37968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

does not warrant preparation of a 

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 

Section 106, describes the authority for 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would 

modify controlled airspace at Central 

Airport, Pasco, WA. 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 7, 2013, and effective 

September 15, 2013 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA D Pasco, WA [Modified] 

Pasco, Tri-Cities Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°15′53′′ N., long. 119°07′09′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,900 feet MSL 

within a 4.3-mile radius of Tri-Cities Airport, 

and that airspace within a 4.8-mile radius of 

the airport from the 256° bearing from the 

airport clockwise to the 11° bearing from the 

airport, and that airspace within a 5.8-mile 

radius of the airport from the 11° bearing 

from the airport clockwise to the 83° bearing 

from the airport, and within a 5.8-mile radius 

of the airport from the 213° bearing clockwise 

to the 256° bearing from the airport.2sp This 

Class D airspace area is effective during the 

specific dates and times established in 

advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective 

date and time will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated 

as surface areas. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA E2 Pasco, WA [Modified] 

Pasco, Tri-Cities Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°15′53′′ N., long. 119°07′09′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Tri-Cities 

Airport and that airspace within 4.8-mile 

radius of the airport from the 256° bearing 

from the airport clockwise to the 11° bearing 

from the airport and that airspace within a 

5.8-mile radius of the airport from the 11° 

bearing from the airport clockwise to the 83° 

bearing from the airport and within 5.8-mile 

radius of the airport from 213° bearing 

clockwise to the 256° bearing from the 

airport. This Class D airspace area is effective 

during the specific dates and times 

established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas 

designated as an extension to Class D or 

Class E surface area. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA E4 Pasco, WA [Removed] 

Pasco, Tri-Cities Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°15′53′′ N., long. 119°07′09′′ W.) 

Pasco VOR/DME 

(Lat. 46°15′47′′ N., long. 119°06′57′′ W.) 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA E5 Pasco, WA [Modified] 

Pasco, Tri-Cities Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°15′53′′ N., long. 119°07′09′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within 7.8-mile radius 

of the Tri-Cities Airport, and that airspace 

within an 11-mile radius of the airport from 

the 265° bearing from the airport clockwise 

to 16° bearing from the airport, and that 

airspace from the 54° bearing from the airport 

clockwise to the 112° from the airport, and 

that airspace 3.5 miles either side of the 35° 

bearing of the airport extending from the 11 

mile radius to 13mile northeast of the airport, 

and that airspace and that airspace 4.0 miles 

either side of the 133° bearing extending from 

the airport to 13 miles southeast of the 

airport, and that airspace 4 miles southeast 

and 9 miles northwest of the 226° bearing 

from the airport extending from the airport 

15 miles southwest; that airspace extending 

upward from 1,200 feet above the surface 

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45°49′00′′ 

N., long. 118°00′00′′ W.; to lat. 45°49′00′′ N., 

long. 119°45′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°00′00′′ N., 

long. 119°45′00′′ W., to lat. 47°00′00′′ N., 

long. 118°00′00′′ W.; thence to the point of 

origin. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 23, 

2014. 

Christopher Ramirez, 

Manager (A), Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15692 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1110 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2013–0017] 

Workshop on Electronic Filing of 

Certificates as Included in Proposed 

Rule on Certificates of Compliance 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission, 

or we) staff is holding a workshop on 

aspects of the Commission’s proposed 

rule on Certificates of Compliance 

(certificates), which the Commission 

published on May 13, 2013. Among 

other things, the Commission proposed 

to require electronic filing of certificates 

for regulated imported consumer 

products with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) at the time of filing the 

CBP entry or the time of filing the entry 

and entry summary, if both are filed 

together. The workshop will focus on 

this aspect of the proposed rule. We 

invite interested parties to participate 

in, or attend the workshop, and to 

submit written comments. 

DATES: The workshop will be held from 

9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, September 

18, 2014. Individuals interested in 

presenting information and 

participating on a panel at the workshop 

should register by Friday, August 8, 

2014; all other individuals who wish to 

attend the workshop should register by 

Friday, September 5, 2014. The 

workshop will be available via webcast, 

but viewers will not be able to interact 

with the panelists and presenters. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37969 

1Section 3(a)(11) of the CPSA defines 

‘‘manufacturer’’ as any person who manufactures or 

imports a consumer product. As such, any statutory 

obligation assigned to a manufacturer, by definition, 

applies to an importer. Thus, the statutory 

obligation to issue a certificate for children’s and 

non-children’s products falls to the manufacturer, 

importer, or the private labeler of a consumer 

product, if the product is privately labeled under 

section 3(a)(12) of the CPSA. 

