EPA’s December 2025 announcement used the phrase “dramatic expansion” on purpose. The agency has been building investigative capacity against illegal pesticide and chemical smuggling from Chinese manufacturers all year, and the public disclosure is the signal that enforcement posture is shifting from reactive to proactive. Since January 2025 alone, EPA assessed $4.3 million in TSCA penalties across 115 enforcement actions. The largest single penalty, $700,000, landed on a CDR (Chemical Data Reporting) violation. These are not headline prosecutions. These are mid-size and large importers who thought their compliance programmes were adequate and weren’t.
If you import industrial chemicals, specialty intermediates, pesticide active ingredients or formulated pesticide products, this is the moment to audit your TSCA Section 13 import certification file, your CDR reporting posture, and your PMN (Premanufacture Notice) exposure on any new chemical introductions from 2022 forward. The December crackdown isn’t a warning shot. It’s the rollout.
What “Dramatic Expansion” Actually Means in Agency Terms
EPA’s enforcement expansion is resourced from three lines. First, additional criminal investigators in the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) specifically tasked with pesticide and TSCA fraud originating from Chinese manufacturing. Second, expanded cooperation with CBP at the major chemical ports of entry (Los Angeles and Long Beach, Houston, Savannah, New York and New Jersey, Seattle and Tacoma) allowing EPA to flag shipments for hold before cargo release. Third, enhanced data analytics on ACE (Automated Commercial Environment) entry filings, cross-referencing HTSUS codes against CAS numbers declared on Section 13 certifications.
That third item matters more than the first two combined. The data analytics layer means EPA is now routinely catching mismatches between declared HTSUS, declared CAS, and the actual chemical substance in the drum. That’s been the single biggest compliance failure mode across the 115 enforcement actions in 2025.
Specifically, EPA’s been surfacing three patterns:
- HTSUS code declared as a TSCA-exempt intermediate, but CAS and SDS show a TSCA Inventory-listed chemical that triggers Section 13 certification
- CAS declared on import that doesn’t match the CAS in the certificate of analysis, suggesting either relabelling upstream or falsified import paperwork
- Pesticide active ingredient declared as a generic chemical intermediate to avoid FIFRA registration requirements
The penalties following discovery land in the $25,000 to $700,000 range per importer per enforcement action, and the FIFRA side of the house can pile on additional per-shipment penalties.
The 2025 Enforcement Posture: $4.3M Across 115 Actions
Here’s the shape of what EPA has actually been doing, not what it’s saying it will do.
| Enforcement category | Actions (approx.) | Penalty range | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDR reporting failures | 15 to 20 | $50K to $700K | Including the $700K max on a single CDR filing lapse |
| Section 13 import certification errors | 25 to 35 | $10K to $150K | Per-shipment penalties compound quickly |
| PMN / Significant New Use Rule violations | 10 to 15 | $30K to $300K | Undeclared new chemical substances |
| FIFRA pesticide registration violations | 20 to 30 | $25K to $500K | Unregistered active ingredient imports |
| TSCA Section 4 test rule violations | 5 to 10 | $15K to $100K | Missing data submissions |
| Other TSCA Section 5, 6, 8 | 15 to 20 | $10K to $250K | Varied |
| Total | 115 | $4.3M aggregate | Fiscal year-to-date 2025 |
The 2026 trajectory, per the December announcement, is meaningfully higher on both action count and aggregate penalty. Read that as 170 to 220 actions and $6M to $8M aggregate, concentrated in the January to June window as the expanded CID headcount gets fully operational.
The CDR Exposure You Might Not Know You Have
Chemical Data Reporting is the TSCA Section 8(a) mechanism that requires manufacturers (including importers) of TSCA Inventory chemicals at or above the 25,000 lb per year threshold at a single site to file a CDR report every four years. The current CDR submission window runs through 2026.
Here’s where importers get caught. CDR reporting responsibility attaches to the importer of record regardless of whether the chemical is going into your own production or being resold to a downstream US customer. If you brought in 12,000 kg of a TSCA-listed specialty solvent in 2022, 2023 and 2024 across multiple entries, and it came in through your entity of record, you probably owe a CDR filing. The $700,000 penalty EPA levied in 2025 was on a multi-year CDR lapse at a mid-size specialty chemicals importer.
Run this audit this week:
- Pull every unique CAS number imported through your entity of record from January 2020 to December 2024
- For each, calculate annual quantity imported in kilograms and pounds
- Flag any CAS above 25,000 lb per year at any year
- Cross-reference against your CDR filings for the 2020 and 2024 reporting periods
- Identify gaps
The workflow takes 8 to 16 hours depending on your entry volume. If you find a gap, you are materially better off self-disclosing to EPA under the Audit Policy, which provides significant penalty mitigation, than waiting for the agency to find it through ACE analytics. Self-disclosure typically results in gravity-based penalty reduction of 75% or more.
Section 13 Import Certification: The Paperwork That Must Match
Every chemical substance import into the US requires a TSCA Section 13 certification, either a positive certification (the substance complies with TSCA) or a negative certification (it’s not subject to TSCA). Most importers use a blanket positive certification. The legal exposure shows up when the blanket certification covers substances that shouldn’t be on it.
The three CBP and EPA inspection triggers:
First, an HTSUS code that’s inconsistent with the declared chemical name. If your entry paperwork says HTSUS 2903.xx (halogenated hydrocarbons) but the CoA says an amine, that’s a flag.
Second, a positive TSCA certification on a CAS that isn’t on the TSCA Inventory. The TSCA Inventory is public and searchable. If you’re bringing in a new or specialty chemical and it’s not on the Inventory, you either need a PMN-triggered Significant New Use Rule pathway, a polymer exemption, a Low Volume Exemption, or another regulatory on-ramp before first import.
Third, a certification signed by someone without actual knowledge of the shipment contents. CBP increasingly asks for signer credentials on flagged entries.
Make sure your broker’s blanket Section 13 certification language is specific to what’s actually in the drum, that your SDS and CoA reach the broker in time for ACE filing, and that every unique CAS imported in the last 24 months has been screened against the TSCA Inventory and against the Section 5 new chemicals queue.
PMN and Significant New Use Rule: Where Specialty Importers Get Hit
If you import speciality chemicals that don’t appear on the TSCA Inventory, you need a valid PMN, Low Volume Exemption (LVE), Test Marketing Exemption or similar pathway approved by EPA before the first shipment lands. The PMN review window is 90 days. EPA can issue a Section 5(e) consent order, a Significant New Use Rule restriction, or a Section 5(f) prohibition.
The enforcement pattern we’ve seen in 2025 on PMN violations:
A US importer brings in a Chinese-manufactured specialty additive, usually a coatings or adhesives intermediate, that the supplier describes as “equivalent to” a TSCA-listed substance. The actual CAS, which surfaces through CBP laboratory analysis of a flagged sample, turns out to be a structurally-related but distinct substance. That distinct CAS is not on the Inventory. That’s a PMN failure, a Section 5 violation, and typically a $150,000 to $300,000 penalty.
The fix is simple and painful: require your Chinese supplier to provide a full CoA with exact CAS, SMILES structure, and purity data for every shipment, not a representative sample. Run every CAS through the TSCA Inventory search before first import. If it’s not on the Inventory, stop, run the PMN pathway properly, and accept the 90-day delay. The alternative is six figures in penalties and a CBP hold on every future shipment.
FIFRA Pesticide Enforcement: The Chinese Manufacturer Focus
EPA’s December announcement specifically called out illegal pesticide and chemical smuggling from Chinese manufacturers. FIFRA requires that any pesticide product imported into the US be registered with EPA (Section 3 registration) or fall under a valid emergency or experimental use provision. Active ingredients, technical grade materials and formulated products all require registration.
The 2025 enforcement wave has targeted two specific patterns. One is the importation of unregistered generic active ingredients under an industrial chemical HTSUS code. Two is the importation of formulated pesticide products, often sold through online marketplaces, with either no EPA registration number or a fraudulently displayed registration number belonging to another product.
If your portfolio touches pesticide active ingredients, formulated products, or adjacent categories (antimicrobials, wood preservatives, disinfectants under FIFRA), run a four-point audit. Every product should have a valid EPA registration number, the registration holder should be correctly identified on the import paperwork, the active ingredient percentage and identity should match the registered formulation exactly, and the label content should match the EPA-approved master label.
The per-shipment penalties under FIFRA are substantial and compound. EPA has taken $500,000 off a single enforcement action for pesticide registration violations in 2025.
What You Do This Week
Five actions. Not a planning exercise. Actually do them.
First, pull your last 36 months of entry data by CAS and by HTSUS. That’s the dataset every other action depends on.
Second, screen every unique CAS against the current TSCA Inventory. Any unmatched CAS triggers an immediate PMN pathway review.
Third, calculate annual volume per CAS per site and reconcile against your CDR filings for 2020 and 2024. Gaps get an Audit Policy self-disclosure decision from your legal team.
Fourth, re-read your Section 13 certification language, test it against the actual chemistry in your drums, and update if your importer-of-record certifications have been running on autopilot.
Fifth, if pesticides touch your portfolio at all, verify EPA registration numbers and label content against the approved master label before the next shipment clears.
The $4.3 million in 2025 penalties and the expanded 2026 enforcement posture aren’t hitting importers with bad intent. They’re hitting importers with gaps in process. A six-week compliance audit today closes most of the exposure. If you want a structured framework and a second set of eyes on your TSCA Section 13, CDR, PMN and FIFRA posture, that’s the conversation to have before Q1 entries start clearing.