The CPSC eFiling Rule Explained (July 8 2026 Complete Guide)

The Consumer Product Safety Commission's electronic filing requirement, administered through the Product Registry under 16 CFR Part 1110, became mandatory for covered consumer products entering U.S. commerce on July 8, 2026, meaning importers must submit electronic Certificates of Compliance data through CBP's ACE Partner Government Agency (PGA) message set before or at the time of entry, rather than relying on paper certificates that historically only had to accompany the shipment or be available on request. This article describes public regulatory requirements as of publication; it is not legal advice, and importers should confirm current requirements with CPSC or a qualified customs professional before filing.

What actually changed on July 8, 2026

Before this rule, U.S. importers of CPSC-regulated consumer products (children's products, toys, and a wide range of general-use consumer goods subject to a CPSC safety rule or ban) were required to have a paper or electronic Certificate of Compliance, either a Children's Product Certificate or a General Certificate of Conformity, available for the product but were not required to transmit that certificate's data electronically to CBP as a condition of clearing entry. The July 8, 2026 rule closes that gap by requiring the certificate's underlying data elements to be filed electronically through CBP's ACE system at time of entry, giving CBP and CPSC an automated, entry-level checkpoint rather than a document that might only surface during an after-the-fact audit or a port inspection.

Who is required to comply

The eFiling requirement applies to any importer of record bringing a CPSC-regulated consumer product into U.S. commerce, which includes traditional wholesale importers as well as e-commerce sellers who import directly, including Amazon FBA sellers, and, per CPSC's June 19, 2026 rule extending equivalent documentation obligations to marketplace facilitators, sellers operating through TikTok Shop. The rule does not exempt small businesses or low-volume importers; a business importing a single non-compliant shipment is subject to the same filing requirement as a high-volume importer, though enforcement priority and penalty calculation (discussed below) can differ by company size.

What data has to be filed

The ACE PGA message set for CPSC requires structured data elements drawn from the underlying Certificate of Compliance: the specific CPSC regulation(s) the product complies with, the date and place of manufacture, the identity of the testing laboratory (for products requiring third-party testing, primarily children's products), the importer's contact information, and a Manufacturer Identification (MID) code formatted to CBP's specification. A malformed MID code or an underlying certificate missing a required data element is one of the most common sources of ACE entry rejections reported by customs brokers handling CPSC-regulated freight.

Certificate types: GCC vs. Children's Product Certificate

Two certificate types feed into the eFiling requirement, and using the wrong one is a compliance error independent of the eFiling mechanics themselves. A General Certificate of Conformity (GCC) applies to general-use consumer products subject to a CPSC rule, ban, or standard, and can be based on a reasonable testing program without mandatory third-party lab involvement in most cases. A Children's Product Certificate applies specifically to products primarily intended for children 12 and under, and requires third-party testing at a CPSC-accepted laboratory for the applicable children's product safety rules, including lead content and, where applicable, small parts and flammability standards. Filing a GCC's data where a Children's Product Certificate was actually required does not become compliant simply because the eFiling transaction technically succeeded.

What happens if a filing is missing or wrong

A missing, incomplete, or inaccurate eFiling submission can result in CBP holding the shipment at the port pending correction, which is a direct dwell-time cost separate from any civil penalty exposure, industry-observed estimates put held-container costs in the range of $500 to $5,000 per day of dwell time, though this varies significantly by port, container type, and demurrage terms rather than being a fixed CPSC-set figure. Separately, under the Consumer Product Safety Act's civil penalty authority (15 U.S.C. § 2069), a knowing violation, including knowingly certifying a product as compliant when it is not, can expose an importer to civil penalties currently capped at $120,000 per single violation and $17,150,000 per related series of violations, figures set by a Federal Register notice published Dec 1, 2021 adjusting the caps for inflation, with the next statutory adjustment due Dec 1, 2026.

