Processing Notices of Arrival During the 2018-2019 Government Shutdown
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.10.19
An EPA-approved Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (NOA) is required before a pesticide may be imported into the United States. Without EPA approval of an NOA, US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) will not release the pesticide shipment at the port of entry. During past federal government shutdowns, the importation of pesticides effectively ground to a halt. Without funds or staff, EPA’s regional offices could not accept, and therefore could not process, NOA forms for pesticides. After the 2013 shutdown, EPA was determined to fix this problem, and one solution was the utilization of CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), an electronic system where importers or import brokers can file NOAs electronically. All EPA regional offices now accept electronically filed NOAs.
Most NOAs submitted on ACE are processed automatically without human review, and, therefore, they are being processed even during the current shutdown. In contrast, hardcopy NOA forms delivered to a regional office outside of the ACE portal are not being processed because they do require human intervention and review, which are not available during the shutdown. In this way, the ACE system has hopefully reduced the opportunity for a shutdown to disrupt import shipments of pesticides.
Unfortunately, not all electronically submitted NOAs are processed without the intervention of EPA regional personnel. The ACE system relies on human intervention for some import actions, including the following import actions, which raise flags and require some degree of oversight and approval by an EPA employee:
- Products that are currently stored in or are imported into free trade zones.
- Products moving via interplant transfers.
- R&D test materials distributed without an Experimental Use Permit.
We have conferred with several pesticide importers, and they have confirmed that they have not experienced disruption or delays when using the ACE portal for registered pesticides during the current shutdown. They have indicated, however, some greater-than-normal delay when using ACE for the importation of non-registered products.
Any delay this time of year, when companies are beginning to import agricultural pesticides (including plant-incorporated protectants) for use in the spring, could be very disruptive. To avoid delays in EPA’s processing of NOA’s during the shutdown, use of the ACE portal is key, though the registration or exemption status of the pesticide will also play a role. Information on the use of the ACE system is available at Tips for filing an EPA Pesticides via ACE PGA Message Set.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