Written comments must be received by 

Friday, October 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: CPSC staff will hold the 

workshop in the Hearing Room at 

CPSC’s headquarters at: 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814. You 

may attend the workshop free of charge. 

Individuals interested in presenting 

information or attending the workshop 

should register online at: http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup.html, and 

click on the link titled, ‘‘Workshop on 

Electronic Filing of Certificates of 

Compliance for Imported Consumer 

Products.’’ More information about the 

workshop will be posted at: http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup.html. 

You may submit comments related to 

the workshop and electronic filing of 

certificates, identified by Docket No. 

CPSC–2013–0017, by any of the 

methods below: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions by: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier, 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Submit such information 

separately in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert 

‘‘Docket No. CPSC–2013–0017’’, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Celestine Kish, Office of Import 

Surveillance, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone 301– 

987–2547; email: ckish@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. What is CPSC’s authority to regulate 

importation of consumer products? 

Section 17 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2066) and 

section 14 of the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA) (15 U.S.C. 1273) 

authorize the Commission to regulate 

the importation of consumer products 

and substances that are within the 

CPSC’s jurisdiction. Among other 

authorities, section 17 of the CPSA 

authorizes the Commission to refuse 

admission and to destroy any product 

imported or offered for import that, 

among other things, is not accompanied 

by a required certificate, fails to comply 

with an applicable consumer product 

safety rule, or has a product defect that 

constitutes a substantial product hazard 

within the meaning of section 15(a)(2) of 

the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2064(a)(2)). CPSC 

works with CBP to review and inspect 

cargo and to clear compliant consumer 

products offered for importation into the 

United States. CPSC also works with 

CBP to enforce CPSC regulations and to 

destroy products that violate the law 

and cannot be reconditioned for import. 

B. What statutory requirements apply to 

certificates of compliance? 

When a certificate is needed. Section 

14(a) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a)), as 

amended by the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(CPSIA), requires that regulated 

consumer products be certified as 

compliant with CPSC’s regulations by 

the manufacturer (including an 

importer)1 and the private labeler of the 

consumer product (if such product bears 

a private label). A regulated consumer 

product is one that is subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA or similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other law enforced 

by the Commission that is imported for 

consumption or warehousing, or 

distributed in commerce. Section 3(a)(8) 

of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(8)) 

defines ‘‘distribute in commerce’’ to 

mean ‘‘to sell in commerce, to introduce 

or deliver for introduction into 

commerce, or to hold for sale or 

distribution after introduction into 

commerce.’’ Section 14(a)(1)(a) of the 

CPSA requires that a certificate for a 

regulated non-children’s product 

(General Certificate of Conformity, or 

GCC) be based on a test of each product 

or on a reasonable testing program. 

Additionally, every manufacturer 

(including an importer) and private 

labeler, if there is one, of a children’s 

product that is subject to a children’s 

product safety rule, must have the 

children’s product tested by a CPSCaccepted third party conformity 

assessment body (laboratory). Based on 

such third party testing, manufacturers 

and private labelers must issue a 

certificate (Children’s Product 

Certificate, or CPC) that certifies that the 

children’s product is compliant with all 

applicable rules. Section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that testing and 

certification for regulated children’s 

products be conducted before importing 

such children’s products for 

consumption or warehousing or before 

distributing such children’s products in 

commerce. 

Content of certificates. Sections 

14(g)(1) and (2) of the CPSA contain 

certificate content requirements. 

Certificates (‘‘certificates’’ collectively 

refers to GCCs and CPCs) must identify 

the manufacturer (including the 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate, as well as any third party 

conformity assessment body on whose 

testing the certificate depends. At a 

minimum, certificates are required to 

include: the date and place of 

manufacture; The date and place where 

the product was tested; each party 

identified on the certificate’s name, full 

mailing address, and telephone number; 

and contact information for the 

individual responsible for maintaining 

records of test results. Additionally, 

section 14(g) of the CPSA requires that 

every certificate be legible and that all 

content be in English. Content may be 

in any other language as well. 

