1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Opportunity to Influence CPSC's Proposed Certificates of Compliance Rules

New Opportunity to Influence CPSC's Proposed Certificates of Compliance Rules

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.19.14


Recent Happenings in APRM
June 2014

After voluminous comments were submitted by a diverse cross-section of companies, trade associations and individuals, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) decided to reopen the comment period for a proposed rule amending 16 C.F.R. Part 1110 et. al., commonly known as the "1110 rule." The CPSC will also conduct a public workshop with stakeholders to gather input on how to better enhance the 1110 rule. Companies and other stakeholders thus have a renewed opportunity to raise concerns and recommend workable solutions.

The CPSC first published the proposed changes to the 1110 rule in May 2013. The proposed changes, which would replace the existing 1110 rule in its entirety, include changes to who is required to certify, what information is listed on the certificate, and when and how long the certificates must be issued and maintained. Importantly, if finalized, the proposed rule would require electronic filing of certificates with each shipment as a requirement for imported products to make entry into the United States. Additional background information can be found in a previous news alert.

Since the expiration of the July 2013 deadline to submit comments, the CPSC had been silent on next steps.  At its May 2014 meeting, however, wherein the CPSC reassesses and reallocates resources within its annual Operating Plan, it approved the staff's recommendations pertaining to the proposed 1110 rule:

1110 Rule from FR to DA/TR: Staff recommends changing the 1110 Rule from FR to DA/TR in the FY 2014 mandatory standards work. The 1110 Rule NPR was published in FY 2013, and an FY 2014 FR was planned. Based on issues raised by commenters during the comment period, as well as requests from stakeholders, staff recommends reopening the comment period and conducting a public workshop with stakeholders to gain a better understanding of how to enhance the 1110 Rule more effectively. If the Commission concurs, staff will submit to the Commission a Federal Register notice to reopen the comment period and hold a public workshop during FY 2014.

By changing the designation from "Final Rule" to "Data Analysis/Technical Review," the CPSC is indicating that a final rule will not be published this fiscal year (which ends on September 30, 2014). The CPSC has not released any additional information, including the date of the workshop, but companies and other interested parties should be prepared to reengage the CPSC on this topic.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....