85760 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1This SNPR includes information and analysis 

from the Staff Briefing Package: Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Revise 16 CFR 

part 1110 for Certificates of Compliance to 

Implement eFiling, dated November 8, 2023 (Staff’s 

SNPR Briefing Package), available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Ballot-Package-DraftSNPR-to-Revise-16-CFR-part-1110-Certificates-ofCompliance.pdf?VersionId=3DjqxMqgXJNQ0yeFRg

KzfsRj2GgKenqD. 

2On November 15, 2023, the Commission voted 

(4–0) to publish this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

3 ‘‘Entry’’ for CBP purposes is a declaration of 

goods arriving in the United States, whereas an 

‘‘entry summary’’ contains additional 

documentation necessary for CBP to assess duties, 

collect statistics, and determine whether other 

requirements of law have been met. See 19 CFR 

141.0a(a) and (b). For more information on CBP’s 

entry processes see: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ 

programs-administration/entry-summary-and-postrelease-processes. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1110 

[CPSC Docket No. 2013–0017] 

Certificates of Compliance 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) is issuing a supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to 

revise the agency’s rule for Certificates 

of Compliance (certificates). The SNPR 

proposes to align the certificate rule 

with other CPSC rules on testing and 

certification, and to implement, for 

imported CPSC-regulated products and 

substances, electronic filing of 

certificates (eFiling) with U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP). 

DATES: Submit comments by February 6, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: Comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) aspects 

of the proposed rule should be directed 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, the Office of 

Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC 

Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–6974, or 

emailed to oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. 

You may submit all other comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013– 

0017, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC typically does not accept 

comments submitted by email, except as 

described below. CPSC encourages you 

to submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/ 

Confidential Written Submissions: 

Submit comments by mail, hand 

delivery, or courier to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–7479. If you wish to submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public, you 

may submit such comments by mail, 

hand delivery, or courier, or you may 

email them to: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. CPSC may post all comments 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

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

submit through this website: 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If you 

wish to submit such information, please 

submit it according to the instructions 

for mail/hand delivery/courier/ 

confidential written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2013–0017, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arthur Laciak, Project Manager, eFiling 

Program Specialist, Office of Import 

Surveillance, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504–7516, or 

by email to: alaciak@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Commission proposes to revise 

the rule for certificates, codified at 16 

CFR part 1110 (part 1110 or the 1110 

rule) to clarify certificate requirements 

for all regulated products and 

substances, to align the rule with other 

testing rules, and to implement 

electronic filing of certificates for 

imported products with CBP (eFiling).1

Only finished products or substances 

that are subject to a CPSC rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation, are required to 

be tested and certified, and only such 

finished products that are imported into 

the United States for consumption or 

warehousing would be required to eFile 

certificates with CBP. Section 14(g)(4) of 

the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(4)) gives 

CPSC the authority to require eFiling, by 

rule.2

The Commission established part 

1110 to implement sections 14(a) and (g) 

of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2063(a) and (g)), 

which provide requirements for the 

content, form, and availability of 

certificates. After passage of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which amended 

section 14 of the CPSA to add testing 

and certification requirements for CPSCregulated consumer products and 

substances, the Commission sought to 

bring clarity and reduce burden to 

stakeholders through part 1110, by, 

among other things, limiting the parties 

required to issue certificates and 

allowing electronic certificates 

(available through email or a worldwide 

web link) to ‘‘accompany’’ product 

shipments instead of paper certificates. 

73 FR 68328 (Nov. 18, 2008). 

After gaining experience with 

certificates in 2013, the Commission 

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR) to revise part 1110 to align with 

rules for testing children’s products 

under 16 CFR part 1107 (part 1107 or 

the 1107 rule) and component part 

testing under 16 CFR part 1109 (part 

1109 or the 1109 rule), and to require 

eFiling of certificates for imported 

consumer products with CBP at the time 

of filing the CBP entry, or the time of 

filing the entry and entry summary, if 

both are filed together. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(g)(4)); 78 FR 28080 (May 13, 2013) 

(2013 NPR).3 As described in section 

II.D of this preamble, since 2013 the 

Commission has undertaken a series of 

projects to support an eFiling program. 

Building on the 2013 NPR, this SNPR 

proposes to amend part 1110 to, among 

other things: revise terminology to 

integrate concepts introduced in the 

1107 and 1109 rules; broaden the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ to address 

commenters’ concerns about the 

product certifier having control over 

and knowledge of the goods; allow 

private labelers to test and certify 

products; and implement eFiling for 

imported, CPSC-regulated consumer 

products and substances. 

I. Statutory Authority 

Section 102 of the CPSIA amended 

section 14(a) of the CPSA to require that 

manufacturers (including importers) 

and private labelers issue certificates for 

all consumer products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or a similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation under any other law 

enforced by the Commission, that are 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing, or distributed in 

commerce. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11) and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85761 

4CBP created the PGA Message Set to collect 

from importers additional agency-related import 

data for partner government agencies, or PGAs, and 

transmit the data elements via ACE at time of entry 

or entry summary. CPSC created two PGA Message 

Sets: the Full Message Set and Reference Message 

Continued 

2063(a)(1). Certificates for children’s 

products (Children’s Product 

Certificates or CPCs) must be based on 

testing performed by a third party 

conformity assessment body whose 

accreditation to perform such testing 

has been accepted by the Commission. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2). Certificates for 

non-children’s products (General 

Certificates of Conformity or GCCs) 

must be based on a test of each product 

or a reasonable testing program. 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(A). Section 14(a)(1)(B) 

of the CPSA requires that certificates 

specify each rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation applicable to the product. 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(B). 

Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains 

additional requirements for the form, 

content, and availability of certificates. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(g). Section 14(g)(1) of the 

CPSA requires that each certificate 

identify the manufacturer (including 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate, as well as any third party 

conformity assessment body on whose 

testing the certificate depends. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(g)(1). At a minimum, certificates 

must include the date and place of 

manufacture; the date and place where 

the product was tested; each party’s 

name, full mailing address, and 

telephone number; and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. Id. Section 14(g)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that every certificate be 

legible and that all contents be in 

English; contents can additionally be in 

another language. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(2). 

Certificates must accompany the 

applicable product or shipment of 

products covered by the certificate, and 

a copy of the certificate must be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product. Upon request, the 

manufacturer (including importer) or 

private labeler issuing the certificate 

must provide a copy of the certificate to 

the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(3). 

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

states that in consultation with the 

Commissioner of Customs, CPSC may, 

by rule, provide for the electronic filing 

of certificates up to 24 hours before 

arrival of an imported product. Upon 

request, the manufacturer (including 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate must provide a copy of such 

certificate to the Commission and to 

CBP. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(4). 

In addition to the statutory authority 

to require certificates for regulated 

products and substances, as outlined in 

sections 14(a) and (g) of the CPSA, the 

Commission has general authority with 

regard to certificates pursuant to section 

3 of the CPSIA, which provides that 

‘‘the Commission may issue regulations, 

as necessary, to implement this Act and 

the amendments made by this Act.’’ 

Notes to 15 U.S.C. 2051 (citing Pub. L. 

110–314, 3, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 

3017). 

II. Background: Certificates and eFiling 

A. The 1110 Rule 

As noted, the CPSIA expanded 

section 14 of the CPSA to require testing 

and certification of consumer products 

subject to a consumer product safety 

rule, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation under any other act 

enforced by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(1). When the Commission 

initially issued the 1110 rule to 

implement this requirement, it adopted 

an approach that was ‘‘streamlined, at 

least in its initial phase.’’ 73 FR 68328 

(Nov. 18, 2008). The rule designated the 

importer as the sole entity responsible 

for issuing certificates for imported 

consumer products, stating that to 

‘‘accompany’’ a product or product 

shipment, the certificate must be 

available to the Commission no later 

than the time when the product or 

shipment is available for inspection in 

the United States. Id. The rule 

designated domestic manufacturers as 

the sole entity responsible for issuing 

certificates for domestically 

manufactured products, stating that 

such certificates must be available to the 

Commission upon request before the 

product or shipment is introduced into 

domestic commerce. Id. 

The rule provided that the 

requirements in section 14(g)(1) and (3) 

of the CPSA that a certificate 

‘‘accompany’’ a product or product 

shipment, be furnished to retailers and 

distributors, and be provided to CPSC 

upon request, could be satisfied by 

providing the statutorily required 

certificate information by electronic 

means. The rule explained that the 

certificate must be reasonably accessed 

by information on the product or 

accompanying the product or shipment, 

for example, a unique identifier that can 

be accessed via a Uniform Resource 

Locator (URL) or other electronic means. 

73 FR 68330–31. In practice, many 

importers and manufacturers email 

certificates to CPSC in PDF format, 

when requested. The existing 1110 rule 

did not implement the authority in 

section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA to have 

certificates for imported products be 

eFiled with CBP. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g)(4). 

The 2008 rule was not expected to be 

permanent. Instead, the Commission 

explained at the time that it ‘‘expects 

that with time CPSIA’s expanded 

certification requirements will become 

more routine and it then would consider 

whether this rule needs to be revised 

based on actual experience.’’ 73 FR 

68328. 

B. The 2013 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

By 2012, CPSC staff had worked to 

refine the Risk Assessment Methodology 

(RAM) required by section 222 of the 

CPSIA, and had begun to grapple with 

the rise of internet-based companies 

selling consumer products (eCommerce) 

and direct-to-consumer shipments, 

which made CPSC’s interdiction of noncompliant products more challenging. 

To address those concerns, and to be 

able to use certificate data for targeting 

and enforcement of CPSC’s rules at the 

ports, CPSC proposed in the 2013 NPR 

to implement eFiling of certificates with 

CBP for regulated, imported products, 

pursuant to section 14(g)(4) of the 

CPSA. 

The 2013 NPR also sought to revise 

part 1110 to integrate the rule into the 

testing and certification regime 

contemplated in then-new parts 1107 

and 1109. The 1107 rule sets forth 

requirements for children’s product 

testing and certification, including 

when and how products must be tested 

and certified, and recordkeeping 

requirements. The 1109 rule sets forth 

conditions and requirements for 

component part testing and certification 

for both children’s and non-children’s 

products. Both rules introduced new 

concepts and terminology related to 

certificates that are not present in the 

1110 rule of 2008. 

CPSC received over 500 comments 

from more than 70 commenters, as 

summarized in section III of this 

preamble, many asserting that 

implementation of the proposed eFiling 

requirement was infeasible and 

unreasonable due to the lack of 

information technology (IT) 

infrastructure for CBP to accept such 

data. At that time, CBP had not yet 

completed its Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) interface nor the 

Partner Government Agency (PGA) 

Message Set, which now enable 

importers or their brokers to submit 

electronic import data. For its part, 

CPSC had not yet fully implemented the 

RAM. 

Since publication of the 2013 NPR, 

CPSC has implemented RAM 2.0 and 

CBP has implemented ACE and 

developed the PGA Message Set.4 In 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85762 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Set. When using a Full Message Set, certifiers will 

provide all certificate data in the form of data 

elements. When using a Reference Message Set, 

certifiers will provide a reference ID to certificate 

data entered into CPSC’s Product Registry. 

5The 2020 staff briefing package to implement an 

eFiling program at CPSC is available at: https://

cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-aneFiling-Program-for-Imported-ConsumerProducts.pdf?BYXOLX2gJmF4NaAN1LCM

mqiXRISuaRkr=. The record of commission action 

is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-forImported-Consumer-Products.pdf. 

6The Federal Register Notice announcing the 

Beta Pilot can found here: https://

www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2022-0020- 

0001. 

7The Product Registry is a certificate database 

created and maintained by CPSC. Importers can 

enter or upload certificate data for regulated 

consumer products and substances that can be 

referenced on an entry filing each time the product 

is imported without having to re-enter the relevant 

data elements. 

2016 and 2017, CPSC conducted an 

eFiling Alpha Pilot, in coordination 

with CBP, involving eight volunteer 

participants who successfully eFiled a 

limited set of targeting/enforcement data 

for regulated products. Also, in 2017, 

CPSC conducted a Certificate Study to 

assess CPCS’s ability to use certificates 

and the information on them for risk 

assessment and targeting of regulated, 

imported consumer products. In 

December 2020, the Commission 

approved of a multi-year plan to 

implement an eFiling program at CPSC.5

The next steps in this eFiling plan 

include the ongoing eFiling Beta Pilot, 

which is scheduled to begin accepting 

data in the fall of 2023, and developing 

this SNPR.6

C. CPSC’s Risk Assessment and 

Targeting Efforts for Imported Consumer 

Products 

CPSC’s RAM currently receives an 

electronic feed of import entry data 

collected by CBP. The RAM is 

optimized to ingest CBP’s data, using 

algorithms to identify potentially 

noncompliant consumer product 

shipments for CPSC’s inspection. 

However, the data ingested by RAM are 

collected by CBP for its enforcement 

and tariff purposes, which do not 

always align with CPSC’s risk 

assessment purposes. CPSC’s Certificate 

Study confirmed that CPSC can analyze 

certificate data focused specifically on 

product manufacturing and testing to 

improve RAM’s precision in targeting 

and identifying high-risk shipments for 

examination. 

Currently, CPSC’s import enforcement 

methodology is labor-intensive and 

lacks an efficient means of using 

product-specific data to identify 

potentially non-compliant products. 

CPSC co-locates staff alongside CBP 

staff at ports of entry to target shipments 

for examination. Once identified, staff 

request that CBP place a shipment on 

hold and transport it to an examination 

station for CPSC inspection; an 

examination hold creates delay that 

costs businesses and CPSC time and 

money. Accordingly, stakeholders and 

CPSC have a common interest in 

reducing examinations of compliant 

products and maximizing examinations 

of products that are likely to be 

violative. Currently, certificates are 

collected only after a shipment is 

stopped for examination; certificate data 

are not used to target shipments for 

examination. Using certificate data for 

more precise targeting would maximize 

examination efficiency for stakeholders 

and staff; keep hazardous, violative 

products out of consumer’s hands; and 

reduce burden by not delaying 

compliant product and not holding up 

shipments at the port while waiting to 

receive a certificate. 