Availability of certificates. Section 

14(g)(3) of the CPSA establishes 

certificate availability requirements. The 

statute requires that every certificate 

‘‘accompany the applicable product or 

shipment of products covered by the 

same certificate’’ and that a copy of the 

certificate be furnished to each 

distributor or retailer of the product. 

(emphasis added). Thus, the statute 

requires that domestically produced and 

imported products be accompanied by a 

certificate. Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA 

additionally provides that upon request, 

the manufacturer (including the 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate must furnish a copy of the 

certificate to the Commission. 

Accordingly, only presenting a 

certificate of compliance ‘‘on demand’’ 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

by the Commission does not satisfy the 

statutory requirement that the certificate 

‘‘accompany’’ the product or shipment. 

Finally, section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA 

states that in consultation with the 

Commissioner of Customs, the CPSC 

may, by rule, provide for the electronic 

filing of certificates up to 24 hours 

before the arrival of an imported 

product. Upon request, the 

manufacturer (including the importer) 

or private labeler issuing the certificate 

must furnish a copy of the certificate to 

the Commission or to CBP. 

In addition to the statutory authority 

in section 14 of the CPSA, which 

requires certificates for regulated 

products, section 3 of the CPSIA gives 

the Commission general implementing 

authority regarding certificates. Section 

3 of the CPSIA provides: ‘‘[t]he 

Commission may issue regulations, as 

necessary, to implement this Act and 

the amendments made by this Act.’’ 

C. What regulatory actions has the 

commission taken regarding 

certificates? 

Existing 1110 rule. The Commission 

promulgated a direct final rule for 

‘‘certificates of compliance’’ on 

November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68328), 

which is codified at 16 CFR part 1110 

(the existing 1110 rule). The 

Commission published the existing 

1110 rule shortly after the CPSIA was 

enacted on August 14, 2008, to clarify 

for stakeholders the certificate 

requirements imposed by the newly 

amended sections 14(a) and 14(g). The 

existing part 1110 rule clarified 

certificate requirements by, for example: 

• Limiting the parties who must issue 

a certificate to the importer, for products 

manufactured outside the United States, 

and, in the case of domestically 

manufactured products, to the 

manufacturer; 

• Allowing certificates to be in hard 

copy or electronic form; 

• Clarifying requirements for an 

electronic form of certificate; and 

• Clarifying certificate content 

requirements. 

The existing 1110 rule did not change 

the statutory requirement that 

certificates ‘‘accompany’’ the applicable 

product or shipment of products 

covered by the certificate. However, the 

existing 1110 rule provides another 

means of meeting the ‘‘accompany’’ 

requirement, by allowing use of 

electronic certificates in lieu of paper 

certificates. Section 1110.13(a)(1) of the 

existing 1110 rule states: 

An electronic certificate satisfies the 

‘‘accompany’’ requirement if the certificate is 

identified by a unique identifier and can be 

accessed via a World Wide Web URL or other 

electronic means, provided the URL or other 

electronic means and the unique identifier 

are created in advance and are available, 

along with access to the electronic certificate 

itself, to the Commission or to the Customs 

authorities as soon as the product or 

shipment itself is available for inspection. 

Related Commission rules. Since the 

existing 1110 rule was promulgated in 

2008, the Commission implemented the 

testing and labeling requirements in 

section 14 of the CPSA, including two 

key rules in 2011, which are related to 

product certification: (1) Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification, 16 CFR part 1107 (the 

Testing Rule or the 1107 rule); and (2) 

Conditions and Requirements for 

Relying on Component Part Testing or 

Certification, or Another Party’s 

Finished Product Testing or 

Certification, to Meet Testing and 

Certification Requirements, 16 CFR part 

1109 (the Component Part Rule or the 

1109 rule). Both rules were published in 

the Federal Register on November 8, 

2011 (76 FR 69482 and 76 FR 69546, 

respectively). The Testing Rule, 

effective February 8, 2013, sets forth 

requirements for the testing, 

certification, and optional labeling of 

regulated children’s products. The 

Component Part Rule, effective 

December 8, 2011, allows for 

component part testing and certification 

to meet testing and certification 

requirements for children’s and nonchildren’s products. The Component 

Part Rule also sets forth criteria for a 

manufacturer, importer, or private 

labeler to certify a regulated consumer 

product based on another party’s testing 

or certification. 