Where the eFiling requirement comes from

The eFiling mandate is not a standalone rule invented in isolation; it implements CPSC's long-standing statutory certification authority under Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act by moving the point of enforcement from a paper document that historically only surfaced during an audit or complaint investigation to an electronic data element checked at the moment of import. CPSC and CBP had been piloting electronic certificate transmission through ACE on a voluntary basis for several years before the mandatory rule took effect, following a pattern similar to how other Partner Government Agencies (FDA, USDA) moved their own admissibility data onto the same ACE PGA infrastructure over the preceding decade. The mandatory shift reflects a broader CBP-wide push toward "risk-based," data-driven admissibility screening rather than physical inspection as the primary compliance check, which is also why a malformed or missing data element now triggers an entry-level hold rather than only surfacing in a later audit.

Common ACE PGA rejection reasons

Customs brokers who handle CPSC-regulated freight report a consistent set of rejection patterns since the rule took effect. A malformed Manufacturer Identification (MID) code, one that does not match CBP's required format derived from the manufacturer's name and address, is among the most frequent, since the MID construction algorithm is unforgiving of minor formatting deviations. A second common rejection cause is a mismatch between the HTS classification declared on the entry and the product category the certificate claims to cover, which can happen when a single shipment contains multiple product types under one certificate that was only written to cover one of them. A third is an expired or unlisted third-party testing laboratory accreditation for children's products, since CPSC periodically updates its list of accepted labs and a certificate citing a lab that has since lost its accreditation for the relevant test standard is treated as deficient even if the underlying product testing was performed correctly. Reviewing all three of these categories before submission catches the overwhelming majority of rejections customs brokers report seeing in practice.

How the Foreign Trade Zone rule fits in

A related but distinct rule extends equivalent CPSC certification and, eventually, eFiling-adjacent documentation requirements to goods admitted into U.S. Foreign Trade Zones, effective January 8, 2027. Importers using FTZ structures to defer duty or manage inventory should not assume FTZ admission sidesteps CPSC certification requirements; the FTZ-specific effective date is later than the general July 8, 2026 rule but is not an exemption from the underlying certification obligation once the product formally enters U.S. commerce.

How to prepare a compliant filing

The practical preparation sequence starts with confirming which CPSC rules actually apply to the specific product (a task complicated by the fact many products are subject to more than one overlapping rule), then confirming which certificate type applies (GCC or Children's Product Certificate), then, for products requiring third-party testing, confirming the testing lab is on CPSC's accepted list for the specific test standard, then assembling the certificate's required data elements in the format CBP's ACE PGA message set expects, and finally coordinating with a customs broker experienced in CPSC filings to submit the data at or before entry rather than after arrival. Waiting until a shipment is already at port to assemble this documentation is the most common reason importers experience a hold.

Practical steps for e-commerce sellers specifically

Amazon FBA sellers and marketplace sellers face a structural complication general importers don't: the importer of record for a given shipment is not always obvious, particularly for sellers using freight forwarders or fulfillment-by-Amazon inbound logistics where the importer of record designation can shift depending on Incoterms and who technically owns the goods at the border. Confirming who holds importer-of-record responsibility, and therefore eFiling responsibility, before goods ship is a prerequisite step that has nothing to do with the eFiling mechanics themselves but determines who is legally on the hook if a filing is missing, incomplete, or simply never submitted at all.

What changes for importers who already had a compliant process before July 8, 2026

Importers who already maintained rigorous Certificate of Compliance documentation before the mandatory eFiling date are not exempt from the new requirement, but generally face a smaller operational lift than importers building a compliance process from scratch. The core work shifts from having a certificate available on request to structuring that same certificate's data for electronic transmission through a broker's ACE interface at time of entry, which is a data-formatting and timing change more than a new substantive compliance obligation. Brokers report that importers with clean, complete pre-existing certificate data adapted fastest, generally within a single filing cycle, while importers whose certificates were historically incomplete or inconsistently formatted faced entry holds not because the underlying products were non-compliant, but because the data itself was not in a fileable state at the time of entry.

FAQ

Does the CPSC eFiling rule apply to used or refurbished consumer products? The underlying CPSA certification requirements generally apply based on the product category and applicable safety rule, not solely on whether the item is new, though resale and refurbishment scenarios raise their own certification questions that should be confirmed against the specific product's applicable CPSC rule rather than assumed.

Is a General Certificate of Conformity based on self-testing, or does it require a lab? A GCC can generally be based on a reasonable testing program that does not require independent third-party lab testing in most non-children's-product cases, which is a meaningfully lower bar than a Children's Product Certificate, but "reasonable testing program" still requires the importer to have an actual documented basis for the certification, not simply an assumption of compliance.

What's the difference between the July 8, 2026 rule and CPSC's earlier Regulatory Robot classification tool? Regulatory Robot is CPSC's own free tool for classifying whether a specific product is subject to CPSC jurisdiction and which rules apply; it does not perform or replace the eFiling submission itself. Using Regulatory Robot to confirm applicable rules is a reasonable first step before assembling certificate data for eFiling, not a substitute for the filing.

How long can CBP hold a shipment over a CPSC eFiling issue? There is no fixed statutory cap on hold duration reported in CPSC's public guidance; industry-observed patterns suggest holds tied to correctable paperwork issues are often resolved within days once a compliant filing is submitted, while holds tied to a genuine product non-compliance finding can extend significantly longer and may result in the shipment being refused entry, per CPSC's own eFiling FAQ.

Does a customs broker have to file on my behalf, or can an importer file directly? Most importers route CPSC certificate data through a licensed customs broker as part of the standard ACE entry process, since brokers already handle the surrounding entry filing and have direct ACE system access; a small number of larger importers with in-house trade compliance teams and their own ACE connectivity file certificate data directly, but this is the exception rather than the norm for most small and mid-sized importers.

Where can I verify current CPSC eFiling requirements directly? CPSC's official eFiling page and its accompanying eFiling FAQ are the primary sources for current requirements; regulatory details, especially penalty amounts subject to periodic inflation adjustment, should be reconfirmed against these primary sources rather than relied on solely from secondary summaries, including this article.

Related reading: see our guide on Section 15(b) 24-hour reporting requirements for what happens after a product is already in commerce, and the CPSC penalty calculator for an illustrative estimate of civil penalty exposure by violation type. For platform-specific guidance, see our Amazon, Shopify, and TikTok Shop pages, or run a free readiness check at EntryProof.

FAQ

Does the CPSC eFiling rule apply to used or refurbished consumer products?

The underlying CPSA certification requirements generally apply based on the product category and applicable safety rule, not solely on whether the item is new, though resale and refurbishment scenarios raise their own certification questions that should be confirmed against the specific product's applicable CPSC rule rather than assumed.

Is a General Certificate of Conformity based on self-testing, or does it require a lab?

A GCC can generally be based on a reasonable testing program that does not require independent third-party lab testing in most non-children's-product cases, which is a meaningfully lower bar than a Children's Product Certificate, but "reasonable testing program" still requires the importer to have an actual documented basis for the certification, not simply an assumption of compliance.

What's the difference between the July 8, 2026 rule and CPSC's earlier Regulatory Robot classification tool?

Regulatory Robot is CPSC's own free tool for classifying whether a specific product is subject to CPSC jurisdiction and which rules apply; it does not perform or replace the eFiling submission itself. Using Regulatory Robot to confirm applicable rules is a reasonable first step before assembling certificate data for eFiling, not a substitute for the filing.

How long can CBP hold a shipment over a CPSC eFiling issue?

There is no fixed statutory cap on hold duration reported in CPSC's public guidance; industry-observed patterns suggest holds tied to correctable paperwork issues are often resolved within days once a compliant filing is submitted, while holds tied to a genuine product non-compliance finding can extend significantly longer and may result in the shipment being refused entry, per CPSC's own eFiling FAQ.

Does a customs broker have to file on my behalf, or can an importer file directly?

Most importers route CPSC certificate data through a licensed customs broker as part of the standard ACE entry process, since brokers already handle the surrounding entry filing and have direct ACE system access; a small number of larger importers with in-house trade compliance teams and their own ACE connectivity file certificate data directly, but this is the exception rather than the norm for most small and mid-sized importers.

Where can I verify current CPSC eFiling requirements directly?

[CPSC's official eFiling page](https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Retailer-Manufacturer-Reporting/Manufacturer-Reporting/eFiling) and its accompanying [eFiling FAQ](https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Import-Safety) are the primary sources for current requirements; regulatory details, especially penalty amounts subject to periodic inflation adjustment, should be reconfirmed against these primary sources rather than relied on solely from secondary summaries, including this article.