Using certificate data can also 

improve CPSC’s ability to target lowvalue shipments. CPSC’s current 

targeting capabilities were designed for 

larger commercial shipments for which 

the Commission receives CBP data. 

CPSC’s port staff are currently unable to 

pinpoint with a high degree of certainty 

potentially non-compliant and 

hazardous products in low-value 

shipments, which CBP refers to as ‘‘de 

minimis shipments,’’ and international 

mail shipments, which can lead to CPSC 

inspections that delay release of 

compliant products. Specifically, using 

product-specific certificate information 

such as product description, finished 

product manufacturer, date of 

manufacture, and date and place of 

testing, would provide CPSC with 

greater insights into all imported 

products and substances, including de 

minimis shipments. Hundreds of 

thousands of de minimis shipments 

enter the United States daily; the ability 

to use algorithms to assess the data and 

identify higher-risk shipments, even 

those of low value that occur frequently, 

would enhance CPSC’s ability to focus 

limited resources to identify and 

interdict higher risk shipments. 

Finally, although CBP is unable to 

process any certificate data collected for 

international mail shipments subject to 

CPSC requirements via ACE, the SNPR 

proposes a modified eFiling 

requirement for international mail. 

Importers using international mail 

would be required to enter certificate 

data into the Product Registry 7 before 

the shipment arrives in the United 

States, so that staff can analyze this data 

and target mail shipments for 

examination. 

D. CPSC eFiling Related Projects Since 

the 2013 NPR 

1. eFiling Alpha Pilot (2016) 

After publication of the 2013 NPR, 

CPSC conducted a pilot to test the 

feasibility of eFiling certain ‘‘targeting/ 

enforcement data elements’’ on a 

certificate by participant industry 

volunteers. The 2016 eFiling Alpha 

Pilot was a 6-month, joint initiative 

between CPSC, CBP, and eight volunteer 

importers to establish and assess the 

infrastructure and processes required for 

a successful eFiling program. 

Participants used a process similar to 

that used in the current eFiling Beta 

Pilot, having a choice between entering 

data elements in a Product Registry, and 

providing a reference number to the 

Product Registry when filing PGA 

Message Set data with CBP, or filing all 

data elements in a PGA Message Set. 

CPSC staff issued a report detailing the 

procedure and results of the eFiling 

Alpha Pilot, available on CPSC’s 

website: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/eFiling_Alpha_Pilot_Evaluation_

Report-May_24_2017.pdf?uK.Uhj

HabKD5yjQ.1w06tudrnvuuWIra. 

2. Certificate Study (2017) 

Following the eFiling Alpha Pilot, 

from October 2017 to February 2018, 

CPSC staff conducted a Certificate of 

Compliance Study to assess any 

correlation between the timing and 

availability of a certificate, the data 

provided on a certificate, and the 

violation rate of imported finished 

consumer products. Staff’s eFiling 

Certificate of Compliance Study 

Assessment is available on CPSC’s 

website at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/eFiling-Certificate-StudyEvaluation-Report-FINAL.pdf. 

Staff’s analysis of the data collected in 

this study indicates that the ability to 

provide a certificate within 24 hours of 

CPSC’s request is strongly associated 

with product compliance. The limited 

data set indicated that an entry is five 

times more likely to have a violation if 

a certificate is never provided to CPSC, 

and three times more likely if one is 

provided later than 24 hours after 

CPSC’s request. Staff also identified four 

data elements from certificates that 

show potential correlations to the rate of 

violations. Other data elements on a 

certificate, such as the list of applicable 

citations, would allow CPSC similarly to 

apply algorithms to target certain 

products and/or rules. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85763 

8See Supra, n.5. 9https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC2022-0020-0001. 

10ACE is CBP’s system through which the U.S. 

government has implemented the ‘‘single window,’’ 

the primary system for processing all trade-related 

import and export data required by government 

agencies. The ‘‘single window’’ transitions away 

from paper-based procedures to provide 

government and industry faster, more streamlined 

processes. 

11The eFiling system collectively refers to the 

PGA Message Set and Product Registry and process 

of filing certificate data. Certifiers (meaning 

importers, manufacturers, or private labelers) are 

responsible for the certificate data submitted, but 

brokers or other designated parties can upload data 

and certify products on the certifier’s behalf. 

12Other trade parties, such as brokers and 

laboratories, may enter certificate data into the 

Product Registry on the certifier’s behalf. 

3. eFiling Beta Pilot (Current) 

On December 18, 2020, the 

Commission approved staff’s 

recommended plan to implement 

eFiling and to conduct an eFiling Beta 

Pilot, in collaboration with CBP, that 

would collect certificate data via a PGA 

Message Set.8 Following this, on June 

10, 2022, the Commission issued a 

Federal Register Notice (87 FR 35513 

(June 10, 2022)) 9 to announce the 

eFiling Beta Pilot and recruit volunteers. 

The eFiling Beta Pilot has a product 

scope of approximately 300 Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes prioritized 

for imports and includes all data fields 

on a certificate. CPSC updated the 

Product Registry used in the Alpha 

Pilot, to create a one-time data entry 

repository of certificate data that can be 

referenced in a PGA Message Set 

multiple times as a product is offered 

for importation. Additionally, staff has 

been meeting with a subset of nine 

participant volunteers to advise in IT 

development for the eFiling Beta Pilot. 

Meeting logs and related material for 

this work are available on https://

www.regulations.gov on docket number 

CPSC–2022–0020. CPSC’s website also 

includes information on eFiling and the 

eFiling Beta Pilot, available at: https:// 

www.cpsc.gov/eFiling. 

The purpose of the eFiling Beta Pilot 

is to build upon the Alpha Pilot, 

develop and test the infrastructure 

necessary to support a full-scale eFiling 

requirement, inform CPSC’s rulemaking 

effort, and develop internal procedures 

to support enforcement. The Beta Pilot 

will also advance the ‘‘Single 

Window’’ 10 concept to facilitate 

electronic collection, processing, 

sharing, and reviewing of trade data and 

documents required by CPSC during the 

cargo import process, and will assist 

CPSC in targeting imports more 

accurately to facilitate the flow of 

legitimate trade and enhance targeting 

of noncompliant trade. 

The eFiling Beta Pilot also will assess 

CPSC and importer capabilities for 

eFiling certificate data elements via the 

PGA Message Set and incorporating the 

data elements into CPSC’s RAM to risk 

score and interdict noncompliant 

products. The Beta Pilot will include 

more participants than the Alpha Pilot 

(over 30, more than in the Alpha Pilot), 

include more data elements (dates of 

manufacture and testing), and involve 

more varied consumer products under 

CPSC’s jurisdiction (products classified 

under approximately 300 HTS codes). 

4. Developing an eFiling System 

To minimize burden, CPSC’s eFiling 

System will allow importers to enter 

certificate data through two means: Full 

Message Set or Reference Message Set 

using the Product Registry.11 When 

using the Full Message Set, the importer 

will submit all certificate data elements 

via CBP’s ACE. When using the 

Reference Message Set, the importer 

will enter all certificate data elements 

into the Product Registry prior to filing 

entry with CBP, and they will submit a 

unique reference identifier (ID) via 

ACE.12 Tab B of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package contains the CBP and Trade 

Automated Interface Requirement, 

which details the technical 

requirements to file each Message Set in 

ACE. 

The Product Registry allows 

importers, or their designees, to enter 

the certificate data elements via a user 

interface, batch upload, and/or 

Application Programing Interface (API) 

upload. The user interface is a step-bystep process, where the importer 

submits one certificate at a time. The 

batch upload allows the importer to 

submit multiple certificates using a 

Comma-Separated Value (CSV) 

template. The API upload allows the 

importer to build an API connection via 

the Product Registry and their data 

systems to instantaneously enter 

certificates. 

Additionally, the Product Registry 

provides multiple features to improve 

the importer’s interaction. The importer 

has a business account in the Product 

Registry where users representing the 

importer can view all certificates 

submitted into the registry. The 

importer can also provide other third 

parties, such as a broker or test 

laboratory, with different levels of 

permission to submit certificate data on 

their behalf. Tab A of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package contains a detailed 

user guide for the Product Registry as 

used during the eFiling Beta Pilot. 

III. Response to Comments 

In response to the 2013 notice of 

proposed rulemaking (2013 NPR) to 

revise 16 CFR part 1110, CPSC received 

over 500 comments from over 70 

different commenters. Comment 

summaries include a code to identify 

the commenter, as shown in Table 1. 

Below we summarize and respond to 

the public comments by topic. 

TABLE 1—COMMENTER KEY

2 ....... Rich Frog Industries. 40 ..... Bicycle Product Suppliers Association. 

3 ....... Douglas Boysen. 41 ..... American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA). 

4 ....... DT Swiss, Inc. 42 ..... American Promotional Events. 

7 ....... The Hosiery Association. 43 ..... Tom Dixon. 

8 ....... Shayla Sharp. 44 ..... UPS Supply Chain Solutions. 

9 ....... GS1 US. 45 ..... Consumer Specialty Products Association. 

10 ..... Wald & Co, Inc. 46 ..... Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA). 

11 ..... Frette S.R.L. 47 ..... Toy Industry Association (TIA). 

12 ..... National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of 

America (NCBFAA). 

48 ..... Erika Hickey. 

13 ..... American Eagle Superstore. 49 ..... Handmade Toy Alliance. 

14 ..... Writing Instrument Manufacturers Association. 50 ..... National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). 

15 ..... US Council for International Business. 51 ..... Magicforest. 

16 ..... Marisol, International. 52 ..... Terra Experience. 

17 ..... National Association of Foreign Trade Zones (NAFTZ). 53 ..... Borderfree. 

18 ..... FedEx. 55 ..... American Eagle Outfitters. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85764 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

13The CPSA states that the terms ‘‘ ‘import’ and 

‘importation’ include reimporting a consumer 

product manufactured or processed, in whole or in 

part, in the United States.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(9). 

The CPSA also states that the term ‘‘ ‘manufacturer’ 

means any person who manufactures or imports a 

consumer product.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11). 

TABLE 1—COMMENTER KEY—Continued 

19 ..... Pacific Coasts Council of Custom Brokers & Freight Forwarders Association (PCCCBFFA). 56 ..... European Union (EU). 

20 ..... Express Association of America. 58 ..... Association of American Publishers, Inc.; Book Manufacturers 

Institute, Inc.; & Printing Industries of America. 

21 ..... Lego. 59 ..... Unique Industries, Inc. 

22 ..... Motorcycle Industry Council. 60 ..... B.J. Alan Company. 

23 ..... Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America. 61 ..... Bestway International. 

24 ..... YKK. 63 ..... Handmade Toy Alliance. 

25 ..... Glazing Industry Code Committee. 64 ..... RILA & National Retail Federation (NRF). 

26 ..... American Fireworks Standards Laboratory. 66 ..... Van Fleet Associates, Inc. 

27 ..... Terra Experience. 67 ..... Integration Point. 

28 ..... US Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel. 71 ..... American Home Furnishings, Alliance. 

29 ..... Hallmark Cards. 72 ..... NCBFAA. 

30 ..... American Architectural Manufacturers Association. 74 ..... U.S. Council for International Business. 

31 ..... Galaxy Fireworks. 75 ..... Toy Industry Association. 

32 ..... Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 76 ..... Hennes & Mauritz L.P. 

33 ..... The Art and Creative Materials Institute (ACMI). 77 ..... 33 Trade Associations. 

34 ..... Ian Brodie. 78 ..... OPEI. 

35 ..... National Retail Federation. 79 ..... RILA & NRF. 

36 ..... Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association. 80 ..... Bicycle Product Suppliers Association. 

37 ..... Fireworks Over America. 81 ..... AAFA. 

38 ..... Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI). 82 ..... UPS Supply Chain Solutions. 

39 ..... Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA). 

A. Section 1110.3—Definitions 

Comment 1: A commenter (C35) 

stated that proposed 16 CFR 1110.3(b) 

causes confusion with too many 

certificate types. 

Response 1: The terms and definitions 

described in proposed § 1110.3(b) are 

for the reader’s clarity; neither the NPR 

nor SNPR create new certificate types. 

Indeed, most of the terms in proposed 

§ 1110.3 are already used in section 14 

of the CPSA or in another CPSC rule, 

such as 16 CFR parts 1107 and 1109. 

Comment 2: A commenter (C18) was 

concerned about CPSC’s proposed 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ in the NPR to 

be the ‘‘importer of record’’ or IOR (as 

defined in the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended), because the proposed 

definition could conflict with other 

CPSC rules. For example, the 

commenter stated that the ‘‘importer’’ 

required to certify products in 16 CFR 

part 1109 (the component part rule), 

may not be the IOR, who is the required 

certifier in the 2013 NPR. The 

commenter suggested that CPSC not 

make the IOR responsible for 

certification, because the IOR is the 

party making the official import 

declaration to CBP, not the party 

causing the goods to enter the country, 

who is the party with the most 

knowledge of the product. The 

commenter recommended that CPSC 

change the definition of ‘‘importer’’ to 

include a party with an ownership or 

beneficial interest in the imported 

products, so that the party with the most 

information about the product would be 

responsible for testing and certification. 

Similarly, other commenters 

questioned who should be an 

‘‘importer’’ with certification 

responsibilities under part 1110. For 

example, several commenters (C12, C16, 

C19, C20, C32, C44, C67, C71, C82) 

stated that customs brokers should not 

fall within the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

because they do not have sufficient 

knowledge of the products to ensure 

compliance nor are they the ‘‘beneficial 

party in interest.’’ Commenter C18 

stated the same argument with regard to 

consignees acting as importers of record, 

and other commenters (C7, C14, C36) 

asserted that private labelers should not 

be responsible for certifying for the 

same reasons. 

