FEMA Extends and Narrows Restrictions on Exports of Certain Scarce PPE
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.07.20
On August 10, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the Department of Homeland Security, will be extending and revising a Temporary Final Rule (first issued in April this year) that invokes the Defense Production Act (DPA) to allocate certain Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for domestic use and prohibit exportation of that PPE from the U.S. without express FEMA approval. The revised and extended rule will be effective from August 10 through December 31, 2020 and authorizes Customs and Border Protection to detain outbound shipments of PPE until FEMA determines whether to return the shipment for domestic use, issue a DPA-covered order against the PPE, or allow the export of all or part of the order in the interest of national defense. Importantly, the revised rule amends the definition of covered PPE (“covered material”) to account for domestic supply and demand changes since April and now includes only:
- Surgical (not industrial) N95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators (FFRs) (narrowed in scope compared to the original rule that included all N95 FFRs)
- PPE Surgical Masks (same as the original rule)
- Level 3 and 4 Surgical Gowns and Surgical Isolation Gowns (new addition)
- PPE Gloves or Surgical Gloves (same as original rule)
The rule removes other FFRs; elastomeric, air-purifying respirators; and related FFR filters/cartridges from the covered material list. It continues the exemptions in the original rule and those supplemental exemptions published after the initial rule which permit the export of covered material under limited circumstances. FEMA published a fact sheet in April describing the exemptions and providing additional information with respect to submission of the letter of attestation required to claim certain exemptions.
For additional information on the allocation rule, see our April 8 publication, “FEMA Allocates Certain Scarce PPE for Domestic Use and Restricts Exports.”
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