Proposed amendment to 1110 rule. 

On May 13, 2013, the Commission 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) to amend the existing 1110 rule 

(78 FR 28080). The NPR proposed to 

clarify certificate requirements in light 

of the Testing and Component Part 

Rules and to implement section 14(g)(4) 

of the CPSA, which allows the 

Commission, in consultation with the 

Commissioner of Customs, to require 

that certificates for imported products 

be filed electronically with CBP up to 24 

hours before arrival of an imported 

product. As explained in section IV of 

this notice, the workshop will focus on 

the requirement for importers to file 

electronic certificates with CBP upon 

entry. In the NPR, proposed § 1110.13(a) 

states that to meet the statutory 

requirement that certificates 

‘‘accompany’’ products or product 

shipments, for regulated finished 

products that are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, ‘‘the 

importer must file the required GCC or 

CPC electronically with the CBP at the 

time of filing the CBP entry or the time 

of filing the entry and entry summary, 

if both are filed together.’’ 78 FR at 

28108. The NPR also sought comment 

on allowing filing certificates at a time 

earlier than entry, at manifest. 78 FR at 

28090. 

Regarding the technology involved in 

filing electronic certificates, the 

Commission proposed filing certificates 

in the form of an image, a pdf file, or 

in the form of data elements that can be 

uploaded into CBP’s database and 

electronically provided to CPSC for 

review. Id. The NPR stated that the 

Commission prefers data elements so 

that the information can be uploaded 

and searchable in a database. The 

Commission recognized that electronic 

filing of certificates would require 

software upgrades that may need to be 

completed in stages by CBP, CPSC, and 

stakeholders. The NPR noted that CBP’s 

technology would be used to file 

certificates electronically and that the 

Commission would need CBP’s 

assistance and cooperation in 

implementing electronic filing of 

certificates at entry. Id. 

II. What are we trying to accomplish by 

requiring electronic certificates to be 

filed at entry? 

The preamble to the NPR states that 

electronically filing certificate 

information would aid the Commission 

in enforcing the certificate requirement 

and give the Commission the ability to 

search certificate content information 

for enforcement and inspection 

purposes. 78 FR at 28089. Using 

electronic filing of certificate data 

would expedite clearance of consumer 

products at the ports and increase the 

safety of consumer products entering 

the United States through improved and 

more efficient enforcement. Currently, 

CPSC analyzes certain import data 

provided by CBP about shipments of 

consumer products arriving at U.S. ports 

of entry and then makes risk-based 

decisions about which products to clear 

for importation and which products to 

hold for inspection purposes. In a pilot 

project initiated in late 2011, CPSC 

improved its import-related functions 

by developing a software system known 

as the RAM (risk assessment 

methodology), to review CBP’s import 

data. The RAM allows CPSC to analyze 

CBP’s import data more rapidly to 

identify low-risk cargo to expedite 

clearance and to focus CPSC’s limited 

resources on high-risk cargo requiring 

further inspection. CPSC believes that 

the RAM pilot program successfully 

allows staff to identify rapidly certain 

high-risk cargo for hold and inspection 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37971 

and permit low-risk cargo to be cleared 

through the ports. CPSC can make this 

assessment at the time of entry, often 

before products reach U.S. ports, 

depending upon when the entry 

documentation is filed with CBP. 

CPSC seeks to implement the RAM 

program beyond the pilot stage. A fully 

funded and implemented RAM program 

would allow CPSC to analyze CBP’s 

import data for all consumer products 

under CPSC’s jurisdiction upon entering 

the United States. In the NPR to amend 

16 CFR part 1110, CPSC proposed to 

include data elements from certificates 

in the RAM’s import risk analysis 

because this data will assist CPSC in 

making better and more efficient riskbased decisions for clearance and 

inspections. As the RAM is currently 

being used, the addition of certificate 

data would enable CPSC to automate 

review of certificate data and to more 

efficiently clear low-risk cargo at the 

time of entry. At the same time, CPSC 

can identify high-risk cargo for hold and 

inspection at the ports. For most 

consumer products, clearance at the 

ports would be expedited by a fully 

expanded RAM program that 

incorporates certificate data. 

