposed revisions would provide regulatory relief to pesticide registrants.
As EPA has not comprehensively updated its guidance on these types of registration changes since the release of Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 in 1998, this comment period presents an excellent opportunity for stakeholders to weigh in on both the scope of the guidance and the processes outlined in it, and perhaps to request that EPA make additional modifications. However, based on the nuance of the proposed revisions, one needs to be something of an expert to interpret EPA's draft and weigh in on the changes being considered.
We outline below some of the highlights in the draft guidance.
Elimination of Separate Process for Antimicrobial Notifications
Among the most significant changes included in the draft guidance is the elimination of separate notification procedures for antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial pesticides. Under current PRN 98-10, a registrant may begin to sell a non-antimicrobial (e.g., insecticide or weed-control) product with a label that was modified via notification immediately upon EPA's receipt of the notification. In contrast, a registrant may only begin to sell an antimicrobial product modified via notification upon the earlier of receipt of notice of approval of the notification from EPA and 60 days after submission of the notification. The draft guidance would eliminate the separate process for antimicrobials and permit registrants to begin sale and distribution of all types of pesticide products modified by notification upon EPA's receipt of the notification.1
Streamlining of Minor Labeling and Formulation Changes
The draft guidance also would expand the ability of registrants to revise through notification elements of pesticide product labels including: (1) symbols, pictures, logos, and graphics; (2) state-required fertilizer restrictions; (3) listing of inert ingredients; and (4) marketing claims. With respect to symbols, pictures, logos, and graphics, as well as state-required fertilizer restrictions, registrants would be permitted to add placeholders to their labels via notification and later substitute the appropriate symbol, picture, logo, graphic, or state-required fertilizer statement on printed labels without having to submit another notification to EPA. For example, a registrant could add to the master label, via notification, a placeholder for an image of a target pest and, on the final printed label, include a target pest image without having to submit another notification to EPA. The draft guidance also would permit registrants to add, via notification, a list of all inert ingredients in the product. Finally, under the draft guidance, registrants could add, via notification, marketing claims that do not "substantially differ" from approved claims. In each of these circumstances, the registrant would still need to ensure that the final printed label is not false or misleading, e.g., the pest image is accurate or the list of inert ingredients is complete.
The draft is not limited to labeling changes. For example, the draft guidance would also allow registrants to use the notification process to add registered sources of active ingredients with varying concentrations (subject to certain conditions), with additional restrictions for bait products and antimicrobial products. Under the draft guidance, registrants would also be permitted to utilize non-notification to change the source of an inert ingredient, subject to conditions including that the inert at issue is not proprietary, the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry Number would not change, and the product does not make National Organic Program or Organic Materials Review Institute claims.
Addition of Endangered Species Protection Bulletins Language
Under the draft guidance, registrants could also add language via non-notification to the directions for use section of labels with outdoor non-residential uses pointing to "Bulletins Live! Two." That platform provides information on geographically specific pesticide use limitations associated with the protection of endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitat. EPA previously noted that it expects language referencing endangered species protection bulletins to become increasingly common on pesticide labels as EPA implements strategies to meet its Endangered Species Act obligations for pesticide registration actions. With the addition of a reference to "Bulletins Live! Two" to a pesticide product label, future mitigation for the protection of endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitat would become an enforceable part of the labeling immediately upon publication to "Bulletins Live! Two" without further action needed from the registrant or EPA.
Requiring Amendments for Use Deletions
Not all of the proposed changes are aimed at decreasing the burden on registrants. For example, the draft guidance would no longer allow end-use product registrants to avoid new testing requirements associated with data call-ins by strategically deleting uses from their labels via notification. Rather, under the draft guidance, an end-use product registrant choosing to delete a use in response to a data call-in would first have to submit an amendment to EPA. EPA noted in its "Summary of Significant Changes between Pesticide Registration Notice (PRN) 98-10 and Draft PRN" that this change is "based on current [Office of Pesticide Program] registration review practices."
Conclusion
Any final guidance from EPA is likely to reduce the burden on registrants making certain changes to their registrations. This impact will be particularly felt by registrants of consumer use products that undergo multiple label changes in quick succession to enhance claims or respond to market trends and new developments. Thus, we encourage pesticide registrants and distributors to work with their regulatory personnel and counsel to carefully review the draft guidance and provide feedback to EPA, particularly as to areas where additional efficiencies may be possible. Even if such comments are merely to support the proposals made by EPA, they can have an impact on the final version of the guidance.
Should you have any questions regarding FIFRA, the draft guidance, or about submitting comments to EPA, please do not hesitate to contact any of the authors of this Advisory.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
