2.2 Part 83 of NREPA — Michigan's Pesticide Law

Part 83 of NREPA — Michigan's Pesticide Law

Quick Answer: Michigan's state pesticide law is Part 83 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Public Act 451 of 1994. It is administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD). Part 83 is the state statute that fills in the certification, registration, operational, and notification details that FIFRA leaves to the states. For Michigan applicators, Part 83 is the law they actually live under day to day.

Where Part 83 Sits in the Legal Stack

Michigan applicators operate under two overlapping pesticide statutes at the same time:

1. FIFRA (federal) — administered by the EPA. Sets the federal floor: registration, classification, labeling, and the "label is the law" principle.
2. Part 83 of NREPA (state) — administered by MDARD. Adds Michigan-specific requirements: state certification, state registration of pesticide products, Michigan-specific RUP designations, sale and distribution controls, and school/day-care IPM and notification authority.

Where Part 83 is stricter than FIFRA, Part 83 controls for Michigan applicators. Where Part 83 mirrors FIFRA, applicators must still comply with both. Because Part 83 explicitly references and enforces FIFRA's labeling requirements, a violation of the FIFRA label is also a violation of Part 83 in Michigan.

What Part 83 Authorizes MDARD to Do

Part 83 gives MDARD the legal authority to:

• Certify and register pesticide applicators — Part 83 establishes the three Michigan applicator categories covered in Chapter 3: Certified Commercial, Registered, and Private. Each has its own certification, exam, and recertification rules.
• Register pesticide products sold or distributed in Michigan, on top of the federal EPA registration.
• Designate Michigan-specific restricted-use pesticides (RUPs) — Part 83 allows MDARD to classify a pesticide as restricted-use at the state level even when the EPA classifies it as general-use federally.
• Control the sale and distribution of pesticides in Michigan, including who may sell RUPs and to whom.
• Require school and day-care IPM and notification before pesticide use at schools and licensed day-care facilities.
• Approve applicator training programs and recertification seminars.
• Inspect applicator records, equipment, and operations to verify compliance.
• Take enforcement action — stop-sale, stop-use, license suspension or revocation, and administrative penalties.

Section 2.3 covers MDARD's enforcement authority in detail; here, the point is that every MDARD power listed in this chapter traces back to Part 83 as its statutory source.

Michigan-Specific Restricted-Use Pesticides

One of the most testable Part 83 concepts is that Michigan's restricted-use list is not identical to the federal one. Regulation 633 assembles Michigan's list from three sources, and the exam expects you to know all three:

Read the rule itself, because R 285.633.2 is far shorter than most circulating study lists suggest. As amended effective December 20, 2016, subrule (1) contains exactly two items: the federal adoption in (a) and the diuron entry in (b). Older lists still print a long pre-2016 table of aldicarb, paraquat, picloram, carbofuran, azinphos-methyl and similar entries. Those products are still restricted use in Michigan — but they get there today through the federal classification adopted by (a), not through a separate Michigan enumeration. If an exam item asks what Michigan restricts beyond the federal list, diuron above 1% is the rule-based answer.

Diuron is the Michigan-only rule entry. Any end use formulation over 1% diuron is an RUP in Michigan regardless of how the federal label is classified. The threshold matters: a formulation at or below 1% is not restricted by this provision.

Methomyl is the order to know cold. On February 14, 2022 the MDARD director issued an administrative order classifying all pesticides containing the active ingredient methomyl as restricted use in the state of Michigan — a blanket restriction that does not depend on formulation, concentration, or packaging. It is an order, not a rule amendment, which is exactly why you check MDARD's pesticide laws, regulations, and orders page and not the regulation alone.

Orders can also be seasonal and geographic. Under Act 6 of 1959, MDARD has issued an order restricting the use of 2,4-D or MCPA in grape-growing areas every year since 1963; the 2025 order ran from May 1 to October 1. A product perfectly legal in one county in November can be restricted in another county in June.

Finally, R 285.633.2(2) closes the loophole: notwithstanding any statement to the contrary, including statements on the label or made by the manufacturer, a pesticide restricted by these rules is restricted as to its purchase, distribution, sale, and use in Michigan.

The exam principle: a pesticide can be restricted use in Michigan even when its federal label does not carry an EPA RUP classification. Verify the Michigan status of any product you intend to buy or apply, not just the federal label. MDARD's Registered Pesticide List, updated daily, shows RUP status for every product registered for sale in Michigan.