Response 2: The CPSA does not 

define ‘‘importer.’’ 13 We agree that 

expanding the definition of who can be 

an ‘‘importer’’ in part 1110 beyond the 

IOR, for the purposes of testing and 

certification, is beneficial to 

stakeholders and to CPSC’s eFiling and 

enforcement efforts. Accordingly, the 

SNPR proposes to broaden the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ in proposed 

§ 1110.3(b) to include any party that 

could be an importer under CBP’s 

definition of importer, as found under 

19 CFR 101.1, as well as other parties 

that have a financial interest in the 

consumer product being offered for 

import and effectively caused the 

consumer product to be imported into 

the United States. Thus, the SNPR 

proposes that an ‘‘importer’’ may be the 

importer of record; consignee; or owner, 

purchaser, or party that has financial 

interest in the consumer product being 

offered for import and effectively caused 

the consumer product to be imported 

into the United States. 

Under the proposed definition of 

‘‘importer,’’ a person holding a valid 

customs broker’s license can be an 

importer. Retaining customs brokers in 

the definition gives them the option to 

assume responsibility for certification 

on behalf of their clients if that is a 

service they wish to provide. 

Additionally, because of the expanded 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ and CPSC’s 

need to recognize the party assuming 

responsibility, the SNPR requires the 

party certifying compliance be 

identified in § 1110.11(a)(5). 

Comment 3: Two commenters (C36, 

C50) stated that under section 3(b) of the 

CPSA, CPSC does not have the authority 

to include common carriers in the 

definition of ‘‘importer.’’ 

Response 3: Section 3(b) of the CPSA 

prohibits CPSC from deeming common 

carriers, contract carriers, third party 

logistics providers, and freight 

forwarders to be a manufacturer 

(including importer), distributor, or 

retailer ‘‘solely by reason of receiving or 

transporting a consumer product in the 

ordinary course of its business as such 

a carrier or forwarder.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2052(b). Neither the 2013 NPR or this 

SNPR would deem such carriers as 

manufacturers or importers for receiving 

or transporting goods. However, if a 

common carrier, contract carrier, third 

party logistics provider, or freight 

forwarder contracts with another party 

to provide services as a licensed 

customs broker, and in that capacity 

chooses to act as the IOR and attests to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85765 

14See https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-- 

Manufacturing/Small-Business-Resources/SmallBatch-Manufacturers-and-Third-Party-. 

the content of the certificate at the time 

it is eFiled, CPSC is justified in holding 

that carrier responsible for the 

information on a certificate. In that case, 

the carrier is not acting in the ordinary 

course of its business as a carrier or 

forwarder, but is instead acting as the 

IOR or a customs broker. The revised 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ in the SNPR 

should alleviate some concern, because 

an IOR is not the only party that can 

certify a product. However, a common 

carrier can remove themselves from any 

responsibility to certify consumer 

products by choosing not to act as a 

customs broker, choosing not to act as 

the IOR, or ensuring that the importer, 

as defined in proposed § 1110.3(b), 

certifies the product. 

Comment 4: Several commenters 

(C17, C35, C38) remarked that the 

definition of private labeler is unclear. 

Commenter C17 stated that the terms 

‘‘brand,’’ ‘‘trademark,’’ and ‘‘to carry’’ a 

brand or trademark are vague terms that 

may not be applied consistently. 

Commenter C38 requested clarification 

whether a private labeler must certify 

when the product does not contain the 

name or trademark of the manufacturer. 

Response 4: Section 3(a)(12)(A) of the 

CPSA defines ‘‘private labeler’’ as the 

‘‘owner of a brand or trademark on the 

label of a consumer product which bears 

a private label.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(12)(A). Section 3(a)(12)(B) 

further explains that a consumer 

product bears a private label when the 

product (or its container) is labeled with 

the brand of a person other than a 

manufacturer, the person with whose 

brand the product (or container) is 

labeled has caused the product to be so 

labeled, and the brand of a manufacturer 

does not appear on the label. 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(12)(B). Consistent with the 

statute, the term ‘‘private labeler’’ is 

generally understood to refer to 

products manufactured by one company 

but sold under the brand name of 

another company. The private labeler is 

one of the three parties stated in section 

14 of the CPSA that may certify a 

product. Section 1110.7(b) of the SNPR 

proposes that for domestically 

manufactured products, the private 

labeler must issue a certificate that 

meets the requirements of part 1110, 

unless the manufacturer issues the 

certificate. 

B. Section 1110.5—Products Required 

To Be Certified 

Comment 5: Several commenters 

(C31, C36, C48, C49, C52, C63) urged 

CPSC to specifically accommodate small 

businesses, which have fewer 

compliance resources. Several 

commenters (C31, C49) stating 

specifically that the extra security, IT 

infrastructure, and customs broker fees 

associated with eFiling, will be ‘‘out of 

range,’’ ‘‘catastrophic,’’ or a ‘‘significant 

burden’’ on small manufacturers and 

businesses in general. Two commenters 

(C52, C63) suggested that eFiling should 

be optional for small importers, instead 

of a mandatory requirement, to assist 

small businesses with small volumes or 

those that are from countries that do not 

have any competitive options for third 

party testing. Other commenters (C49, 

C52, C63) stated that small businesses 

usually issue paper certificates and are 

not prepared to file electronically. One 

commenter (C52) proposed that the 

CPSC should differentiate between 

importers/producers of ‘‘low risk’’ and 

‘‘high risk’’ toys and children’s products 

to avoid excessive burdens on small 

producers and importers. 

Additionally, commenter C8 

recommended that CPSC create a new 

set of requirements for ‘‘microbusinesses’’ that would be exempted 

from third party testing for component 

parts and finished products. Instead of 

a certificate, the commenter proposed 

that these ‘‘micro-businesses’’ could 

provide a supplier’s Material Safety 

Data Sheet (MSDS). 

Response 5: The CPSA’s certificate 

requirements do not contain a small 

business exception. Indeed, an 

exception for imported products could 

undermine the goal of protecting 

consumer safety by using certificate data 

to target non-compliant and potentially 

hazardous consumer products. 

However, section 14(i)(4) of the CPSA 

does provide third party testing relief 

for certain rules for Small Batch 

Manufacturers of children’s products, 

which allows for testing of certain 

product safety standards at any third 

party laboratory, instead of a CPSCaccredited laboratory.14 Moreover, CPSC 

has a Small Business Ombudsman to 

assist small businesses with questions 

related to compliance with CPSC rules. 

CPSC developed a web-based 

application, the Product Registry, to 

reduce burden for importers, especially 

for small businesses. CPSC’s Product 

Registry is a web-accessible database 

that will not require any additional IT 

infrastructure for certifiers to use and 

has its own internal security. Firms do 

not need to create their own web 

infrastructure to host certificate data. 

Small businesses can enter the 

information into the Product Registry 

and use the system to maintain 

certificates. Firms can also enter data 

using batch uploads, which are 

available in several formats. 

Additionally, firms can choose to have 

a third party, such as a test lab, enter 

data into the Product Registry on their 

behalf. The Product Registry is designed 

to be flexible to allow businesses to use 

the system in a manner that reduces cost 

and burden. 

Comment 6: Commenters C44 and 

C82 suggested that the CPSC consider 

implementing a certificate exception for 

de minimis shipments. The commenter 

maintains that a de minimis exception 

would leave CPSC and CBP with a 

greater ability to use its resources to 

monitor and target product safety 

compliance of higher-value shipments 

that contain larger quantities of 

consumer goods. 

Response 6: Congress did not provide 

a de minimis exception from certificate 

requirements. Furthermore, one of the 

emerging hazards since the 2013 NPR is 

the growth in direct-to-consumer 

shipments, which are often de minimis. 

These shipments may be of lower value, 

but the volume of such shipments is 

growing rapidly, and they are 

particularly challenging to monitor. 

Staff has found hazardous, noncompliant products in de minimis 

shipments. The ability to collect 

certificate data at entry for these lowervalue shipments, and to assess these 

shipments for targeting purposes, will 

enhance CPSC’s ability to enforce our 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations, 

and to protect consumer safety. 

Regarding compliance burden, CBP 

has standardized the means of collecting 

additional data elements for PGAs using 

entry type 86 (ET86) for lower-value 

shipments. A broker may now use ET86 

for de minimis shipments to append the 

CPSC PGA Message Set. 

Comment 7: Commenter C53 argues 

that, as an IOR for returned goods, they 

are unable to test and certify such 

goods. The commenter urges CPSC to 

‘‘consider products exported by U.S. 

retailers and then returned (reimported) 

to that retailer as ‘Goods Returned’ and 

exempt from the certificate 

requirement,’’ regardless of entry type. 

Response 7: Section 14 of the CPSA 

does not provide an exemption from the 

certificate requirements for returned 

goods. As with the existing 1110 rule 

and consistent with the statute, under 

the proposed rule certificates are 

required for finished products that are 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing and subject to a consumer 

product safety rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85766 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

C. Section 1110.7—Who Must Certify 

Finished Products 

Comment 8: Several commenters 

(C14, C36, C39) opposed the proposed 

changes to § 1110.7 in the 2013 NPR, 

which expanded who could be a 

certifier for both imported and domestic 

products and required private labelers 

to certify products that are privately 

labeled, unless another party certifies 

the product. Commenters encouraged 

CPSC to retain the existing language in 

current 16 CFR 1110.7, which they 

believe clearly identifies the party 

responsible for issuing the certificate. 

Commenter C36 stated that CPSC 

should recognize that either the 

importer, domestic manufacturer, or 

private labeler may certify, as provided 

in section 14 of the CPSA. 

Response 8: Upon consideration of 

the comments, the SNPR simplifies the 

2013 NPR proposal in § 1110.7 for 

imported consumer products. CPSC has 

more information on imported 

consumer products than the agency had 

in 2013, because CPSC now receives a 

data feed from CBP that, while focused 

on trade enforcement and tariff 

collection rather than safety, identifies 

the relevant firms for each shipment. 

Moreover, with the additional certificate 

data collected via a PGA Message Set, 

CPSC can enforce the certificate 

requirement against an importer or a 

private labeler, even if neither firm is 

the entity submitting the required 

certificate data. 

The SNPR proposes a revision to the 

definition of ‘‘importer,’’ allowing any 

party that can be the importer of record 

under proposed § 1110.3 to certify. 

Currently, CPSC expects the IOR to 

issue a certificate; however, in some 

cases the IOR is not the party with a 

beneficial ownership in the goods that 

causes importation of the consumer 

product, which makes enforcement 

challenging. The proposed expansion of 

the ‘‘importer’’ definition both responds 

to comments and should assist CPSC in 

identifying responsible parties. 

For domestically manufactured 

products, the SNPR retains the 2013 

NPR’s proposal that privately labeled 

products be certified by the private 

labeler, unless the manufacturer issued 

the certificate. CPSC proposed this 

requirement because products that are 

privately labeled do not display the 

manufacturer’s name or contact 

information. Such products are typically 

designed and produced according to the 

specifications and requirements of the 

brand owner. Firms that do not want to 

be responsible for issuing a certificate as 

a private labeler for domestically 

manufactured products need only 

ensure that the name of the 

manufacturer appears on the product. 

15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(12). 

Comment 9: Commenters (C36, C45, 

C47, C50, C71) suggested that any party 

in the supply chain should be allowed 

to certify, including brand owners/ 

private labelers and foreign 

manufacturers. Other commenters (C15, 

C74) stated that foreign manufacturers 

of direct-to-consumer products should 

be required to certify, but certification 

by brand owners/private labelers should 

be optional. One commenter (C35) was 

unclear if the brand owner/private 

labeler or foreign manufacturer should 

certify under proposed § 1110.7(a) for 

imported direct-to-consumer products. 

Another commenter (C14) stated that 

responsibility for certifying should be 

placed on importers because foreign 

manufacturers might not comply. 

Response 9: As stated in response to 

comment 2, the SNPR broadens the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ in part 1110 to 

include any firm that could be an 

importer under CBP’s definition in 19 

CFR 101.1. Therefore, any entity that 

falls within this definition would be 

allowed to provide certificate data for 

imported consumer products. For 

direct-to-consumer imports not 

involving a broker, the party with 

financial interest in the product being 

offered for import and who effectively 

caused the consumer product to be 

imported into the United States, which 

could be the foreign manufacturer or the 

seller who sold the product on an online 

marketplace, would be considered the 

importer and the party responsible for 

certifying. Regarding foreign 

manufacturers that supply products for 

U.S. distribution, they are subject to the 

requirements of the CPSA and CPSC has 

the authority to refuse admission for 

noncompliant products under section 

17(a) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2066(a). 

Comment 10: A commenter (C16) 

claimed that requiring brokers to be 

responsible for certification duplicates 

work being done by the importer, 

because the importer is already 

responsible for producing the 

certificates. The commenter argued that 

the proposal in the NPR would increase 

brokerage costs to importers, damage the 

importers’ ability to be profitable, dilute 

the information chain, and increase the 

risk of mistaken reporting. Another 

commenter (C20) stated that holding 

brokers responsible for certification will 

result in increased requests by brokers 

for powers of attorney, which in turn 

will require greater CBP staffing, and 

ultimately, increased costs to the 

consumer. Another commenter (C44) 

asserted that CPSC’s cost estimates for 

filing certificates are too low because 

they do not account for a necessary 

increase in broker’s fees to offset the 

extra labor associated with becoming 

familiar with the products being 

imported and applicable requirements. 

The commenter also stated that 

requiring certificate information to be 

filed at the time of entry will slow the 

filing and delay delivery and increase 

warehouse costs. The commenter 

suggested reducing the burden of the 

proposed rule by paring down the 

required information to only that 

necessary for effective targeting and 

allowing the upload of the required 

information by PDF to cut down on the 

amount of data entry. 

Response 10: As previously noted, the 

proposed definition of ‘‘importer’’ in 

this SNPR has been expanded to include 

firms that could be an importer under 

CBP’s definition. Consequently, customs 

brokers are not the only entity that can 

certify. They can, however, assume that 

responsibility as a service provided to 

clients if they choose. Moreover, the 

Product Registry will allow importers to 

store certificate data for repeated 

imports of the same product, which will 

lessen the burden of preparing 

certificates. 

