EPA v. FRANKLIN ELECTRIC (COVID-19) (001)

Case summary

The EL411L: EXCELIGHT are misbranded are also misbranded because the labeling is false or misleading as defined by 7 U.S.C. ? 136(q)(1) and 40 C.F.R. ? 156.10(a)(5). Therefore, these products are misbranded pursuant to 7 U.S.C. ? 136(q)(1). Importing these products in the shipment referenced above is a violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(1)(F), 7 U.S.C. ? 136j(a)(1)(F), as a distribution or sale of a misbranded device. The shipment that arrived at the border for import is also in violation of FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(N), 7 U.S.C. ? 136j(a)(2)(N), because a registrant, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, or other distributor failed to correctly file reports required by the Act. As required by 19 C.F.R. section 12.114, a Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices, EPA form 3540-1, and a copy of one product label must be submitted.

Defendants (1)

• FRANKLIN ELECTRICNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• FRANKLIN ELECTRIC

  9333 COVERDALE RD, FORT WAYNE, IN, 46809

  Registry ID: 110045476855

• FRANKLIN ELECTRIC

  9333 COVERDALE RD, FORT WAYNE, IN, 46809

  Registry ID: 110045476855

Statutes cited

• FIFRA 12A2N — Failure to File Reports
• FIFRA 12A1F — Device Misbranded

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• FRANKLIN ELECTRIC (COVID-19) (001)entered 2021-10-04

  Primary law: FIFRA

Timeline (3 milestones)

• 2021-10-04Final Order Issued
• 2021-10-05Enforcement Action Closed
• 2021-10-27Enforcement Action Data Entered