School and Day-Care IPM and Notification

Section 8316 of Part 83, implemented through Regulation 637, Rule 15, is one of the most specific pieces of Michigan pesticide law, and it is heavily tested. The requirements:

• An IPM program must be in place in each building at a school or licensed day care before any pesticide is applied in that building. Not district-wide in the abstract — building by building, in writing, available to staff, parents, and MDARD on request.
• Annual notification goes to parents and guardians. Schools must provide it within 30 days of the start of the school year; day-care centers provide it during September. The annual notice must name two methods by which advance notice will be given.
• Advance notice at least 48 hours before the application. The first method must be posting at the primary entrance(s). The second must be at least one of: posting in a public common area other than an entrance, e-mail, or a telephone call making direct contact with a parent or guardian. A parent who requests it in writing may instead receive notice by first-class mail postmarked at least 3 days before the application.
• What is exempt from advance notice: bait and gel formulations, and sanitizers, germicides, disinfectants, and antimicrobial agents.
• Emergencies — an infestation of stinging insects, for example — may be treated without advance notice to prevent injury, but notice must be given after the application.
• Never apply with children in the room, and honor the 4-hour rule. A pesticide may not be applied while children are present in the room, and the school or day care must keep children out of a treated area for 4 hours or the label's reentry period, whichever is longer. This is the number candidates miss: it is a Michigan floor that applies even when the label sets no REI at all.
• The 100-foot classroom setback. Outdoor liquid spray applications to turf or ornamentals may not be made on school grounds within 100 feet of occupied classrooms during normal class hours, or while people are using the treatment area. Notice that this is a different 100 feet from the federal WPS Application Exclusion Zone — same number, different rule, different trigger.
• Tell the building manager the REI. The applicator must notify the school's building manager of any reentry interval the label requires for what was applied.
• Turf and ornamental posting. If you treat lawn or ornamental sites at a school, day care, commercial or public building, or health-care facility, the site must be posted immediately after treatment with a lawn marker sign at the primary points of entry to the treated area.

The exam principle: in Michigan, school and day-care pesticide use is not just a FIFRA label question — it is a Part 83 IPM, notification, and posting question as well, and the duties are split between the facility (IPM program, annual notice, advance notice) and the applicator (scheduling, product choice, lawn-marker posting, records).

Sale and Distribution Control

Part 83 controls who may sell pesticides in Michigan and to whom:

• Restricted-use pesticides may be sold only to certified applicators (or to persons under the direct supervision of a certified applicator).
• General-use pesticides may be sold to the general public, but sellers must still comply with Michigan product registration and labeling rules.
• MDARD may issue stop-sale orders for any pesticide product that violates Part 83 or FIFRA.

Dealers who sell RUPs in Michigan are responsible for verifying that the buyer holds a current, valid Michigan certification for the RUP being purchased. Selling an RUP to an uncertified buyer is a Part 83 violation for the dealer, not just the buyer.

Part 83 vs. FIFRA — What the Exam Tests

Exam questions on Part 83 typically contrast Michigan-specific requirements with the federal baseline. The patterns to recognize:

• A scenario that involves a Michigan-specific RUP (any methomyl product, or an end use formulation above 1% diuron) is testing state RUP designation under Regulation 633, not just federal classification.
• A scenario involving pesticide use at a school or day care is testing section 8316 and Regulation 637, Rule 15 — the building IPM program, the 48-hour advance notice, and the bait/gel and sanitizer exemptions — not just the FIFRA label.
• A scenario involving sale of an RUP to an uncertified buyer is testing Part 83 sale and distribution control.
• A scenario that says "MDARD may classify a pesticide as restricted-use in Michigan even though the EPA classifies it as general-use" is testing the state-floor relationship — Part 83 may be stricter than FIFRA but never weaker.

How This Connects to the Rest of the Exam

Part 83 reappears throughout the Michigan pesticide applicator exam:

• In Chapter 3 (Applicator Categories), the three Michigan applicator types are created and defined by Part 83.
• In Section 2.3 (MDARD Authority & Enforcement), every MDARD enforcement power traces back to Part 83 statutory authority.
• In the Labels chapter (Chapter 4), Michigan-specific RUP designations under Part 83 affect how the label and the Michigan RUP list interact.
• In the Safety chapter (Chapter 5), school and day-care IPM and notification rules under Part 83 sit alongside the federal Worker Protection Standard, which covers a different population entirely.

Keep Part 83 in mind as the connective tissue that links federal FIFRA to the specific Michigan rules you will be tested on.