The proposed timing of filing 

electronic certificates is significant 

because this timing would align with 

the receipt of CBP’s import data, by 

requiring certificates to be filed at a 

point in the entry process when CBP 

still has control over the products 

offered for importation. Along with 

CBP’s data, CPSC would receive 

certificate data at a time when we can 

make admissibility decisions more 

quickly and can react to certificate data 

to prevent noncompliant goods from 

potentially being sold to consumers. 

The earlier that CPSC receives 

certificate data in the import process, 

the more quickly CPSC can review and 

clear products for importation. 

Importantly, after the Commission 

issued the NPR on May 13, 2013, 

President Obama, on February 19, 2014, 

issued Executive Order 13659, 

Streamlining the Export/Import Process 

for America’s Businesses (EO 13659), 

which requires certain federal agencies 

to significantly enhance their use of 

technology to modernize and simplify 

the trade processing infrastructure. 

Specifically, EO 13659 requires 

applicable government agencies to use 

CBP’s International Trade Data System 

(ITDS), and its supporting systems, such 

as CBP’s Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE), to create a ‘‘single 

window’’ through which businesses will 

electronically submit import-related 

data for clearance. EO 13659 envisions 

and is working toward a simpler, more 

efficient portal for trade use, to the 

benefit of both the trade and those 

government agencies with related 

authorities and responsibilities. 

Participating agencies have until 

December 31, 2016, to use systems such 

as ACE as the primary means of 

receiving standardized import data. As 

an independent agency CPSC is not 

bound by EO 13659. However, 

importers and CPSC both have a strong 

interest in CPSC continuing to play a 

leadership role in this area. Electronic 

filing of certificate data will further 

important EO objectives, as well as aid 

CPSC in focusing the agency’s resources 

to clear products more efficiently and 

improve enforcement of our safety 

regulations at the ports. 

III. Additional Background on CBP’s 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) 

Before the NPR was issued, CPSC staff 

discussed with CBP the capability of 

CPB’s staff to accept certificate data into 

ACE and provide the information to 

CPSC’s RAM for review. ACE 

functionality was being upgraded to 

accept PDF images (Document Imaging 

System, or DIS) and electronic data 

elements (PGA Message Set) for 

participating government agency (PGA) 

import-related forms or other data 

collection. Currently, CBP is conducting 

several test programs for PGAs, using 

DIS and PGA Message Set. See, e.g., 77 

FR 20835 (Apr. 6, 2012) (DIS test); 78 FR 

75931 (Dec. 13, 2013) (PGA Message Set 

test). CPSC staff is discussing the 

possibility of participating in CBP’s 

PGA Message Set test to pilot 

submission of electronic certificates of 

compliance. CPSC and CBP will provide 

additional notice, if such a pilot 

program involving CPSC is imminent. 

IV. What are we trying to accomplish 

with the workshop? 

The goal of the workshop is for CPSC 

to receive practical and procedural 

information from stakeholders, about 

electronic filing of certificates at entry 

into CBP’s ACE system. CPSC staff has 

been reviewing the comments received 

in response to the 1110 rule NPR. Some 

comments reflect misunderstandings 

about CPSA certificate requirements, 

CPSC’s ability and intent to implement 

electronic filing of certificates, and the 

logistics involved in implementing 

electronic filing. Moreover, on March 

17, 2014, Acting Chairman Adler 

received a letter from 32 trade 

associations urging a ‘‘stakeholder 

forum’’ to ‘‘engage with CBP, 

stakeholders and technical experts’’ on 

implementation of electronic filing. 

Accordingly, in response to stakeholder 

feedback and request, CPSC staff is 

conducting a workshop to: 

• Listen closely to stakeholders’ 

concerns related to the electronic filing 

of certificates, as well as to provide 

stakeholders the requested opportunity 

to give CPSC additional information on 

electronic filing of certificates that may 

assist the Commission with developing 

a final rule and with implementing 

electronic filing, if such a requirement 

is finalized; 

• Clarify for stakeholders certain 

issues related to the 1110 rulemaking; 

• Provide background on CPSC’s 

pilot-scale RAM system and its 

consistency with the ‘‘single window’’ 

approach for import data and risk 

management set forth in EO 13659; and 

• Provide CBP with an opportunity to 

discuss ACE and the DIS and PGA 

Message Set tests with stakeholders. 

V. What topics will the workshop and 

the related comment period address? 