Because entry filing most often occurs 

in advance of a shipment’s arrival, 

adding a PGA Message Set with entry or 

entry summary will not impede the 

movement of a shipment, so 

warehousing costs and delivery times 

should not be impacted. Finally, CBP 

will not accept large amounts of data in 

PDF format, because it is difficult to 

store and search or manipulate. Since 

2013, CBP and CPSC have built and 

demonstrated the necessary 

infrastructure to receive entry data and 

associated PGA Message Set data, which 

has been successfully tested and will be 

further developed through the Beta 

Pilot, making PDF submission 

outmoded. 

Comment 11: A commenter (C39) 

stated that if the Commission changes 

who is responsible for issuing 

certificates from a domestic 

manufacturer to a private labeler, 

private labelers such as retailers who are 

removed from the manufacturing 

process would be required to establish 

compliance programs to exercise due 

diligence over domestic manufacturers. 

The commenter stated that such 

programs will impose new burdens on 

the supply chain, increase end-use 

consumer prices, and have a potential 

negative impact on interstate commerce, 

costs for which are not accounted for in 

the proposed rule. The commenter also 

asserted that the Commission should 

not change the requirement of who must 

issue a certificate from the manufacturer 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85767 

to the private labeler for domestically 

produced products, because CPSC has 

not identified a rational basis for the 

change. Another commenter (C14) 

asserted that often the importer or 

private labeler does not know the actual 

manufacturer. Commenter (C49) stated 

that burden will increase for small 

manufacturers, because the same 

material will be tested by multiple 

private labelers. Similarly, commenter 

(C4) stated that burden will increase for 

their firm, because the commenter does 

not know whether their end customer 

will use their manufactured products for 

children’s products. 

Response 11: Private labelers who do 

not want to test and certify can contract 

with their manufacturers to ensure that 

the products they are responsible for 

introducing into commerce are 

compliant with all applicable consumer 

product safety rules and meet testing 

and certification requirements. For 

enforcement purposes, the NPR 

proposed to require either the domestic 

manufacturer or the private labeler to 

issue the certificate, because no other 

party would have the necessary 

knowledge of the product to be able to 

certify. This SNPR retains the language 

in proposed § 1110.7(b) of the 2013 

NPR. 

Comment 12: Commenters (C44, C82) 

noted that the United States Postal 

Service (USPS) does not act as the IOR 

for mail shipments and cannot be held 

responsible for issuing certificate 

information. Due to that, the 

commenters asked how the proposed 

rule will govern mail operations and 

what party would issue the certificate. 

Response 12: While the SNPR’s 

proposed definition of importer in 

§ 1110.3(b) does not include the USPS, 

the definition does include several 

parties who could be considered the 

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

SNPR would require certificates for 

international mail shipments to be 

entered in the Product Registry before 

the product arrives in the United States. 

Under the proposed definition of 

‘‘importer,’’ either the U.S.-based firm 

receiving the shipment or the foreign 

firm that sent the shipment could be 

considered the importer. Staff 

recommends that only one of those 

firms enter certificate data into the 

Product Registry and attest to the 

accuracy of the information, preferably 

the U.S.-based firm so that the certifier 

can be more easily contacted. 

Comment 13: Several commenters 

(C33, C38, C45, C52, C74) urged that 

recertification not be required for each 

batch of a product if there has not been 

a material change to the product. The 

commenters also suggested that if the 

certificate scope is allowed to cover 

several years of production, then the 

burden on the manufacturer will be 

greatly reduced. 

Response 13: For regulated children’s 

products, certifiers are required to 

follow testing and certification 

requirements as described in 16 CFR 

parts 1107 and 1110. Part 1107 requires 

three types of testing for children’s 

products: initial certification testing; 

periodic testing; and material change 

testing. Children’s product certificates 

must be updated after periodic and 

material change testing, because when 

new testing is conducted, the 

information on the certificate, namely 

the testing date, will have changed. This 

SNPR does not change any of these 

requirements. 

Non-children’s products are required 

to meet part 1110, meaning that each 

product must be compliant based on a 

test of each product or a reasonable 

testing program, and must remain 

compliant. CPSC recommends, but does 

not require, that non-children’s 

products also be periodically tested 

(most companies do so yearly) and retested when there is a material change 

in the products’ design or manufacture 

that could affect compliance. Again, the 

SNPR does not propose to change these 

requirements. 

D. Section 1110.9—Certificate Language 

and Format 

Comment 14: Many commenters (C7, 

C10, C11, C13, C17, C31, C35, C36, C39, 

C41, C42, C43, C45, C46, C47, C50, C56, 

C60) opposed proposed revisions to 

§ 1110.09(c) in the 2013 NPR, which 

provided that an electronic certificate 

must be accessible ‘‘without password 

protection, to the Commission, CBP, 

distributors, and retailers.’’ Several 

commenters stated that preventing 

password protection for delivery of 

certificates to distributors and retailers 

would constitute a disclosure of 

proprietary information, which would 

be in violation of section 6(a) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2055(a). Other 

commenters similarly expressed 

concern that the lack of password 

protection would allow fraudulent 

companies to falsify certificates and 

competitors to access commercial 

secrets. 

Response 14: In light of the comments 

received, the SNPR does not propose to 

prohibit password protection but rather 

leaves this issue for resolution between 

certifiers and their retailers and 

distributers. To date, in the absence of 

a prohibition on password protection, 

no retailer or distributor has complained 

to the Commission that they do not have 

access to certificate data. 

E. Section 1110.11—Certificate Content 

Comment 15: Several commenters 

(C39, C64, C78) stated that the proposed 

certificate data elements to be collected 

at import are ‘‘unclear,’’ ‘‘unobtainable,’’ 

and ‘‘unnecessary’’ and question the 

utility of the data elements in enhancing 

CPSC’s risk assessment. These 

commenters further stated that CPSC 

should work with stakeholders to 

identify necessary data elements to limit 

industry’s burden. Commenters (C64, 

C78) expressed that CPSC should not 

collect duplicative information already 

provided on CBP entry forms. 

Response 15: Section 14(g) of the 

CPSA sets forth the minimum 

requirements for certificates and 

provides CPSC with the authority to add 

more requirements through rulemaking. 

As described in section II.D.2 of this 

preamble, CPSC previously conducted a 

Certificate Study in 2017 and found that 

several data elements indicate a higher 

risk of a noncompliant, hazardous 

product. Staff advises that the data 

elements proposed in the SNPR are 

necessary to match the certificate to the 

product being examined and to enhance 

CPSC’s risk assessment, and are not 

duplicative of information already 

provided on CBP entry forms. If CPSC 

required eFiling of only a subset of the 

data elements for a certificate, importers 

would have the burden to maintain two 

sets of certificate data. 

Comment 16: One commenter (C78) 

expressed that the proposed required 

description of the product is duplicative 

of the information provided by the HTS 

code and the quantity of units. 

Response 16: HTS codes are typically 

very broad and will contain multiple 

products under one code. For example, 

9403.20.0017 contains ‘‘Toddler beds, 

bassinets, cradles, play yards and other 

enclosures for confining children’’ made 

of metal. The code alone does not 

necessarily indicate which product a 

certificate would reference. Instead, the 

SNPR proposes that the certifier provide 

at least one specified unique identifier, 

as well as a sufficient description, to 

match the finished products to the 

certificate. 

Comment 17: Commenter C9 

suggested that CPSC allow the use of 

other product identifiers, such as a GS1 

Global Trade Item Number (GTIN), to be 

used as an identifier of products 

covered by a certificate. The commenter 

stated that the use of this bar code 

system with the electronic certificate 

will allow industry to use the same 

information currently on their products 

and minimize the cost of compliance. 

Response 17: A GTIN provides useful 

information for product identification. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85768 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Accordingly, the SNPR proposes to 

allow it as one of up to five product 

identifiers on a certificate: GTIN, model 

number, serial number, Stock Keeping 

Unit (SKU), or Universal Product Code 

(UPC). CPSC is developing capabilities 

to retrieve the required certificate data 

from the Global Data Synchronization 

Network (GDSN). 

Comment 18: Several commenters 

(C24, C45, C46, C47, C50) expressed 

confusion regarding the date of initial 

certification and requested clarification 

as to how it differs from other dates, 

including the date of manufacture. A 

few commenters believe this data 

element is unnecessary. 

Response 18: After considering the 

comments and enforcement efforts, the 

SNPR does not propose to include a 

separate date of initial certification. 

Analysis of certificates demonstrates 

that the date of manufacture and the 

date of testing, required by section 14(g) 

of the CPSA, and the date of entry, are 

sufficient to meet the statutory 

requirements as well as for CPSC’s risk 

assessment. 

Comment 19: Several commenters 

(C38, C45, C47, C51, C78, C80) opposed 

the 2013 NPR’s proposal to require an 

indication of the scope of products 

covered by the certificate, claiming it to 

be difficult to determine. 

Response 19: After considering the 

comments and gaining additional 

experience through the development of 

eFiling, CPSC does not include in the 

SNPR a new data element for the scope 

of products covered by the certificate. 

Instead, CPSC will rely on the product 

description and other identifiers on the 

certificate, along with CBP’s entry data, 

to match a finished product to the 

certificate. 

Comment 20: Several commenters 

(C38, C46, C49, C78) questioned the 

value of including a list of all applicable 

consumer product safety rules for 

CPSC’s targeting efforts and does not 

believe that inclusion of this 

information is warranted. Another 

commenter (C47) stated that listing the 

consumer product safety rules is 

redundant, because the test reports 

already include this list. 

Response 20: Section 14(a)(1)(B) of 

the CPSA requires that each rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation applicable to the 

product be specified on the certificate. 

Staff advises that the list of all 

applicable rules is a critical data 

element for CPSC’s risk assessment and 

targeting efforts. Although the list also 

is on test reports, test report data 

elements are not filed in a PGA Message 

Set, so that information is not in an 

electronic format for CPSC’s use within 

the RAM. CPSC maintains a list of rules 

that require testing and certification on 

the agency’s website, and the list will 

also be maintained in the Product 

Registry. Standardizing this information 

in the Product Registry and for the Full 

PGA Message Set will allow CPSC to 

target shipments using the rules listed 

on a certificate. For example, CPSC can 

compare the list of rules with the 

product information and identification 

of the testing laboratory to validate that 

the product was tested to the expected 

rules and that the named laboratory is 

accredited to conduct such tests. 

Accordingly, the SNPR retains the 

requirement to provide the list of rules 

for which a product is subject. 

Comment 21: One commenter (C78) 

stated that requesting the certifying 

party’s name, mailing address, email, 

address, and telephone number is 

redundant, because the IOR is already 

provided in the Customs entry 

documents. 

Response 21: Section 14(g)(1) requires 

that ‘‘every certificate required under 

this section shall identify the 

manufacturer or private labeler issuing 

the certificate.’’ The certifying party’s 

name, mailing address, email address, 

and telephone number are necessary for 

CPSC to appropriately identify and 

contact the responsible party. 

Furthermore, the IOR provided on the 

CBP entry documents may not always 

be the correct certifying party under the 

SNPR proposal. In some cases, the IOR 

is the customs broker or express carrier 

facilitating importation and 

transmission of the data, which may not 

be the importer for purposes of 

certification. 

Comment 22: Two commenters (C21, 

C45) stated that it is preferable to 

provide generic contact information for 

the record custodian, rather than a 

specific person’s contact information, 

because it would be unreasonable for a 

single person to provide coverage for 

every potential problem on a certificate. 

Another commenter (C82) stated that 

CPSC should not collect data that is 

unlikely to determine compliance, like 

the record custodian contact 

information. 

Response 22: Section 14(g)(1) requires 

that the certificate contain the ‘‘contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results.’’ Accordingly, the SNPR 

proposes to retain this data element. 

However, we agree with the commenters 

that generic contact information is 

acceptable, as long as the generic email 

address and telephone number is 

actively monitored by a knowledgeable 

person and the certifying firm is 

responsive within 24 hours of CPSC’s 

initial contact. 

Comment 23: Multiple commenters 

(C36, C37, C42, C47, C51, C76, C78) 

opposed including the name and 

address of the manufacturer, finding 

this data element unnecessary and 

duplicative, because country of origin 

and foreign factory information are 

already provided on the entry 

documents. Other commenters (C10, 

C13, C26, C43, C49) asked CPSC to 

remove the requirement for a street 

address if the street address is 

unavailable. Additionally, three 

commenters (C43, C46, C78) found this 

data element too burdensome for 

importers to manually enter, as well as 

too granular for CPSC’s use. 

Response 23: Section 14(g) of the 

CPSA requires every certificate to 

contain the date and place of 

manufacture, and to provide the full 

mailing address for each party, which 

includes a manufacturer. Additionally, 

section 16(c) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2065(c), requires disclosure of the 

identity of the manufacturer of a 

product by name, address, or such other 

identifying information as the CPSC 

officer or employee may request, to the 

extent that such information is known 

or can be readily determined. 

Accordingly, we interpret the place of 

manufacture to include the full address 

(including manufacturer name; street; 

city; state or province; and country or 

administrative region). Being able to 

accurately identify the manufacturer of 

the finished product with a street 

address is necessary for effective risk 

assessment and targeting. Indeed, in 

2017 staff found in its Certificate Study 

that the manufacturer city is a data 

element that can be associated with a 

higher risk of a hazardous product. 

If the street address is unavailable, 

then the certifier should provide a 

detailed location, consistent with the 

manufacturer country’s mailing address 

standard. The address must be sufficient 

to describe the specific location where 

CPSC can send correspondence or 

inspect the facility. Certifiers can use 

different methods to provide this 

information. For example, if using the 

Product Registry, the manufacturer’s 

name and address will be saved with a 

user-generated ID under the certifier’s 

business account, so that it can be easily 

referenced when creating future 

certificates. 

