EPA’s 2025 FIFRA Enforcement Trends

/in , ,

EPA has maintained a surprisingly aggressive enforcement posture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 2025, even as broader deregulatory and budget-cutting initiatives move forward.  Data from the first part of the year suggest that civil enforcement remains vigorous across multiple sectors and may be exceeding levels seen in previous years.

Key Enforcement Activity

Increased Volume of Cases:  EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database indicates that 84 FIFRA administrative enforcement cases with civil penalties were opened from February through July 2025.  This represents a notable increase compared to the same period in 2024 and 2023, when approximately 59 and 51 cases were issued, respectively.

Rising Penalties:  EPA’s enforcement in 2025 has produced some of the largest FIFRA settlements on record.  In May, Costco Wholesale Corp. agreed to a $3.07 million settlement for selling unregistered antimicrobial gloves and misbranded air filters, failing to file import notices, and violating a stop‑sale order.  As part of the same enforcement action, Winix America settled for more than $1 million.  A third seven-figure settlement was reached with Stepan Co. for selling or distributing a misbranded pesticide.

Notices of Refusal of Admission:  EPA Region 8 has been actively monitoring pesticide imports along the northern border.  EPA’s administrative enforcement dockets webpage indicates that nearly 50 notices of refusal of admission have been issued in 2025 so far.

FIFRA Expedited Settlement Agreement Pilot Program

A significant number of civil penalties have been assessed through EPA’s Expedited Settlement Agreement (ESA) Pilot Program under FIFRA, launched in January 2025.  The program targets minor, easily correctible violations and provides discounted, non-negotiable settlements, in lieu of formal enforcement.  The pilot program is intended to streamline enforcement while prioritizing resource efficiency and deterrence.

This pilot program will remain available for 36 months from its approval date, with evaluation of its effectiveness slated after 30 months.  ESA penalties have generally ranged from several hundred to several thousand dollars.

Implications for Regulated Entities
  • Enforcement focus remains strong on labeling, registration, import compliance, and antimicrobial products.
  • The ESA Pilot Program may allow expedited resolution but applies only to specific, low-severity violations.
  • Companies should continue to operate under the assumption that enforcement remains robust.
Practical Steps

To manage enforcement risk:

  • Review labeling, registration status, and marketing claims for all pesticide and antimicrobial products.
  • Confirm compliance with import documentation like notices of arrival and relevant filings.
  • Strengthen supplier and private-label compliance monitoring.
  • Conduct a proactive self‑audit under EPA’s Audit Policy, especially if potential minor violations are identified.
  • Evaluate whether any matters may qualify for the FIFRA ESA Pilot Program.
Final Thought

Despite changes in the regulatory landscape, 2025 shows that EPA’s FIFRA enforcement remains serious.  Taking preemptive steps can provide meaningful protection and potentially reduce enforcement exposure.

Environmental Compliance Under the Trump Administration: Why Maintaining Compliance and Self-Auditing Makes Business Sense

/in

The current federal enforcement climate may appear lenient, but the importance of environmental compliance under the Trump administration remains significant for regulated industries.  Short-term political shifts should not distract from long-term business, legal, and reputational realities.  Below are seven key reasons why companies should continue prioritizing compliance and consider proactive self-auditing during this administration—even amid reduced federal enforcement.

1. Enforcement Risk is Cyclical

Political cycles are short, and a change in administration or state leadership can quickly swing enforcement priorities back toward aggressive oversight.  EPA and state agencies often enforce against violations discovered long after they occurred.  Moreover, many states maintain aggressive enforcement regardless of federal posture, meaning state regulators may pursue violations even if EPA does not.  Short-term leniency today can turn into a costly liability tomorrow.