Stakeholder comments and 

presentations should address the topics 

below: 

A. Stakeholders’ Current Certificate and 

Import Procedures 

• Current certificate and import 

procedures, including how 

manufacturers and importers are 

meeting the requirement that certificates 

‘‘accompany’’ products or product 

shipments. 

• Procedures and processes for 

creating and populating certificates that 

may influence implementation of an 

electronic certificate requirement, such 

as when and where certificates are 

created and maintained, matching 

certificates to those product units 

covered by the certificate, multiple 

entries for certain data components (i.e., 

products covered by the certificate, 

applicable regulations, multiple testing 

sites for various tests), and 

complications or efficiencies achieved 

in certificate creation and maintenance 

by using component part testing. 

• Challenges that certifiers encounter, 

in particular customs brokers who also 

serve as importers of record, in using 

the Component Part Rule, which allows 

certifiers to rely on the testing or 

certification of another party to issue a 

required certificate. This aspect of the 

Component Part Rule was specifically 

written to assist parties such as 

importers. 

• Current challenges in meeting 

certificate requirements that may be 

resolved, minimized, or exacerbated if 

an electronic filing requirement for 

certificates were implemented. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

B. Stakeholders’ Anticipated Challenges 

in Meeting an Electronic Filing 

Requirement 

• The NPR proposed that certificates 

be filed as a document image, in PDF 

format, or as data elements. The NPR 

stated CPSC’s preference for data 

elements because they are searchable. If 

CPSC participates in CBP’s test 

programs, please address whether the 

agency or stakeholders would benefit 

from participating in CBP’s DIS test and 

the PGA Message Set test. Document 

imaging does not provide the same 

efficiencies that data elements provide 

because the review of document images 

would be difficult to automate. Based on 

a review of the comments on the 1110 

NPR, stakeholders appear to favor data 

elements as well. We welcome 

stakeholder input on how to focus 

resources if we participate in CBP test 

programs. 

• If certificates were required to be 

filed as data elements, stakeholders 

would need to transmit certificate data 

to ACE via the Automated Broker 

Interface (ABI). Please discuss 

challenges your industry may face using 

ABI to transfer certificate data to CBP. 

Include a discussion of upgrading ABI, 

automation of certificate processes, 

costs, and timing for the relevant 

industry. 

• Some stakeholders have noted that 

matching certificate information to 

particular products is complicated and 

challenging based on the number and 

variety of products offered. Please 

discuss whether stakeholders require 

more flexibility in organizing 

certificates to meet an electronic filing 

requirement, including whether and 

how certificate data can be streamlined 

to meet the needs of electronic filing on 

a per-line-item imported basis. 

• Describe any practical and logistical 

problems, if any, your industry may face 

in implementing electronic filing of 

certificates. For each challenge 

described, please offer solutions or 

suggestions that would achieve the goal 

of electronic certificates, consistent with 

EO 13659. Please comment on how the 

government-wide transition to 

electronic filing exclusively as 

contemplated by EO 13659 might 

influence any concerns you might have 

with CPSC’s proposed approach for 

filing certificates electronically. 

• If the Commission finalizes a rule 

requiring electronic filing of certificates 

for imported products, the requirement 

would likely need to be phased in over 

time. For example, the requirement 

could be phased in based on the port of 

entry, by regulated product, by 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule for the U.S. 

codes, or by entry type. Please provide 

any comments or feedback on organized 

and logical approaches to phasing in an 

electronic filing requirement for 

certificate data. 

• What, if any, exceptions should the 

Commission allow from any 

requirement to file an electronic 

certificate and why? 

C. CBP’s DIS and PGA Message Set 

Tests in ACE 

• Provide questions and concerns for 

CBP pertaining to CPSC’s certificate 

requirement. 

D. CPSC’s RAM Pilot 

• Provide questions or concerns for 

CPSC regarding the RAM as the RAM 

Pilot relates to clearing products for 

importation and enforcement efforts. As 

part of any input on this topic, please 

consider the goals of EO 13659 as they 

relate to risk management, including 

seeking common risk management 

principles and methods. 

VI. What topics will not be discussed in 

the workshop and the related comment 

period? 

