A pesticide-producing establishment must report to EPA every year, even when its reportable production is zero. EPA alleged that Elevation Labs’ registered facility in Idaho Falls failed to make that filing by March 1, 2026.

In September, the allegation became the basis of an expedited settlement. Northwest Cosmetic Labs, LLC, doing business as Elevation Labs, Idaho, agreed to pay $1,000 and waive its right to contest the matter. EPA Region 10’s final order ratified those terms.

The agreement also draws a precise legal boundary. Elevation Labs admitted that EPA had jurisdiction over the company and the alleged conduct, but it neither admitted nor denied the specific factual allegations. The order therefore settles the civil penalty claim without turning the allegation into an admission.

For purposes of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, the order identifies Elevation Labs as a producer operating a registered establishment. Its Idaho Falls facility carries EPA Establishment Number 103726-ID-1.

Section 7(c) of FIFRA and EPA’s implementing rules require a producer to submit an annual establishment report. According to the order, the required information covers three connected parts of pesticide activity:

The immediate consequence described in the order is informational and regulatory. EPA says the required report was not filed by the deadline. The record does not establish whether the establishment had reportable production, what any products were, or what figures eventually appeared in the corrected filing.

That clause matters. A final order makes the payment and other settlement terms enforceable, but it does not mean EPA adjudicated the allegation after a trial or that Elevation Labs confessed to it. The company resolved the matter through an expedited administrative process.

The settlement contains no separate explanation from Elevation Labs for why the report was not filed by the deadline. Its documented response consists of accepting the settlement terms, declining to admit or deny the allegation, and certifying that the issue had been corrected.

EPA determined that $1,000 was an appropriate civil penalty under its expedited settlement program, after citing FIFRA’s statutory factors, its enforcement response policy for establishment reporting, and federal penalty rules.

The documents do not provide an itemized calculation. They also contain no information about Elevation Labs’ revenue, the economic value of delayed reporting, or the costs associated with correcting the filing. That means the record supports describing the penalty, but not judging how significant it was relative to the company’s finances.

If the company failed to pay on time, the order allowed interest, handling charges, and other nonpayment consequences. The assessed penalty was also designated as nondeductible for federal tax purposes.

The order does not connect the reporting allegation to unsafe cosmetics, pesticide exposure, pollution, mislabeled goods, or harm to workers or consumers. It would be inaccurate to infer those consequences from this filing alone.

The public function documented here is narrower. Annual establishment reports give EPA standardized information about pesticide production and distribution. When a filing is missing at the deadline, the required information is not in that reporting channel on time. The source does not show what practical effect that delay had in this instance.

The final order settles EPA’s civil penalty claims for the reporting violation alleged in this matter. It does not erase the company’s continuing duty to comply with FIFRA, and EPA reserved its authority regarding other past, present, or future violations.

By the time the order was filed, the company had certified that the alleged violation was corrected. The case therefore ends with a completed correction certification, a $1,000 penalty, and no adjudicated finding about the disputed factual allegation.

The case is narrow: one required report, one alleged missed deadline, and one expedited penalty. Its significance is equally specific. EPA’s pesticide oversight depends on producers supplying standardized information on time, including when their activity is zero. Here, EPA alleged that the required record was absent at the deadline, and Elevation Labs resolved the claim without admitting or denying it.