2. Civil and Criminal Liability Still Exist

Even in a softer federal enforcement climate, businesses remain at risk of significant civil penalties if violations are uncovered during inspections or deemed serious enough to warrant action.  Political priorities have no effect on criminal liability—knowing or willful violations can still lead to prosecution, including personal liability for executives.  Citizen suits under laws such as the Clean Water Act, RCRA, and the Clean Air Act also remain a powerful enforcement tool for NGOs and private parties.  On top of that, many insurance policies exclude coverage for pollution events tied to noncompliance, leaving companies financially exposed.

3. Regulatory Compliance is a Business Asset

Staying in compliance helps keep the permits and licenses that are essential for day-to-day operations, while avoiding the risk of suspension or revocation that can halt business entirely.  It also preserves enterprise value, since buyers, investors, and lenders closely review compliance history during mergers, acquisitions, or refinancing, and violations can lower a sale price or derail a deal altogether.  A strong compliance record can even provide a competitive edge, helping secure government contracts and attracting customers who prioritize environmental and social responsibility.

4. Market & Reputation Pressures Can Outweigh Federal Policy

Compliance is a market expectation.  Lenders, investors, and insurers increasingly require documented environmental compliance or strong ESG performance as a condition for doing business.  Public perception, shaped by media coverage and NGO activism, can inflict far greater damage to a company’s brand than an EPA fine ever could.  Supply chain dynamics add another layer of pressure, as large corporations often require vendors to meet standards that exceed federal regulations.  Ultimately, reputation and contracts depend on compliance more than who occupies the White House.

5. Self-Auditing Offers Strong Protections

Under EPA’s Audit Policy and many state laws, voluntarily disclosing violations can lead to reduced or eliminated penalties.  Some states also offer audit privilege, shielding certain findings from disclosure in enforcement actions.  Self-auditing demonstrates good faith to regulators, signaling a proactive compliance culture, while early detection of issues prevents them from escalating into costly enforcement or litigation.  A proactive audit today is almost always less expensive and safer than reacting to a violation tomorrow.

6. Risk Management and Cost Control

Compliance is cheaper to maintain than repair.  Strong compliance practices help prevent the sudden and expensive crises that can arise from noncompliance, such as emergency response actions and costly cleanups.  By identifying and addressing issues voluntarily, businesses can schedule fixes strategically, minimizing operational disruption and downtime.  Finally, self-directed compliance efforts provide cost certainty and tend to be significantly less expensive than making corrections under a consent decree.

7. Enforcement Can Escalate Mid-Administration

Lax enforcement is never guaranteed.  A major spill, accident, or environmental disaster can prompt regulators to pivot suddenly toward stricter oversight.  Public outrage and pressure from Congress can also compel the EPA or Department of Justice to target specific industries or facilities regardless of the administration’s general enforcement stance.

Closing Thought

Even with changes in federal enforcement policy, maintaining environmental compliance under the Trump administration is crucial to managing risks and protecting business value.  Taking a proactive approach through diligent compliance and self-auditing helps safeguard reputations and keep operations running smoothly.  Ultimately, a consistent commitment to environmental responsibility is the smarter, safer, and more cost-effective path forward.

CEH Sues Chemical Company over CDR Import Reporting Omissions

/in , , ,

The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has sued AOC, LLC, a resins and specialty materials company, alleging that it failed to report imports under EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.  The Toxic Substances Control Act citizen suit is the latest of several complaints filed by CEH against chemical importers for alleged CDR violations.

CEH’s complaint, filed June 20, 2024, alleges that AOC imported hundreds of thousands of pounds of phthalic anhydride, neopentyl glycol, and dicyclopentadiene during the 2020 CDR reporting period.  However, despite the imports greatly exceeding CDR’s 25,000-pound threshold, the complaint claims that no evidence of the imports were found in EPA’s CDR database.

“CDR reporting is an essential tool for tracking the production and use of toxic substances,” the complaint states. “AOC’s failure to report large chemical imports under the CDR rule weakens the ability of EPA and local communities to evaluate and protect against serious threats to health.”

The complaint does not say how CEH identified the alleged imports.  However, the organization stated that it uncovered a previous violation through a “search of publicly available data” on chemical imports.