Although the NPR to amend 16 CFR 

part 1110 contained many proposals, 

the September 18, 2014 workshop is 

devoted to electronic filing of 

certificates at import. Therefore, the 

topics listed below are out of scope for 

the workshop: 

• User fees (we plan to engage 

industry on this topic as part of our 

outreach, specifically through the 

Border Interagency Executive Council’s 

External Engagement Committee, as 

well as through notice and comment 

rulemaking, should the Commission 

receive authority from Congress with 

respect to user fees); 

• Category and scope of products 

required to be certified; 

• Format for certificates other than at 

import; 

• Certificate content requirements; 

• Recordkeeping requirements; 

• Requirements for component part 

certificates; and 

• Ancillary issues, such as testing, 

labeling, and laboratory accreditation. 

VII. Details Regarding the Workshop 

A. When and where will the workshop 

be held? 

CPSC staff will hold the workshop 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 18, 

2014, in the Hearing Room at CPSC’s 

headquarters: 4330 East West Highway, 

Fourth Floor, Bethesda, MD 20814. The 

workshop will also be available through 

a webcast, but viewers will not be able 

to interact with the panelists and 

presenters. 

B. How do you register for the 

workshop? 

If you would like to attend the 

workshop, but you do not wish to make 

a presentation or participate on a panel, 

we ask that you register by September 

5, 2014. (See the ADDRESSES section of 

this document for the Web site link and 

instructions on where to register.) Please 

be aware that seating will be on a firstcome, first-served basis. The workshop 

will also be available through a webcast, 

but viewers will not be able to interact 

with the panelists and presenters. 

If you would like to make a 

presentation at the workshop, you 

should register by August 8, 2014. (See 

the ADDRESSES section of this document 

for the Web site link and instructions on 

where to register.) When you register, 

please indicate that you would like to 

make a presentation. CPSC staff will 

contact you regarding the proposed 

content of your presentation and 

presentation guidelines. We will select 

individuals to make presentations based 

on considerations such as: 

• The regulatory scope of the industry 

involved; 

• The individual’s demonstrated 

familiarity or expertise with the topic; 

• The practical utility of the 

information to be presented; and 

• The individual’s viewpoint or 

ability to represent certain interests 

(such as large manufacturers, small 

manufacturers, consumer organizations, 

and the scope of the regulated industry). 

We would like the presentations to 

represent and address a wide variety of 

interests. 

Although we will make an effort to 

accommodate all persons who wish to 

make a presentation, the time allotted 

for presentations will depend upon the 

number of persons who wish to speak 

on a given topic and the agenda. We 

recommend that individuals and 

organizations with common interests 

consolidate or coordinate their 

presentations, and request time for a 

joint presentation. If you wish to make 

a presentation and want to make copies 

of your presentation or other handouts 

available, you should bring copies to the 

workshop. We expect to notify those 

who are selected to make a presentation 

or participate in a panel at least two 

weeks before the workshop. Please 

inform Ms. Celestine Kish, ckish@

cpsc.gov, 301–987–2547, if you need 

any special equipment to make a 

presentation. 

If you need special accommodations 

because of disability, please contact Ms. 

Celestine Kish, ckish@cpsc.gov, 301– 

987–2547, at least 10 days before the 

workshop. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37973 

1 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. 

2See 17 CFR part 150. Part 150 of the 

Commission’s regulations establishes federal 

position limits on futures and option contracts in 

nine enumerated agricultural commodities. 

3See 17 CFR 150.2. 

4See 17 CFR 150.3. 

5See 17 CFR 150.4. 

6See Position Limits for Derivatives, 78 FR 75680 

(Dec. 12, 2013). 

7See Aggregation of Positions, 78 FR 68946 (Nov. 

15, 2013). 

In addition, we encourage written or 

electronic comments. Written or 

electronic comments will be accepted 

until October 31, 2014. Please note that 

all comments should be restricted to the 

topics covered by the workshop, as 

described in this Announcement. 

Dated: June 25, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15241 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 1, 15, 17, 19, 32, 37, 38, 

140, and 150 

RIN 3038–AD99; 3038–AD82 

Position Limits for Derivatives and 

Aggregation of Positions 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

extension of comment periods. 

