EPA as guard at the gates: The Agency’s strengthening enforcement of illegal chemical and pesticide imports

For importers of chemical products and pesticides, including U.S. businesses, the focus is increasingly on pre-shipment compliance, accurate border declarations, and complete import reporting. While EPA has notably adopted a “compliance first” approach to enforcement, imports appear to be an exception – instead, expect EPA to take a hardline approach exercising its full arsenal of enforcement tools from administrative orders to criminal enforcement. At the end of December 2025, EPA touted its successful expansion of federal enforcement in this space, which led to the interdiction of 1.63 million pounds of illegal pesticide imports over the course of the year.

Types of violations under scrutiny

EPA’s initiative implicates potential import violations across the following areas:

• FIFRA violations, including the importation of unregistered, mislabeled, or adulterated pesticides, illegal pesticide devices, or imports that must be documented in Notices of Arrival. EPA (in coordination with CBP) can simply deny entry to noncompliant products, seize and condemn the product, issue Stop Sale, Use or Removal Orders (SSUROs), impose civil penalties, or initiate criminal enforcement for knowing violations.
• TSCA violations, including the importation of chemical substances not listed on the TSCA Inventory or those substances subject to existing restrictions (e.g., asbestos) or bans (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls), manufactured articles containing such substances, or shipments with false or missing TSCA import certifications. EPA (in coordination with CBP) can detain shipments and issue Notices of Violation with associated civil penalties; as with FIFRA, knowing violations can be subject to criminal enforcement.
• CAA violations, particularly those related to the importation of noncompliant vehicle engines or fuels, or ozone-depleting substances. EPA can work with CBP to deny entry to non-compliant products, and may impose administrative penalties, civil penalties, or bring criminal enforcement for knowing violations.
• Similarly, the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020 (“AIM Act”), provides civil penalties and criminal fines for violations regarding imports of hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) that are non-compliant with HFC quotas, which aligns with a March 12, 2025 OECA memo revising prior enforcement priorities to increase focus on unlawful HFC imports. In addition to administrative, civil, and criminal enforcement options, EPA can work with CBP to seize products.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) import violations, including the illegal or noncompliant importation of hazardous waste, for which EPA can use its range of typical enforcement options.

EPA has indicated that these enforcement actions target not only bulk chemical imports, but also finished products and articles that contain regulated substances and enter the U.S. through complex global supply chains.

Enforcement context and recent trends

EPA characterized the 2025 initiative as a significant expansion beyond prior years’ more limited import enforcement efforts.

Earlier EPA efforts to track imported products relied on the International Trade Data System (“ITDS”) and Automated Commercial Environment (“ACE”). These government-wide platforms route import data to relevant agencies including EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to streamline the import process. They also flag missing forms or inconsistent data but generally rely on self-certification. However, with this announcement, ITDS and ACE filings may no longer guarantee compliance and entry into U.S. commerce. Instead, EPA indicates a shift from reliance on importer-driven disclosures to agency-driven interdiction and enforcement.

Recent key cases in 2025:

• A major national retail chain agreed to pay a $3.07 million FIFRA civil penalty to resolve allegations that it imported and sold misbranded pesticides and pesticide devices, including air purifiers marketed with unapproved antibacterial claims. The civil resolution also settled violations of a 2022 SSURO prohibiting further distribution of the devices and failures to submit required Notices of Arrival for multiple import shipments.
• An international appliance manufacturer and distributor agreed to pay $1.15 million in FIFRA civil penalties to resolve allegations that it imported and distributed misbranded pesticide devices, including air purifiers, filters, and humidifiers manufactured at its overseas facilities. EPA further alleged that the company failed to file the required Notices of Arrival for the imported products.
• The second-largest TSCA civil penalty in 2025 – $700,000 – was issued to a global chemical company to resolve allegations that it manufactured and imported 334 chemical substances without submitting the required Chemical Data Reporting (“CDR”) information during the reporting period.
• On the CAA-side, an international construction‑equipment manufacturer agreed to pay a $11 million civil penalty to resolve allegations that it imported and sold nonroad diesel‑powered equipment without the required certificates of conformity in violation of CAA emission‑control and labeling requirements

Key takeaways for importers and downstream companies

Companies that either import or rely heavily on imported chemical products, pesticides, or equipment subject to environmental import requirements such as engines or fuels should consider the following measures:

• Enhance supplier and supply-chain due diligence: Reassess diligence processes for foreign manufacturers and upstream suppliers.
• Ask targeted, statute-specific compliance questions: Ask suppliers the right questions under the applicable regulatory regimes, including FIFRA, TSCA, the CAA, and the AIM Act.
• Obtain and maintain advance compliance documentation: Confirm that importers have accurate documentation in advance of a shipment’s arrival, including registrations, certifications, test reports, waste determinations, and/or regulatory representations from suppliers. Confirm the accuracy and completeness of statutorily required documentation under TSCA and FIFRA, as well as customs filings. Importers should also monitor ITDS/ACE messages daily to respond quickly to requests for data corrections.
• Prepare for potential supply-chain disruption: Understand and develop mitigations for costs associated with seizure and destruction of allegedly noncompliant goods, which may be the responsibility of manufacturers and importers following the administration’s enhanced inspection and interdiction efforts.
• Monitor evolving enforcement trends: Monitor further EPA announcements, enforcement actions, and guidance to assess whether additional product categories or statutes become explicit enforcement priorities.

Please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned or your regular Hogan Lovells contacts if you would like to further discuss this expanding area of EPA’s enforcement focus and related compliance strategies.

Authored by Anne Carpenter, Katherine Vanderhook-Gomez, Elie Kommel, and Caroline Hermann.