CEH filed similar complaints against three importers in June 2021.  A CEH notice also prompted the Chevron Phillips Company to disclose numerous violations concerning 24 chemicals in July 2021, according to a CEH press release.

Update

On October 30, 2024, CEH announced that it had filed additional suits against Entegris, Inc. and Lubrizol Corp. for alleged 2020 CDR reporting period violations.  According to the complaints, Entegris failed to report cobalt sulfate and phosphoric acid imports and Lubrizol failed to report 2-propylheptanol and di-(2-ethylhexyl)amine imports.

The press release also announced that CEH reached a settlement with AOC.  “[AOC’s] diligent response to CEH’s concerns is to be commended,” CEH attorney and former EPA official Bob Sussman said.

Kansas City Grocers Ordered to Stop Selling Illegally-Imported Disinfectants

/in , , ,

On May 6, 2024, EPA Region 7 announced that 17 grocery stores in the Kansas City area had been ordered to stop the sale and use of certain Fabuloso-brand cleaners and other disinfectants because of potential health risks.  The orders, issued by the Kansas and Missouri Departments of Agriculture in partnership with EPA, require the stores to immediately remove the illegal products from their shelves.

According to EPA’s press release, the products contain glutaraldehyde, an active ingredient not approved for household disinfectant use in the U.S. due to its potential health risks. These risks include “throat and lung irritation, asthma and difficulty breathing, dermatitis, nasal irritation, sneezing, wheezing, burning eyes, and conjunctivitis.”

EPA says that the products were illegally imported.  The press release states that their labels are primarily in Spanish and that the affected grocers “serve Hispanic communities.”

It is important to note that not all Fabuloso products are unsafe.  There is also an EPA approved US version of Fabuloso which does not contain glutaraldehyde.  According to the press release, some stores subject to the orders sold both the illegal and the approved US versions of the disinfectants.

EPA Settles with Slack Chemical Company Following Alleged EPCRA Violations

/in , , ,

On October 11, 2023, EPA announced a settlement with Slack Chemical Company, Inc. (“Slack”) following alleged violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) at two of the New York corporation’s facilities. The settlement includes a civil penalty of $231,300.

Under Section 313 of EPCRA, owners or operators of certain facilities are required to annually submit a Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R (“TRI Form R”) report for each chemical listed under 40 CFR 372.65 that was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in quantities exceeding a certain threshold. TRI Form R reports require information about on-site releases of the chemical into the environment, transfers of the chemical in waste to off-site locations, on-site waste treatment methods, and source reduction and recycling activities. Alternatively, owners or operators can opt to submit a simpler Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form A (“TRI Form A”)  report when the quantity of the chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used is one million pounds or less, the total quantity released, disposed, and treated at the facility is 500 pounds or less, and the chemical is not considered to be of special concern. TRI Form R/Form A reports are due no later than July 1 for the preceding calendar year.

EPA alleges that Slack, which describes itself as a “chemical warehousing, repackaging and distribution company,” failed to submit timely TRI Form R/Form A reports at its Carthage and Saratoga Springs facilities for calendar years 2019 and 2021. More specifically, EPA alleges that Slack:

  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the chemical’s ammonia, methanol, nitric acid, and toluene at its Carthage facility and a TRI Form R for methanol at its Saratoga Springs facility on May 10, 2021, for calendar year 2019, approximately 10 months late; and
  • Submitted TRI Forms R or A for the same chemicals at the facilities on November 21, 2022, for the calendar year 2021, approximately 4.5 months late.

In a news release, EPA stated that Slack has “voluntarily instituted a corporate compliance plan to prevent recurrence of EPCRA reporting violations,” which includes a written procedure listing the steps needed to identify TRI chemicals and their quantities.

DOJ Files Lawsuit Against eBay for Environmental Violations

/in , , , ,

On behalf of EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer eBay for selling and distributing “hundreds of thousands of products” that allegedly violate the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

DOJ first alleges that eBay violated the CAA by selling or causing the sale of over 343,000 automotive aftermarket defeat devices.  These devices, which are often advertised as vehicle power enhancers, “can cause motor vehicles to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than a motor vehicle with properly functioning emission controls,” the complaint says.  DOJ alleges that each aftermarket defeat device sold, offered for sale, or caused to sell by eBay constitutes a violation of CAA section 203(a)(3)(B), which forbids selling or offering to sell a motor vehicle part that bypasses an emission-related element of design.

Second, the complaint alleges that eBay committed a series of FIFRA violations by selling or distributing a minimum of 23,000 unregistered, misbranded, or restricted use pesticide products.  DOJ also alleges 8,074 violations of a Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Order (SSURO) issued by EPA in 2020 (and amended in 2021), which identified some of these allegedly unlawful pesticide products.  Among the products sold in alleged violation of the SSURO was an insecticide containing dichlorvos, which DOJ characterizes as highly dangerous, and a “disinfection card” claiming to protect users from COVID-19 when worn around their neck.

Finally, eBay is being sued under TSCA for violating a 2019 rule prohibiting the manufacture, processing, and distribution of products containing methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal.  The TSCA section 6(a) rule was the result of EPA’s determination that those uses pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health due to methylene chloride’s acute human lethality.  According to the complaint, eBay has distributed over 5,600 items in violation of the rule.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief to prevent eBay from further selling products violating the CAA, FIFRA, and TSCA.  The complaint additionally requests civil penalties for each of the CAA violations, which could amount to $5,580 per violation.

EPA Settles with Kyocera After Self-Disclosure of TSCA Violations

/in ,

On September 5, 2023, EPA signed a consent agreement with Kyocera International, Inc. (“Kyocera”) over three alleged violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Kyocera’s civil penalty was reduced to $105,937 because of EPA’s audit policy, which rewards companies that “voluntarily discover, promptly disclose and expeditiously correct” violations with reduced fines.

The alleged violations, which pertain to six unnamed chemicals (Chemicals A, B, C, D, E, and F), are as follows:

  1. Importation of Chemical A at least 12 times, Chemical B at least 21 times, and Chemical C at least 18 times without first filing a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an exemption to PMN requirements, in violation of TSCA section 5(a)(1);
  2. Failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements for Chemical D and E’s polymer exemptions to PMN requirements, in violation of TSCA section 5(a)(1); and
  3. Importation of Chemical A at least 12 times, Chemical B at least 21 times, and Chemical C at least 18 times without submission of proper certifications prior to the importation, and importation of Chemical F three times without providing a positive TSCA certification statement for each import, in violation of TSCA section 13(a)(1)(B).

The electronics manufacturer corrected the alleged violations by ceasing importation of Chemicals A, B, C, and D, submitting low-volume exemptions to PMN requirements for Chemicals B and C (which were granted by the Agency), and complying with the polymer exemption requirements for Chemical D. Under the terms of the settlement, EPA gave Kyocera permission to release its self-imposed quarantined stocks of Chemicals B, C, and D.

Kyocera self-disclosed the violations on June 23, 2021, with supplemental information provided in March 2023. The company disclosure and subsequent corrective action satisfied all of EPA’s audit policy conditions except the requirement that the violations be uncovered by “systematic discovery” and was therefore eligible for a 75% reduction in the gravity-based portion of the civil penalty.

The consent decree comes after a June 30, 2022, EPA Inspector General report which found that eDisclosure, EPA’s violation self-disclosure system, “does not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that the EPA’s screening process is effective and that significant concerns . . . are identified and addressed.” EPA agreed with all four of the report’s recommendations and proposed corrective actions, including the development of national guidance and eDisclosure-specific training for EPA staff who monitor eDisclosure submissions.

Clothing Accessories Companies Penalized for False Made in USA Claims

/in , ,

In August 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a complaint and order against Chaucer Accessories, Inc. and two other companies owned by Thomas P. Bates for falsely labeling belts, shoes, and other products as “Made in the USA” (MUSA). The order includes a monetary judgment of $191,481.

According to FTC, the New England-based companies regularly claimed that certain products were MUSA, even though these products were wholly or largely imported. In other instances, the companies claimed that certain belts were “Made in the USA from Global Materials,” when in reality, the companies merely affixed buckles to imported belt straps. FTC alleged three violations of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act: one violation for the false MUSA claims, one violation for the false MUSA from global materials claim, and one violation for distributing the false claims to resellers for their use in the resale of the products.

In addition to the monetary judgment, the order places restrictions on the companies and Bates on making unqualified MUSA claims, prohibits them from misrepresenting their products’ country of origin or providing others the means to make misrepresentations and imposes requirements for qualified MUSA claims and assembly claims. The companies must also notify affected customers of the violations and provide FTC with sufficient customer information for the Commission to administer customer redress.

Better Business Bureau Challenge Results in Clarifying Disclosure in Antimicrobial Toilet Seat Advertising

/in , ,

Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs develops self-regulatory industry programs and resolves disputes on issues including advertising and privacy.  According to BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD) case decisions “represent the single largest body of advertising law in the country.”

A recent NAD case concerned antimicrobial claims made by Ginsey Industries, Inc. (“Ginsey”) on its Clorox-branded toilet seats.  Bemis Manufacturing Company challenged elements of these claims (though not the product’s antimicrobial efficacy).  During the challenge, Ginsey voluntarily committed to add a disclosure acknowledging that the product does not protect uses against bacteria and remove an “antimicrobial checkmark image inside the Clorox chevron logo.”

NAD additionally recommended that Ginsey modify its website to display the disclosure statement more conspicuously and work with retailers to do the same with their websites.  In response, the company stated that while it disagrees that “further modifications to its online product listings are necessary to protect consumers,” it would comply with NAD’s decision.

Walmart and Reynolds Sued Over Recyclable Plastic Bag Marketing Claim

/in , ,

The State Attorney General of Minnesota has filed a lawsuit against Walmart Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. (the owner of the trash bag trademark “Hefty”) for falsely marketing their plastic bags as recyclable. The Complaint alleges violations of Minnesota’s Prevention of Consumer Fraud Protection Act, Deceptive Trade Practices Act, False Statement in Advertising Act, and deceptive environmental marketing claim regulations.

These statutes utilize language explicitly prohibiting the use and dissemination of false, deceptive, or misleading statements. For example, Minnesota’s False Statement in Advertising Act strictly prohibits advertising that contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact that is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act further states:

“A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when …the person … represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have….” (emphasis added).

Defendants, through their product labeling, advertised their products as recyclable, which was false.  In addition, their actions disqualified the recyclable contents of the plastic bags from being recycled. In Minnesota, when recyclable materials or products are placed in non-recyclable bags on the curb, waste management will render the contents of the entire bag unrecyclable, leading both the bag and its contents to end up in landfills.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges deceptive environmental marketing claims by Walmart, citing the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTCs”) Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (also referred to as the “Green Guides”). The Green Guides state, “it is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for reuse or use in manufacturing or assembling another item.” Minnesota recycling facilities cannot process the Hefty brand plastic trash bags labeled as recyclable); in fact, they can cause machine malfunctions and even serious damage.

The Complaint asked the court to order a stop on the sale of these products as marketed. Further, the Complaint requests that the court order the defendants to fund a program to educate Minnesota residents about recyclable materials.

This is not the only lawsuit related to Hefty’s recycling bags. Last year Connecticut’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, Reynolds, alleging the company has falsely and deceptively marketed the same Hefty recycling at issue in the Minnesota case. The Complaint states that Reynolds has marketed and sold these bags “despite full knowledge that their bags were incompatible with recycling facilities in Connecticut.” This case is still being litigated.