SUMMARY: On December 12, 2013, the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (the ‘‘Position 

Limits Proposal’’) to establish 

speculative position limits for 28 

exempt and agricultural commodity 

futures and options contracts and the 

physical commodity swaps that are 

economically equivalent to such 

contracts. On November 15, 2013, the 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (the ‘‘Aggregation 

Proposal’’) to amend existing 

regulations setting out the Commission’s 

policy for aggregation under its position 

limits regime. In addition, the 

Commission directed staff to hold a 

public roundtable on June 19, 2014, to 

consider certain issues regarding 

position limits for physical commodity 

derivatives. In order to provide 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

comment on the issues to be discussed 

at the roundtable, the Commission 

published notice in the Federal Register 

on May 29, 2014, that the comment 

periods for the Position Limits Proposal 

and the Aggregation Proposal were 

reopened, starting June 12, 2014 (one 

week before the roundtable) and ending 

July 3, 2014 (two weeks following the 

roundtable). To provide commenters 

with a sufficient period of time to 

respond to questions raised and points 

made at the roundtable, the Commission 

is now further extending the comment 

period. Comments should be limited to 

the issues of hedges of a physical 

commodity by a commercial enterprise, 

including gross hedging, crosscommodity hedging, anticipatory 

hedging, and the process for obtaining a 

non-enumerated exemption; the setting 

of spot month limits in physicaldelivery and cash-settled contracts and 

a conditional spot-month limit 

exemption; the setting of non-spot limits 

for wheat contracts; the aggregation 

exemption for certain ownership 

interests of greater than 50 percent in an 

owned entity; and aggregation based on 

substantially identical trading strategies. 

DATES: The comment periods for the 

Aggregation Proposal published 

November 15, 2013, at 78 FR 68946, and 

for the Position Limits Proposal 

published December 12, 2013, at 78 FR 

75680, will close on August 4, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3038–AD99 for the 

Position Limits Proposal or RIN 3038– 

AD82 for the Aggregation Proposal, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Agency Web site: http://

comments.cftc.gov; 

• Mail: Secretary of the Commission, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 

20581; 

• Hand delivery/courier: Same as 

mail, above; or 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method. All comments must be 

submitted in English, or if not, 

accompanied by an English translation. 

Comments will be posted as received to 

http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit 

only information that you wish to make 

available publicly. If you wish the 

Commission to consider information 

that may be exempt from disclosure 

under the Freedom of Information Act, 

a petition for confidential treatment of 

the exempt information may be 

submitted under § 145.9 of the 

Commission’s regulations (17 CFR 

145.9). 

The Commission reserves the right, 

but shall have no obligation, to review, 

pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or 

remove any or all of your submission 

from http://www.cftc.gov that it may 

deem to be inappropriate for 

publication, such as obscene language. 

All submissions that have been redacted 

or removed that contain comments on 

the merits of the rulemaking will be 

retained in the public comment file and 

will be considered as required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and other 

applicable laws, and may be accessible 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen Sherrod, Senior Economist, 

Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418– 

5452, ssherrod@cftc.gov; or Riva Spear 

Adriance, Senior Special Counsel, 

Division of Market Oversight, (202) 418– 

5494, radriance@cftc.gov; Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission has long established 

and enforced speculative position limits 

for futures and options contracts on 

various agricultural commodities as 

authorized by the Commodity Exchange 

Act (‘‘CEA’’).1 The part 150 position 

limits regime 2 generally includes three 

components: (1) The level of the limits, 

which set a threshold that restricts the 

number of speculative positions that a 

person may hold in the spot-month, 

individual month, and all months 

combined,3 (2) exemptions for positions 

that constitute bona fide hedging 

transactions and certain other types of 

transactions,4 and (3) rules to determine 

which accounts and positions a person 

must aggregate for the purpose of 

determining compliance with the 

position limit levels.5 The Position 

Limits Proposal generally sets out 

proposed changes to the first and 

second component of the position limits 

regime and would establish speculative 

position limits for 28 exempt and 

agricultural commodity futures and 

option contracts, and physical 

commodity swaps that are 

‘‘economically equivalent’’ to such 

contracts (as such term is used in CEA 

section 4a(a)(5)).6 The Aggregation 

Proposal generally sets out proposed 

changes to the third component of the 

position limits regime.7

In order to provide interested parties 

with an opportunity to comment on the 

Aggregation Proposal during the 

comment period on the Position Limits 

Proposal, the Commission extended the 

comment period for the Aggregation 

Proposal to February 10, 2014, the same 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS