Pesticide and Pest Control - Revisions to Pesticide Applicator's Law and Repeal of Obsolete Provisions
HB114 revises Maryland’s pesticide applicator law to set clearer rules for who may commercially apply general use pesticides and restricted use pesticides, and who may privately apply restricted use pesticides. The bill defines general use pesticide, updates supervision standards, and specifies that commercial applications of general use pesticides may be made by certified pest control applicators or certified public agency applicators, or under their supervision. Commercial applications of restricted use pesticides must be made by certified pest control applicators or certified public agency applicators, while private applications of restricted use pesticides must be made by certified private applicators or, in limited circumstances, by noncertified individuals working under the direct supervision of a certified private applicator who meets federal requirements.
The bill also makes certified applicators responsible and liable for pesticide applications within their scope of authority. Certified pest control applicators and public agency applicators are responsible and liable for both general use and restricted use pesticide applications, while certified private applicators are responsible and liable for restricted use pesticide applications they oversee. In addition, the bill repeals obsolete provisions concerning cyclodiene termiticides and antifouling paints containing tributyltin compounds, removing outdated statutory language that had regulated those substances separately.
The bill’s impact is primarily on the Agriculture Article of the Maryland Code, especially the pesticide applicator subtitle. It modernizes the statutory framework to align with current federal supervision requirements and clarifies liability and certification obligations for commercial pest control businesses, public agencies, private agricultural applicators, and supervised workers. It also eliminates obsolete provisions that no longer reflect current pesticide and marine paint regulation.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the House 106-31 and the Senate 47-0, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the recorded votes. No committee transcript material was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant controversy.
The main potential point of contention is the expanded responsibility placed on certified applicators, particularly the requirement that certified private applicators ensure noncertified workers meet federal supervision standards before using restricted use pesticides. That said, the recorded votes suggest any concerns were limited and did not prevent passage. The repeal of obsolete cyclodiene and tributyltin provisions appears to have been noncontroversial cleanup legislation.
HB114 amends the Agriculture Article by replacing outdated pesticide supervision language with a more detailed framework for general use pesticides, restricted use pesticides, and private applicator supervision. It increases clarity around certification, supervision, responsibility, and liability for certified pest control applicators, public agency applicators, and private applicators, and it removes obsolete statutory sections on cyclodiene termiticides and tributyltin antifouling paints. The bill affects pesticide applicators, agricultural producers, pest control businesses, public agencies, and supervised employees working with restricted use pesticides.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall. It passed both chambers with substantial margins, including unanimous Senate approval, suggesting broad agreement that the law needed updating and cleanup. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into detailed stakeholder views, but the voting record indicates little organized opposition.
The most notable substantive issue is the shift in responsibility to certified applicators, especially certified private applicators, who must ensure that noncertified individuals meet federal supervision requirements before handling restricted use pesticides. This could raise compliance and liability concerns for agricultural employers and applicators. Another possible concern is the practical burden of certification and supervision requirements on commercial and private pesticide users, though the strong vote totals suggest these concerns were not politically significant.