Comment 24: One commenter (C56) 

asked for clarification whether all 

suppliers must be listed on the 

certificate. 

Response 24: Consistent with section 

3(a)(10) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(10), the manufacturer that must 

be listed on the certificate is the entity 

responsible for manufacturing, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85769 

producing, or assembling the finished 

product (or component part if issuing a 

component part certificate). This is 

clarified in proposed § 1110.11 of the 

SNPR. 

Comment 25: A few commenters (C38, 

C45, C49, C51, C59) stated that 

providing the date of manufacture is 

redundant and burdensome, and should 

not be included. 

Response 25: Section 14(g) requires 

every certificate to contain the date of 

manufacture. The 2017 Certificate Study 

demonstrated that date of manufacture, 

when compared to the date of testing, 

assists CPSC in determining 

compliance. CPSC is testing this data 

element in the eFiling Beta Pilot and 

retains this statutory date element in the 

SNPR. 

Comment 26: Many commenters 

opposed requiring the name of the 

manufacturer and the place of 

manufacturing, including the address, 

because this information is considered 

confidential business information or a 

trade secret. Commenters were 

concerned that providing this 

information on the certificate may result 

in dealers, retailers, and competitors 

bypassing them and dealing directly 

with the manufacturer, resulting in 

economic injury and competitive harm. 

One commenter (C33) stated that trade 

secrets are protected by federal and state 

law. 

Response 26: Section 14(g) provides 

the minimum data elements for 

certificates, which include the place and 

date of manufacture and ‘‘each party’s 

name, full mailing address, [and] 

telephone number.’’ Because this is a 

statutory requirement, certificates 

provided to CPSC must contain this 

information. Moreover, section 16(c) of 

the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2065(c), requires 

that upon request by a Commission 

officer or employee, every importer, 

retailer, or distributor of a consumer 

product or substance must identify the 

manufacturer and provide the name, 

address, or other identifying 

information. Thus, certifiers must 

supply manufacturer names and contact 

information to the Commission 

pursuant to sections 14 and 16 of the 

CPSA. CBP and CPSC will maintain 

business confidential data systems for 

eFiled certificates, which will be 

submitted directly to government 

systems with appropriate safeguards to 

secure the information. 

Comment 27: One commenter (C52) 

opposed the requirement for providing 

the manufacturer address for small 

businesses, because the address is often 

a home address and the commenter is 

concerned for the safety of the family. 

Response 27: Section 14(g) of the 

CPSA requires the place of manufacture 

to be provided on the certificate. 

Furthermore, for imported products, 

certificate data will be entered into a 

government system, which follow 

industry-standard data security 

protocols, for use by the Commission 

and CBP. Section 14(g) does not require 

certificate disclosure to the public and 

for any information requests, CPSC will 

follow the procedures set forth in 16 

CFR 1015. 

Comment 28: One commenter (C38) 

requested that CPSC retain the certifier’s 

ability to code information on a 

certificate as allowed on a permanent 

certification label for power mowers 

described in 16 CFR 1205.35(c). 

Additionally, the commenter 

recommended that the allowance for the 

addition of a website address to the 

certificate, which can be used by 

consumers or CPSC to request 

additional, nonproprietary information. 

Response 28: Section 1205.35 of the 

power mower rule, issued in 1979, 

requires a reasonable testing program 

and a five-data point certificate label 

that is on the product and visible to the 

consumer. The information on this label 

is allowed to be coded. 16 CFR 

1205.35(c). In 2008, however, Congress 

revised certificate requirements in 

section 14 of the CPSA for all regulated 

products; manufacturers of power 

mowers now must meet the 

requirements in part 1205, and also 

sections 14(a) and 14(g) as implemented 

through part 1110. The on-product 

certificate label requirement thus 

remains, but the SNPR would require an 

additional two-year record keeping 

requirement, several additional data 

elements for both domestic and foreignmanufactured product certificates, and 

an eFiled certificate for imported power 

mowers. Codes created by individual 

companies will not be allowed on 

eFiled certificates. The SNPR includes 

in proposed § 1110.11(b) the ability to 

add to the certificates a website address 

and other information (such as testing). 

Comment 29: One commenter (C34) 

objected to providing contact 

information for CPSC-accepted 

laboratories on CPCs, because CPSC 

already has that information. 

Response 29: The Product Registry 

will contain a list of CPSC-accepted 

third party laboratories for each 

regulation. If using a Full PGA Message 

Set, certifiers can reference the third 

party laboratory using a four-digit code 

that CPSC will maintain, along with 

contact information for CPSC-accepted 

third party laboratories. Certifiers need 

only provide contact information for 

other testing laboratories and for 

domestically manufactured products. 

Comment 30: Several commenters 

(C21, C32, C36, C40, C47, C50, C78) 

objected to the requirement for an 

attestation as proposed in § 1110.11 

(a)(10) of the 2013 NPR and 

recommended removing this section 

from the rule. For example, commenter 

C21 opined that the attestation will 

make the certificate ‘busy’ and adds 

little value, because certifiers will add 

the language even if they do not follow 

the rules. This commenter further stated 

that certifiers in compliance with 16 

CFR part 1110 understand their 

obligations and the gravity of providing 

the certificate and suggested that the 

Commission clearly state the certifier’s 

obligations in the regulation, which 

would provide ‘‘a tacit attestation.’’ 

Two commenters (C32, C50) stated 

that the attestation requirement is not 

authorized by section 14(g) of the CPSA 

and has no legal significance, because 

the obligation to submit truthful 

information to the government is 

already applicable under current law. 

Commenter (C40) noted that the 

‘‘capacity for human error on a 

certificate is not trivial’’ and suggested 

that CPSC clarify that the individual is 

not liable for attesting to the accuracy of 

the certificate. This commenter 

suggested withdrawing this requirement 

and adding a statement that firms which 

demonstrate the existence of a 

compliance plan ‘‘administered in 

accordance with 16 CFR parts 1107 and 

1109 will not be found to have reason 

to know that a certificate is false or 

misleading.’’ 

Response 30: Section 14(g) sets forth 

the minimum data elements for the 

certificate; CPSC has authority to add 

data elements through rulemaking. An 

attestation helps to ensure the 

responsibility of the certifying party to 

know what they are certifying on behalf 

of the firm, and the firm’s liability for 

a false certification. In addition, to 

specifically acknowledge the ‘‘capacity 

of human error,’’ the SNPR’s attestation 

language states that ‘‘the information in 

this certificate is true and accurate to 

the best of my knowledge, information, 

and belief.’’ 

Regarding burden, any certifier using 

the Product Registry will have only one 

click to accept the attestation and will 

have the option for bulk attestation. Any 

certifier using the Full Message Set will 

only have one additional field for the 

attestation. CPSC is testing this 

attestation in the eFiling Beta Pilot. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85770 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

F. Section 1110.13—Certificate 

Availability 

Comment 31: Commenters (C12, C20, 

C23, C26, C28, C36, C42, C46, C47, C49, 

C55, C64, C71, C74, C81) suggested that 

CPSC should retain the current ‘‘ondemand’’ certification system. 

Commenter (C2) states that retaining the 

ability to satisfy the certificate 

requirement by presenting certificates 

upon request or in a password protected 

website is preferable to the proposed 

changes. Other commenters (C3, C81) 

stated that CPSC’s proposal to require 

electronic filing of certificates of 

compliance for regulated imported 

consumer products with CBP at the time 

of filing the entry or entry summary 

contravenes the CPSIA, which calls for 

GCCs to be submitted ‘‘upon request,’’ 

suggesting that GCCs need not be 

submitted with each shipment. 

Response 31: Section 14(g)(3) of the 

CPSA establishes several requirements 

regarding the availability of certificates, 

which must: ‘‘accompany the applicable 

product or shipment of products 

covered by the same certificate’’; be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product; and be furnished to the 

Commission upon request. 

Additionally, section 14(g)(4) 

specifically provides that the 

Commission can, by rule, require 

eFiling of certificates for imported 

consumer products. 

Certificates that are collected on an ad 

hoc basis, either as a hard-copy or a PDF 

copy via email, are not in a data-usable 

format that can be processed into 

CPSC’s RAM and risk scored. To 

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

proposed § 1110.13 of the SNPR 

requires the eFiling of all certificates for 

regulated imported finished products, 

including CPCs and GCCs, at the time of 

filing entry or entry summary, if both 

entry and entry summary are filed 

together. CPSC intends to use certificate 

data to risk score shipments and enforce 

its statutes and regulations. If this rule 

is finalized, an eFiled certificate would 

meet the ‘‘accompany’’ requirement in 

section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA and the 

requirement in proposed § 1110.13(a). 

Comment 32: Several commenters 

(C7, C18, C20, C21, C47, C60, C66, C71) 

suggested that there should be alternate 

ways to submit certificate data, such as 

a URL, to reduce burden. Another 

commenter (C32) agreed with proposed 

§ 1110.0(c)’s allowance of electronic 

certificates in multiple forms, suggesting 

that CPSC also allow a Quick Response 

(QR) code as an acceptable means of 

providing access to an electronic 

certificate. Additionally, several 

commenters (C2, C21, C71, C74) stated 

that they will have to submit the same 

certificates more than once because of 

the electronic and hard copy 

requirements. 

Response 32: The SNPR clarifies in 

§ 1110.9(b) that a hard copy or an 

electronic certificate meets the 

requirements described in § 1110.13(b), 

to furnish a certificate to each 

distributor or retailer, and in 

§ 1110.13(c) to provide a certificate for 

inspection upon request by CPSC or 

CBP. 

However, the SNPR would require 

that for imported consumer products to 

meet the ‘‘accompany’’ requirement in 

section 14(g) of the CPSA, certificate 

data elements must be eFiled with CBP 

using a PGA Message Set at the time of 

entry or entry summary. Certifiers will 

have several means to provide 

certificate data to CPSC for regulated 

products, including a Product Registry 

with a Reference PGA Message Set, and 

a Full PGA Message Set. CPSC may still 

ask for a certificate, however, for 

domestically manufactured products 

and as otherwise allowed by the statute, 

to verify eFiled certificate data, or for 

other purposes. Certificates for 

domestically manufactured products 

can still be provided through email or 

a URL. A QR code would be an 

acceptable means of providing access to 

an electronic certificate, pursuant to 

proposed § 1110.9(c), but would not 

meet the requirement for an eFiled 

certificate as proposed in § 1110.13(a). 

Finally, to address burden, CPSC 

created a Product Registry to allow 

certifiers to submit certificate data once 

upon importation, and thereafter to use 

a reference PGA Message Set to identify 

the certificate data already entered in 

the Product Registry each time products 

covered by that certificate are imported. 

Comment 33: A commenter (C45) 

stated that a requirement for a unique 

identifier to be ‘‘identified prominently 

on the finished product, shipping 

carton, or invoice’’ would potentially 

crowd an occupied area on product 

labels. Another commenter (C35) stated 

that an overt display of a unique 

identifier is unnecessary and may be 

duplicative. 

Response 33: The electronic 

certificate data may not be easily 

accessible to retailers and distributors, 

and to CBP or CPSC upon request, if the 

unique identifier is not ‘‘identified 

prominently.’’ Accordingly, the SNPR 

proposes to maintain the requirements 

for prominence for certifiers that choose 

to use electronic forms of a certificate. 

We seek comment, however, on whether 

the prominence of an electronically 

available certificate on an invoice or 

shipping container is still important and 

appropriate to address in the final rule. 

Comment 34: Commenters (C40, C74) 

suggested that CPSC interpret 

‘‘accompany’’ to mean eFiling of the 

certificate with CBP, or a certificate with 

electronic access to distributors and 

retailers. The commenters also stated 

that an additional physical certificate is 

not necessary. 

Response 34: The SNPR clarifies in 

proposed § 1110.13(a) that an eFiled 

certificate (filed in ACE using a PGA 

Message Set) meets the ‘‘accompany’’ 

requirement. Furthermore, proposed 

§ 1110.9(c) clarifies that because an 

electronic certificate meets the 

‘‘furnishing’’ and ‘‘availability’’ 

requirements in §§ 1110.13(b) and (c), 

respectively, a physical copy of the 

certificate meets the same requirements. 

Comment 35: Several Commenters 

(C10, C13, C26, C31, C37, C43) stated 

that the current system of allowing 

certifiers to furnish certificates to 

distributors and retailers through ‘‘grant 

of reasonable access’’ or ‘‘on demand’’ 

should be maintained, instead of 

requiring they be made available for 

each shipment. One commenter (C47) 

stated that if certificates are furnished to 

retailers, CPSC should not dictate the 

method for how it is done. Other 

commenters (C10, C42) stated that the 

change will be a ‘‘costly shift’’ from the 

current regulation and result in the 

hiring of additional staff. 

Response 35: Section 14(g)(3) of the 

CPSA requires that ‘‘a copy of the 

certificate shall be furnished to each 

distributor and retailer of the product.’’ 

This differs from the requirement in the 

same section, stating that ‘‘every 

certificate . . . shall accompany the 

appliable product or shipment of 

products covered by the same 

certificate,’’ and from the eFile authority 

in section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA. The 

SNPR would require certificates for 

imported consumer products to be 

eFiled using one of two methods 

described in section II.D.4 of this 

preamble. Otherwise, the SNPR does not 

dictate how a certificate must be 

furnished to each distributor and 

retailer; electronic certificates for these 

purposes are allowed, but not required. 

Comment 36: A commenter (C38) 

suggested that CPSC clarify that a 

domestically manufactured product is 

not required to be accompanied by a 

certificate. Another commenter (C52) 

recommended that small batch 

manufacturers be treated like domestic 

manufacturers in that their certificates 

need not be submitted to CPSC until the 

products enter commerce. 

Response 36: Consistent with the 

existing 1110 rule, the SNPR requires 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85771 

that certificates for domestically 

manufactured products be issued before 

a product is introduced into commerce, 

and made available to CPSC upon 

request, either in hard copy or through 

electronic means. Small batch 

manufacturers can receive testing relief 

through a program described on CPSC’s 

website (see response to Comment 5). 

Unless entitled to relief through that 

program, small batch manufacturers 

must issue certificates and meet the 

certificate availability requirements that 

apply to all domestic or imported 

consumer products. 

G. Section 1110.17—Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

Comment 37: Commenter C35 stated 

that the NPR provides no rationale for 

the proposed requirement that GCCs 

and supporting records be maintained 

for five years. The commenter stated 

that this new requirement is confusing 

and will not improve product safety, 

because a three-year record retention 

already is mandated in some existing 

CPSC safety standards. Commenter C14, 

in contrast, noted that companies 

already keep customs entry records for 

five years or longer, and thus has no 

objection to the proposed increased 

retention time for GCCs. 

Response 37: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

2462, the statute of limitations to litigate 

a civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture for a 

consumer product safety violation is 

five years. Commenter C14 is correct 

that customs entry records must be 

maintained for five years (see 19 CFR 

163.4). Additionally, 16 CFR 1107.26(b) 

and 16 CFR 1109.5(j) have five-year 

record retention requirements. To be 

consistent with these record retention 

periods and the statute of limitations, 

the SNPR retains the proposed 

requirement that GCCs and supporting 

records be maintained for five years. We 

note that CBP recordkeeping 

requirements may differ from CPSC 

requirements, depending on the 

commodity and the circumstances of 

entry filing. 

H. Section 1110.19—Component Part 

Certificates 

Comment 38: Several commenters 

(C23, C35, C36, C38, C40, C47, C49, 

C50, C56, C71, C80) expressed 

confusion regarding the difference 

between certificates for component 

parts, for finished products, and for 

replacement parts of consumer 

products. 

Response 38: Proposed § 1110.3(b) 

defines ‘‘component part’’ as a product 

or substance that is intended to be used 

in the manufacture or assembly of a 

finished product, and is not intended 

for sale to, or use by, consumers as a 

finished product. The SNPR defines a 

‘‘finished product’’ as a product or 

substance that is ‘‘regulated by the 

Commission that is imported for 

consumption or warehousing or is 

distributed in commerce.’’ The SNPR 

definition explains that parts of such 

products or substances, including 

replacement parts, that are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, or are 

distributed in commerce, and that are 

packaged, sold, or held for sale to, or 

use by, consumers, are considered 

finished products. 

Only finished products subject to a 

rule must be tested and certified. 

Component part certificates are 

voluntary and are not required to 

accompany an imported component 

part, are not required to be furnished to 

retailers and distributors (as described 

in proposed § 1110.13(b)), and are not to 

be eFiled. 

Not all replacement parts are finished 

products that require testing and 

certification. A replacement part of a 

consumer product that meets the 

definition of a finished product may be 

subject to part 1110, if the replacement 

part is subject to a rule. For example, a 

handlebar stem for a bicycle that is sold 

to consumers as a replacement part 

requires a certificate, because handlebar 

stems, either as a stand-alone product or 

as part of a finished bicycle, must be 

tested for strength in accordance with 

16 CFR 1512.18(g). Additionally, parts 

of toys, such as doll accessories, that are 

sold to consumers as a separate finished 

product, must comply with all 

applicable rules, including for example 

lead in paint and/or lead content. If the 

same doll accessories were imported for 

manufacturing purposes and not for 

consumption or warehousing, and were 

intended to be combined with a doll for 

sale, then such accessories would not be 

a finished product required to be 

certified until they are part of a finished 

product. 

Comment 39: Two commenters (C22, 

C38) objected to the requirement to 

certify replacement parts for products 

with many replaceable items, such as 

ATVs and walk-behind power mowers, 

which commenters allege will result in 

an increase to the overall burden that 

was not included in the burden estimate 

for the NPR. Commenter C22 stated that 

most replacement parts do not have 

serial numbers and needing to track 

each part will result in a tremendous 

logistical challenge. Additionally, the 

same commenter claimed that the 

proposed rule will expand the 

definition of finished products and 

apply it to replacement parts, which do 

not have their own safety standard. 

Response 39: As explained in 

response to comment 38, product parts 

that are unregulated by CPSC and not 

sold to consumers, but are instead 

intended to be used in manufacturing a 

consumer product, are not required to 

be tested and certified. To be subject to 

testing and certification under section 

14 of the CPSA and part 1110, a product 

must be a finished product, as defined 

in proposed § 1110.3(b), that is subject 

to one or more regulations. 

Comment 40: Two commenters (C49, 

C52) suggested that certification 

requirements specifically include ‘‘retail 

component parts.’’ The commenter 

defines these as component parts 

purchased at a retail establishment, 

which would be primarily purchased by 

handmade toy makers and small 

businesses. The commenter suggested 

that certificates for ‘‘retail component 

parts’’ be voluntary. 

Response 40: Component parts of a 

toy, such as doll clothing or accessories, 

are finished products when sold to 

consumers. If such finished products are 

subject to a regulation, section 14 of the 

CPSA requires that they be tested and 

certified. Accordingly, although the 

SNPR does not contain a separate 

definition for ‘‘retail component parts,’’ 

the definition of ‘‘finished product’’ in 

proposed section § 1110.3(b) would 

include these products. 

eFiling System and eFiling Pilots 

I. CBP’s IT Infrastructure 

Comment 41: Numerous commenters 

were concerned in 2013 that CBP 

systems then lacked the ability to accept 

electronic certificates in any format. For 

example, numerous commenters were 

concerned that CBP’s system did not 

have the capacity to upload PDF/ 

electronic files. Commenters advised 

that CPSC should wait and work with 

CBP to fully develop the International 

Trade Data System (ITDS), which would 

allow the direct submission of 

certificates via ACE. 

Response 41: As described in sections 

II.C and II.D.4 of this preamble, CPSC 

and CBP have established the 

technology infrastructure to meet the 

requirements of eFiling. CPSC and CBP 

conducted an initial eFiling pilot, the 

Alpha Pilot, in 2016–17 that used the 

PGA Message Set to transmit certificate 

data to CPSC’s RAM for risk assessment. 

CPSC and CBP are currently conducting 

an eFiling Beta Pilot with importers and 

their customs brokers, to further test 

eFiling certificate data. 

Comment 42: Commenter C71 stated 

that CPSC should allow companies to 

use barcodes to upload certificate data. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85772 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

15Children’s product rules requiring testing and 

certification: https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-- 

Manufacturing/Testing-Certification/LabAccreditation/Rules-Requiring-Third-Party-Testing. 

16Non-Children’s product rules requiring testing 

and certification: https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-- 

Manufacturing/Testing-Certification/LabAccreditation/Rules-Requiring-a-GeneralCertificate-of-Conformity. 

17https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?

src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpsc.gov%2Fs3fspublic%2FBetaPilotCitationandExemptionCodesv

2Cleared_0.xlsx%3FVersionId%3D_

Cv6CJDAJ0u8UiigH9CNgQy1ax3b4G.b&

wdOrigin=BROWSELINK. 

Response 42: CBP’s PGA Message Set 

data structure does not allow for a bar 

code to upload PGA data. However, the 

SNPR would allow use of a GTIN (in 

numeric format), which is typically 

displayed on consumer products in 

barcode format, as part of the data 

element to describe the consumer 

product in proposed § 1110.11(a)(1). 

Comment 43: Several commenters 

(C15, C16, C20, C21, C31, C36, C40, 

C55, C64) stated that because CPSC does 

not have the infrastructure to review 

uploaded PDF certificates from CBP and 

neither agency is staffed for eFiling, the 

new reporting requirements will slow 

the entry clearance process during peak 

import seasons, which can result in 

increased local storage capacity and 

irregular deliveries. 

Response 43: As described in section 

II.D of this preamble, certificate data 

would be submitted to CBP as data 

elements and seamlessly incorporated 

into CPSC’s RAM for risk analysis using 

algorithms. If the RAM algorithm 

increases the risk score for a shipment 

based on certificate data, staff can 

identify the shipment for examination, 

and will also be able to review the 

certificate data for each shipment, along 

with entry documents. 

Because CBP is now capable of 

accepting certificate data elements via 

ACE, the entry clearance process will 

not be slowed. In fact, CPSC expects 

that certifiers who provide consistent 

and accurate certificate data will see a 

reduction in their shipments’ risk 

scores, which would lower the chance 

of a hold for exam. Thus, CPSC expects 

that eFiling will facilitate compliant 

trade. 

Comment 44: Commenters (C12, C14, 

C20, C28, C44, C47, C64, C72, C76) 

stated that it is essential that CPSC’s 

electronic certificate filing requirement 

reflect the complexity of the 

international supply chain, including 

different modes of transportation, and 

can process the large amounts of data it 

will receive, so as not to delay the 

delivery of goods. One commenter (C12) 

claimed that filing 24 hours prior to 

entry is unrealistic, because many 

imported products will require multiple 

certificates. Commenter C28 stated that 

the NPR’s alternative option of allowing, 

rather than requiring eFiling, would be 

sufficient for effective targeting and the 

added benefits of requiring electronic 

filing of certificates will not outweigh 

the burden on importers. 

Response 44: As described in section 

II.D of this preamble, certifiers will have 

multiple means of eFiling certificates 

that address the commenters’ concerns, 

including using a CPSC-managed 

Product Registry to enter and maintain 

certificate data. At entry, certifiers can 

reference a certificate in the Product 

Registry whenever the product is 

imported. Regardless of the mode of 

shipment, importers can reference a preexisting data set when submitting a PGA 

Message Set. Importers can also choose 

to eFile all data elements each time a 

product is imported. Companies or 

brokers also can maintain their own 

product registries, and eFile the same 

data set multiple times to improve 

efficiency. CBP’s systems can accept the 

certificate data, including multiple 

certificates for each entry line, up to 24 

hours before arrival, which is the 

timeframe specified in section 14(g)(4) 

of the CPSA. CBP and CPSC have 

already tested this capability in the 

eFiling Alpha Pilot and are testing it 

again now in the eFiling Beta Pilot. 

Finally, as stated in section II.D.2 of 

this preamble, CPSC found an increased 

risk of a product safety violation for 

shipments without an accompanying 

certificate, as well as an increased risk 

with certain data elements. Thus, 

voluntary filing of certificates is not an 

effective way for CPSC to enforce the 

certificate requirement or to identify 

violative products. Importers of 

noncompliant products are less likely to 

file certificates if eFiling is not required. 

Comment 45: Several commenters 

(C15, C18, C20, C66) suggested that 

CPSC and/or CBP should notify 

companies regarding which HTS codes 

and associated shipments require 

certificates. 

Response 45: Importers are 

responsible for knowing whether the 

products they import are required to be 

tested and certified before entering the 

United States. A list of all regulated 

products covered by the 2013 NPR and 

this SNPR, for both children’s 

products 15 and non-children’s 

products,16 is maintained on CPSC’s 

website. For importers using the 

Product Registry, this information is 

maintained in the software as well. For 

importers that want to eFile using a Full 

PGA Message Set, the list of regulations 

and associated codes is also stored on 

CPSC’s website.17

CBP will inform filers when a 

certificate may be expected with their 

entry based on the associated HTS code. 

For the Beta Pilot, CPSC created a 

publicly available list of HTS codes, 

maintained on CPSC’s website 

(available at https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

eFiling), which gives HTS codes for 

regulated consumer products within 

CPSC’s jurisdiction. CBP and CPSC will 

use these codes to inform importers 

regarding the potential for having to file 

a certificate. CPSC has also developed 

CBP Customs and Trade Automated 

Interface Requirements (CATAIR) 

explaining how to file both Reference 

and Full PGA Message Sets that use 

HTS Codes associated with products 

that could fall within CPSC’s certificate 

requirement. This CATAIR is available 

at www.cpsc.gov/eFiling, and is attached 

as Tab B to Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package. 

J. CPSC’s IT Infrastructure 

Comment 46: Commenter C18 

recommends using the ITDS and 

leveraging the automated process of 

receiving entry and entry summary 

information from CBP to eliminate 

paper-based processes. Commenter C45 

suggests having a ‘‘check box’’ stating 

that the importer has a certificate on 

file, as an alternative to filing the 

certificate. 

Response 46: CPSC currently uses 

ITDS as part of the RAM to screen 

shipments of consumer products 

intended for import into the United 

States, including consumer products 

potentially in violation of health and 

safety laws. eFiling will continue to use 

ITDS to receive certificate data. And, as 

stated in section II.D.4 of this preamble, 

to streamline data collection the eFiling 

system will have a Product Registry 

database maintained by CPSC. 

Data collection will be automated and 

streamlined, but will not rely on a 

‘‘check box’’ option to indicate that the 

importer has the required certificate, 

because a check box, without associated 

data, is insufficient for CPSC’s 

enforcement and targeting needs as 

described in section II.C of this 

preamble. 

Comment 47: Commenters (C19) 

suggested that CPSC contemplate a web 

portal, whereby the ‘‘Responsible Party’’ 

can file the electronic certificate data 

elements. The Commission could then 

evaluate the data elements for 

inspection targeting purposes. Similar 

comments were filed by several 

commenters (C7, C67, C71, C72, C78, 

C82), all of whom recommended the 

ability to file certificate data for 

products that could be used more than 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85773 

once, to minimize the burden of 

repeated data entry. 

Response 47: CPSC understands that 

a certificate database can be an efficient 

way to reduce burden. Accordingly, as 

described in sections II.D of this 

preamble, CPSC developed the 

suggested web portal, called the Product 

Registry, as part of the eFiling System. 

As contemplated by commenters, the 

Product Registry allows certifiers to 

electronically enter the certificate data 

elements for each regulated product 

once, and then submit a reference to this 

dataset each time the product is 

imported thereafter. 

K. eFiling Procedures, Pilots, and 

Stakeholder Engagement 

Comment 48: Several commenters 

(C23, C36, C47, C64, C79, C80, C81) 

objected to the implementation of the 

2013 NPR due to the lack of previous 

studies and pilots, and because the 2013 

NPR allegedly did not identify problems 

with the current system. Several 

commenters (C15, C19, C77, C78, C79) 

suggested that CPSC withdraw the 2013 

NPR until after the Commission 

addresses submitted comments. 

Commenters (C19, C46, C64, C77, C78) 

requested that CPSC engage with 

stakeholders more intensely to address 

various concerns related to the RAM, 

administrative and financial burdens, 

trade barriers, and streamlining the 

certificate process. 

Response 48: Please see the 

discussion in section II.D of this 

preamble regarding CPSC’s pilots and 

Certificate Study, stakeholder 

engagement, and how CPSC will use 

certificate data to target shipments 

containing noncompliant consumer 

products and substances. Section XI of 

Staff’s SNPR Briefing Package further 

details CPSC staff’s outreach and 

education activities relating to 

certificates and eFiling. 

Comment 49: In 2013 a commenter 

(C79) recommended at least 18 months 

before implementation of the eFiling 

requirement. 

Response 49: Based on developments 

since the 2013 NPR and experience in 

the Beta Pilot thus far, the SNPR 

proposes a 120-day effective date for a 

final rule and seeks public comment on 

this proposed effective date. 

Comment 50: A few commenters (C17, 

C64, C74, C75, C77) referenced 

Executive Order 13659, Streamlining 

the Export/Import Process for America’s 

Businesses, signed by President Obama 

on February 19, 2014, and CPSC’s role 

in and execution of the ‘‘Single 

Window’’ for imports and exports. 

These commenters suggested that CPSC 

work with either the Border Interagency 

Executive Council (BIEC) or Customs 

Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) 

to craft a rule that accommodates the 

needs of stakeholders. 

Response 50: CPSC actively 

collaborates with CBP regarding the 

‘‘Single Window’’ for imports and 

engages with the BIEC and with COAC. 

Throughout development of the eFiling 

program, CPSC has updated the BIEC 

and COAC at their regular meetings. 

CPSC also incorporates data from ITDS 

in its RAM for targeting and 

enforcement. CPSC also worked with 

CBP to develop the PGA Message Set, 

which is the means for certifiers to eFile 

certificate data. CPSC continues to work 

and consult with CBP on import 

surveillance issues, including the 

eFiling Alpha and Beta Pilots, and this 

rulemaking. 

Comment 51: Several commenters 

(C15, C39, C41, C64, C74, C81, C82) 

requested CPSC consider working with 

the CBP Importer Self-Assessment (ISA) 

or Customs-Trade Partnership Against 

Terrorism (CTPAT) programs to carve 

out eFiling exceptions for importers 

participating in these programs, who are 

currently considered ‘‘trusted traders.’’ 

These commenters proposed a specific 

exception for trusted traders from 

certificate filing ‘‘at-entry’’ and instead 

would have CPSC allow these traders to 

provide certificates ‘‘on-demand,’’ as 

they do today. One commenter (C15) 

suggested that CPSC should not require 

new data elements besides those already 

part of the ISA. 

Response 51: Because the 

requirements for CTPAT and other 

‘‘trusted trader’’ programs do not 

particularly relate to potential consumer 

product safety hazards, and CPSC 

historically has found product safety 

violations for CTPAT members, the 

SNPR does not provide an exemption 

for members of ‘‘trusted trader’’ 

programs. 

Comment 52: A commenter (C77) 

suggested that the CPSC establish a 

permanent stakeholder advisory group 

to regularize needed input into product 

safety issues of mutual importance. 

Response 52: While CPSC staff agrees 

there could be benefits from a 

stakeholder advisory group, the 

establishment of such a group is out of 

scope for this rulemaking. 

Comment 53: One commenter (C74) 

stated that CPSC should allow multiple 

products on one certificate. 

Response 53: The SNPR proposes that 

certificate data identify the finished 

product with a sufficient description to 

allow staff to identify the product in 

question. To reduce the potential for 

disrupting importation of compliant 

products that appear on the same 

certificate as a potentially noncompliant product, the SNPR proposes 

that each certificate contain information 

for only one product. If a product is 

materially different, meaning that it has 

a different product design, 

manufacturing process (including 

location), or source of component parts 

(including paints and materials) from 

another similar product, then each 

product should have a separate eFiled 

certificate. In other words, if a certifier 

expects that the difference in a product 

can affect compliance, then each 

product should have a separate eFiled 

certificate. For an explanation of what 

the Commission means by materially 

different products, see 16 CFR 1107.23. 

For example, wearing apparel is 

typically made of the same material and 

ships with various styles and sizes of 

similar products. Accordingly, the 

SNPR would allow multiple models that 

were composite tested together, so long 

as there is no material change, to be 

included on one certificate. CPSC will 

consider the multiple models as one 

product, which should be referenced by 

one ID in the Product Registry or the 

Full Message Set. For example, multiple 

styles, sizes, and colors of the same shirt 

can be on the same certificate, 

referenced by one ID, because the 

differences in styles, sizes, and colors 

are not considered a material change. 

Also, if a product is comprised of a 

bundle of finished products, importers 

can provide one certificate that covers 

all products in the bundle or multiple 

certificates covering each individual 

product in the bundle. 

Comment 54: One commenter (C26) 

expressed concern that units of a 

product may come from several 

different manufacturing or testing 

batches and, therefore, there may be 

several different certificates associated 

with the product. 

Response 54: A product that was 

manufactured in different test facilities 

or in several different batches and tested 

separately would likely require a 

separate certificate for each batch, 

depending on the materials used and 

timing of testing, because each batch 

would likely have different testing 

information. The certifier is responsible 

for keeping track of manufacturing 

processes, product batches, and 

associated testing and certification, as 

has been the case since 2008, when the 

existing 1110 rule was published. 

CPSC’s Product Registry is designed to 

assist certifiers in managing certificates 

for different products and product 

batches, where each certificate will be 

uniquely identified. 

Comment 55: Three commenters 

stated that requiring the electronic filing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85774 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

of certificates will not only result in 

burden for importers, but also increase 

burden for the government. One 

commenter (C35) predicted that the 

processing of millions of PDF 

certificates would be overly expensive 

and recommended that any new 

requirements be integrated into existing 

supply chain and import practices. A 

second commenter (C81) stated that 

processing times will increase and CBP 

will have to rely upon manual release 

for a huge number of entries, especially 

during peak season. A third commenter 

(C55) questioned whether CPSC and 

CBP will be able to handle shipments 

without certificates and how the 

information will be validated for 

accuracy. 

Response 55: CBP has been collecting 

electronic data for other partner 

government agencies since 2016. The 

increase in data collected, in the form of 

data elements, will not result in 

increased processing times, because the 

data will be electronically transmitted to 

CPSC and initially reviewed by 

algorithms in the RAM. CPSC has been 

co-located with CBP at ports across the 

country since 2008 and already 

processes shipments lacking 

accompanying certificates. CBP and 

CPSC will incorporate data quality 

checks into the PGA Message Set to 

validate the accuracy of the certificate 

data. 

Comment 56: Several commenters 

(C15, C20, C36, C74, C81) asked for 

clarity about what will happen if a 

certificate contains an error or is not 

provided at all. One commenter (C36) 

asked whether a violation occurs if the 

importer characterizes a CPC as a GCC 

or vice versa. Another commenter (C15) 

asked CPSC to articulate the impact to 

importers if a certificate is not 

submitted upon entry. 

Response 56: Currently, before issuing 

a violation, CPSC staff considers 

whether any inaccurate information on 

the certificate was deliberate, or 

inadvertently erroneous. For example, a 

firm’s mischaracterization of its 

certificate as a CPC rather than a GCC, 

or vice versa, is unlikely to result in a 

violation in the first instance if the 

underlying testing that supports the 

certificate is correctly conducted and 

accurate. Enforcement for noncompliant 

certificates includes a range of options, 

such as increasing an importer’s risk 

score, which increases the risk of a hold 

for examination, and rejecting an entry 

that lacks certificate data, contains 

incomplete or inaccurate information, or 

lacks a disclaim message if no certificate 

is required for a flagged HTS code. 

Comment 57: Commenter (C17) 

suggested that the rule clearly state that 

products admitted into and/or produced 

in a foreign trade zone (FTZ) are not 

subject to CPSC requirements, including 

those for certification. The commenter 

noted that CPSC requirements should 

only apply to goods entered into the 

United States from the FTZ for 

consumption via a CBP Form 7501, 

instead of the CBP Form 3461, because 

Form 7501 includes details about the 

products making entry, whereas Form 

3461 gives only estimates of the 

quantity and type of products. Other 

commenters (C21, C67, C74) also sought 

clarification on when a certificate must 

be filed for products leaving an FTZ. 

Response 57: The SNPR would apply 

to all finished goods entering the United 

States for consumption or warehousing, 

even if being imported from an FTZ, as 

specified in proposed §§ 1110.5 and 

1110.13(a)(1). The CPSA does not 

exempt consumer products from testing 

and certification requirements based on 

the mode of importation. For products 

entering the United States from an FTZ, 

certificate data should be filed with CBP 

Form 7501, which details the products 

making entry. 

Comment 58: Three commenters (C15, 

C17, C43) sought clarification on how 

the NPR will impact the first-in-first-out 

(FIFO) inventory management system 

employed in FTZs. One commenter 

(C15) added that for products that are 

multi-sourced by different 

manufacturers under a FIFO system, 

tying certificates to the physical product 

would be cumbersome and costly. 

Response 58: The SNPR requires 

certifiers to match the correct certificate 

data to the correct product at the time 

of entry, so that the data can be used for 

targeting in CPSC’s RAM. Furthermore, 

the SNPR proposes an effective date 120 

days after publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register. Therefore, FTZ 

users would have time to update their 

software after a final rule is issued. 

Alternatively, a certifier importing 

products from an FTZ could provide 

multiple certificates at entry that may 

apply to the product being imported, so 

that the certifier avoids the risk of 

having no certificate or providing an 

incorrect certificate. 

Particular Consumer Products 

L. Walk-Behind Power Mowers 

Comment 59: Two commenters (C38, 

C78) claimed that the NPR contradicts 

the certification requirements for walkbehind power lawn mowers in 16 CFR 

part 1205. Commenters note that 

§ 1205.35(a) states that the certificate 

shall be in the form of a durable label 

on the finished product and that 

§ 1205.36(a) states that an importer can 

rely in good faith on the foreign 

manufacturer’s testing. Commenters 

requested that the current certificate 

requirements in 16 CFR part 1205 be 

retained, rather than the filing 

requirements of the NPR. 

Response 59: As explained in 

response to comment 28, after the 

Commission issued 16 CFR part 1205 in 

1979, Congress revised section 14(a)(1) 

of the CPSA, adding requirements for 

certification for all regulated consumer 

products. The on-product label 

certificate required in § 1205.35 

remains, and is helpful for consumers to 

identify the product, certifier, and the 

production lot of the mower, in the case 

of a recall. However, the on-product 

certificate does not meet the statutory 

requirements for the form, content, and 

availability of certificates in sections 

14(a) and (g) of the CPSA, or the 

Commission’s rule in part 1110. For 

example, § 1205.35(b) does not contain 

all data elements required in CPSA 

section 14(g)(1) and proposed § 1110.11. 

Accordingly, the SNPR maintains the 

requirement that mowers subject to part 

1205 must also meet the certificate 

requirements in part 1110, including 

eFiling. Importers can continue to rely 

on a foreign manufacturer’s testing and/ 

or certification to certify imported 

products pursuant to 16 CFR part 1109. 

Moreover, the Product Registry is 

designed to allow certifiers to give 

permissions to other trade partners to 

enter data or certify products on their 

behalf. 

M. Textiles and Wearing Apparel 

Comment 60: One commenter (C55), a 

clothing retailer, stated that creating 

certificates ‘‘guaranteeing’’ conformity 

with the Flammable Fabrics Act may 

not reflect true compliance, because 

vendors can alter test reports and 

certificates. Another commenter (C56) 

noted that third party testing and 

product certification are not required in 

the European Union for textile and 

clothing products. The commenter also 

adds that adult clothing manufactured 

in the United States is not subject to 

mandatory third party testing. 

Response 60: Altering or falsifying a 

test report or certificate is a prohibited 

act under section 19(a)(6) of the CPSA, 

and likely a criminal act, as set forth in 

18 U.S.C. 1001. Where the facts warrant, 

the Commission may refer criminal acts 

to the Department of Justice for 

prosecution. 

Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires 

certification for any product which is 

subject to a consumer product safety 

rule under any regulation enforced by 

the Commission. Therefore, clothing 

textiles require certification to the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85775 

18Note that in 2016, the Commission issued 

enforcement discretion stating that no certificate is 

required for adult wearing apparel that falls within 

one of the testing exemptions in § 1610.1(d). https:// 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/03/10/ 

2016-04533/statement-of-policy-on-enforcementdiscretion-regarding-general-conformity-certificatesfor-adult. Children’s wearing apparel that falls 

within § 1610.1(d) must still issue a certificate and 

claim the testing exemption. 

applicable rules, irrespective of textile 

requirements in the European Union.18

Comment 61: Commenter (C56) 

requested that fabric tests based on the 

International Organization for Standards 

(ISO) standards and testing to EN597–1 

(Furniture—Evaluation of Flammability 

of Mattresses and Upholstered Bed 

Bases) be considered suitable for the 

certification of mattresses subject to 

CPSC’s flammability requirements. The 

commenter suggested exempting silk 

from testing to 16 CFR part 1610, 

Standard for the Flammability of 

Clothing Textiles. 

Response 61: Testing required to 

support a valid certificate under part 

1110 is prescribed under the specific 

CPSC regulation to which the product is 

subject. What constitutes valid testing to 

support a required certificate, or 

qualifies as an exemption from the 

requirements of a regulation, is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

N. Architectural Glazing Materials 

Comment 62: Two commenters (C25, 

C30) argued that the NPR should only 

apply to glazing materials and not to 

architectural products containing 

glazing materials. Commenters stated 

that manufacturers of the architectural 

products are already responsible for 

meeting the testing and certification 

requirements under 16 CFR part 1201. 

Additionally, these commenters 

asserted, the NPR would effectively 

amend 16 CFR 1201.5 without 

complying with the process 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). 

Response 62: As noted, in 2008 

Congress expanded the testing and 

certification requirements for regulated 

products in section 14 of the CPSA. The 

SNPR does not disrupt existing testing 

or certification requirements regarding 

who must test or certify products in 16 

CFR part 1201. Section 1201.5(a) states 

that manufacturers and private labelers 

of glazing materials covered by part 

1201 shall comply with the 

requirements of section 14 of CPSA and 

regulations issued under it. Like the 

existing part 1110, proposed § 1110.7(a) 

states that ‘‘[e]xcept as otherwise 

provided in a specific rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation enforced by 

CPSC, for a finished product 

manufactured outside of the United 

States that must be accompanied by a 

certificate as set forth in § 1110.5, the 

importer must issue a certificate that 

meets the requirements of this part.’’ 

Proposed § 1110.7(b) contains a similar 

statement regarding domestically 

manufactured products. Thus, to the 

extent that finished products subject to 

part 1201 are imported for consumption 

or warehousing, or distributed in 

commerce, they should continue to 

follow the requirement in § 1205.5(a) 

regarding who should issue a certificate. 

O. Bicycles 

Comment 63: Two commenters (C40, 

C80) claimed that the bicycle industry 

does not have the resources to meet the 

certificate requirements and that there is 

no evidence that the additional burden 

would improve safety. Specifically, the 

commenters claimed the bicycle supply 

chain is not able to easily match bicycle 

components and accessories with 

particular certificates. In addition, one 

commenter (C40) suggested that 

certificates should not be required for 

bicycle replacement parts. 

Response 63: Section 14(a)(1) of the 

CPSA requires certification for any 

product which is subject to a consumer 

product safety rule under any regulation 

enforced by the Commission. 

Certification is only required for 

component or replacement parts if they 

are sold as finished products to 

consumers and if they are subject to a 

regulation. If the component part itself 

is not required to be tested for 

compliance with any part of a 

regulation, as distributed in commerce, 

then no testing or certification is 

required. 

P. Refrigerators 

Comment 64: One commenter (C32) 

stated that the NPR would impose 

substantial administrative costs on 

household refrigeration manufacturers, 

yet few distributors or retailers request 

copies of certificates of conformity. The 

commenter also requested that 16 CFR 

part 1750 be included in a ‘‘cleanup 

list’’ for future legislative reform, 

because most modern refrigerators do 

not use latching mechanisms to hold the 

door closed. 

Response 64: eFiling for refrigerators 

is justified by the considerations 

discussed in section II of this preamble. 

The request for refrigerators to be on a 

‘‘cleanup list’’ for future legislative 

reform is outside the scope of this rule. 

However, in 2019, the Commission 

issued a statement of policy announcing 

that for household refrigerators that bear 

a safety certification mark indicating 

compliance with the Underwriters 

Laboratory Standard 60335–2–24, 

Household and Similar Electrical 

Appliances—Safety—Part 2–24: 

Particular Requirements for 

Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream 

Appliances and Ice-Makers, CPSC will 

not enforce the requirement that every 

manufacturer issue and provide a GCC. 

84 FR 37767 (Aug. 2, 2019). CPCS’s 

CATAIR, Tab B of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package, explains how importers of 

refrigerators can file a ‘‘disclaim’’ with 

CBP to avoid an error for not filing a 

certificate PGA Message Set. 

Q. Fireworks 

Comment 65: Two commenters (C31, 

C61) stated the requirements set in the 

2013 NPR are ‘‘virtually impossible’’ for 

fireworks, because these products are 

not serialized or lot-controlled. 

Response 65: Certain fireworks are 

subject to CPSC regulation and must be 

certified under existing law, and those 

certificates must be based on a test of 

each product or upon a reasonable 

testing program. Certificate 

requirements are found in section 14 of 

the CPSA and part 1110, and have been 

in effect since 2008. We seek additional 

comment on how regulated fireworks 

meet this requirement now and how 

they can meet the eFiling requirement 

in the SNPR. 

Analysis of Cost and Burden 

R. Costs, Burden, the RFA and PRA 

Comment 66: Several commenters 

(C14, C20, C32, C36, C40, C47, C55, 

C75) stated that the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) and Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

did not accurately estimate the impact 

of the NPR on businesses, especially for 

large importers and specific industries, 

and did not reflect publicly available 

business information. One commenter 

(C49) suggested that the rule’s 

requirements would be costly or 

otherwise detrimental to small 

businesses and the associated annual 

burden would be $27,500 per firm 

rather than the estimated $275. 

Two commenters (C39, C51) 

suggested that CPSC is not correctly 

estimating the recordkeeping burden by 

failing to take into account a realistic 

number of entries, IT costs for 

importers, and costs to private labelers 

to implement new testing and 

certification processes. One commenter 

(C41) stated that the proposed five-year 

paperwork retention period is longer 

than the three-year requirement in some 

current rules and is not supported by 

data. The commenter claimed that the 

burden calculated for the GCC for the 

apparel industry does not consider 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85776 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

retention of GCCs and supporting test 

reports. 

Response 66: Tabs C and D of Staff’s 

SNPR Briefing Package, and sections VI 

and VII of this preamble, contain 

revised RFA and PRA analyses for the 

revised part 1110 and the eFiling 

requirement. These analyses can be 

more specific now that the IT solutions 

are developed and have been tested. As 

explained in the updated analysis, the 

burden of the SNPR consists of a 

marginal increase in recordkeeping for 

some non-children’s products from 

three to five years and an additional 

eFiling requirement for importers of 

regulated consumer products. The SNPR 

requires importers to eFile certificates 

each time a regulated product is 

imported, but this burden is small. 

CPSC conducted an eFiling Alpha 

Pilot in 2016 with importers and brokers 

and determined the costs of eFiling 

were minimal. CPSC created a Product 

Registry, described in section II.D.4 of 

this preamble, which allows for onetime data entry for certificates that 

importers can reference each time the 

product is imported, without reentering 

data. The Product Registry also provides 

an IT solution for the storage and 

management of certificate data. No 

technological system is required other 

than a basic computer or laptop and an 

internet connection, which are normal 

business capital expenditures. No 

technical skills are required other than 

the ability to navigate the Product 

Registry website and fill out a series of 

web forms. Larger firms may invest in 

technology or processes to automate this 

process such as APIs or bulk data 

uploads to further reduce time burden. 

The PRA analysis in section VII of this 

preamble and Tab D of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package, estimates the burden 

of eFiling, including the time and cost 

burden for firms that may elect to 

automate data upload into the Product 

Registry. As explained in Tab C of 

Staff’s SNPR Briefing Package, CPSC 

does not expect that the proposed rule 

would significantly impact small 

manufacturers and importers. Over 

time, moreover, the new eFiling 

requirement should reduce burden for 

importers who eFile compliant 

certificate data. Staff anticipates that 

additional certificate data will allow for 

better targeting of shipments with 

potentially hazardous products. 

Importers who file compliant certificate 

data may see a reduction in their risk 

scores, which may result in a reduced 

number of shipments placed on hold 

and examined and shorter wait times 

associated with exams. 

Comment 67: A few commenters (C39, 

C42, C46, C79) expressed concern that 

brokers and importers would have 

technical challenges implementing the 

rule, leading to costs for infrastructure 

upgrades and programming/software 

development. Commenters asserted that 

linking their IT systems with the 

brokers’ IT systems would cost between 

$30,000 and $500,000. In addition, 

commenters stated that increasing the 

number of data fields will incrementally 

increase the cost for the certifier and 

thus consumers. The commenters also 

expressed concern that importers and 

their supply chain partners will incur 

costs in creating new electronic 

certificates. 

Response 67: The commenters’ 

concerns have been addressed by use of 

the existing PGA Message Set structure 

and the creation of the Product Registry, 

which can be used to create, store, and 

transmit certificates. The only interface 

requiring more than basic technical 

knowledge is the API interface, which 

CPSC is not mandating be used. 

However, firms that do choose to use 

this function would experience 

efficiency gains and time savings. 

Comment 68: Several commenters 

(C33, C43, C61, C80) expressed concern 

over the asserted complexity of filing 

certificates for multiple products within 

a shipment and the resulting burden, 

delays, duplication, and supply chain 

disruptions. Commenter (C21) stated 

that CPSC is underestimating the 

numbers of shipments per importer and 

the number of certificates required per 

shipment. 

Response 68: As described in section 

II.D of this preamble, to reduce cost and 

burden, CPSC developed the Product 

Registry, which allows importers to 

enter certificates prior to filing entry. 

Importers can reference a certificate 

stored in the Product Registry in a short 

PGA Message Set at Entry each time the 

product is imported. CPSC tested this 

concept in 2016 in the eFiling Alpha 

Pilot. During the eFiling Alpha Pilot, 

multiple certificates were successfully 

filed for a single entry. CPSC learned 

that importers that used the Product 

Registry were able to re-use certificates 

multiple times, alleviating potential 

burden from re-entering certificate 

information. The Commission’s burden 

estimate reflects this efficiency. 

Comment 69: One commenter (C49) 

claimed that CPSC and Congress use 

different definitions for small entities. 

Response 69: CPSC applies the 

definitions for small businesses as 

prescribed in the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. 

Additionally, CPSC uses the definition 

for Small Business Manufacturer as 

found under section 14(i)(4) of the 

CPSA. 

Comments Regarding Justifications for 

the Proposed Requirements 

S. Alleged Rulemaking Defects 

Comment 70: Many commenters (C14, 

C23, C35, C36, C39, C40, C46, C61, C64, 

C71, C76) alleged that the NPR’s 

proposal was burdensome and 

unnecessary and that the Commission 

failed to identify sufficient evidence 

that the eFiling proposal would enhance 

targeting of violative products or 

improve safety. 

Response 70: CPSC explained in the 

2013 NPR that the CPSA allows CPSC 

to require eFiling with CBP by rule, and 

that CPSC would use certificate data to 

target noncompliant, imported 

consumer products. See, e.g., 78 FR 

28088–89. The preamble to this SNPR 

provides additional detail of the efforts 

in outreach, education, pilots, study, 

and infrastructure investment that have 

occurred over the last ten years to refine 

how importers will file certificate data, 

provide burden reduction options for 

importers, and demonstrate how CPSC 

will use the data to target noncompliant 

shipments. CPSC has also updated the 

burden estimate for this rule, 

demonstrating that eFiling for importers 

that are compliant with existing 

certificate requirements will not have a 

significant economic impact on 

industry. Finally, the efficiencies gained 

by using technology will not only 

improve enforcement of individual 

certificate violations, but also aid in the 

identification of noncompliant, 

hazardous shipments. eFiling will allow 

CPSC to use its staff assigned to ports 

more efficiently to focus on 

examinations of noncompliant 

shipments. 

Comment 71: A commenter (C71) 

stated that by establishing two types of 

certificates (the GCC and CPC), the NPR 

goes beyond the authorization of the 

CPSA. 

Response 71: CPSC is implementing 

the testing requirements in section 14 of 

the CPSA, which creates this 

distinction. CPCs for children’s 

products must be supported by third 

party testing, whereas GCCs for nonchildren’s products must be based on a 

test of each product or a reasonable 

testing program; third party testing is 

not required for GCCs. Other than the 

type of testing required to support the 

certificate, all data elements on GCCs 

and CPCs are the same. 

Comment 72: Several commenters 

(C21, C71, C50, C61) stated that the 

proposed requirement to file certificates 

with CBP diverges from the intent of 

Congress as expressed in CPSA section 

14(g)(4) and poses a substantial burden 

to importers. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85777 

19https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-- 

Manufacturing/Testing-Certification/LabAccreditation/Rules-Requiring-a-GeneralCertificate-of-Conformity. 

Response 72: Section 14(g) sets forth 

minimum content requirements that 

CPSC may implement and expand 

through rulemaking, and section 

14(g)(4) expressly allows CPSC to 

require eFiling with CBP by rule. The 

Certificate Study demonstrated that 

certifiers fulfill certificate data 

requirements in a variety of ways; but to 

use certificate data for algorithmic 

targeting, CPSC must standardize the 

presentation of this information. Thus, 

CPSC is clarifying expectations for 

standardized certificate data, which is 

consistent with CPSC’s authority in 

sections 3 and 14 of the CPSA, and with 

notice and comment rulemaking under 

section 553 of the APA. 

Since 2013, moreover, CPSC has 

developed the Product Registry with 

substantial input from importers that is 

on-going in the Beta Pilot, to ease 

burdens on industry and assist in 

standardization of the format and 

content of certificate data for imported 

products. 

Additionally, since 2013 CBP 

completed ACE development as the 

‘‘single window’’ for Federal agencies to 

collect required data at entry. CBP has 

now implemented the PGA Message Set, 

which is attached to an entry; CPSC will 

use this now well-developed method to 

receive certificate data, as contemplated 

by the statutory framework for imported 

products. 

Comment 73: Many commenters 

objected to requiring certificates for 

products that are either subject to a ban 

or have a testing exemption, stating that 

CPSC does not have the authority to 

require certificates for products that do 

not require testing. One commenter 

(C23) stated that ‘‘negative’’ certificates 

would be especially complicated when 

children’s products have many 

component parts subject to different 

rules, alleging that the CPSA does not 

authorize the CPSC to issue a rule 

requiring a finished product certifier to 

list each component in a children’s 

product and require separate product 

safety rule certification of each 

component part. Commenter C22 

suggested that the proposal would 

require certifiers to list every rule that 

a product is not subject to, or risk 

enforcement. Two commenters (C41, 

C47) noted previous CPSC guidance 

(Statement of Policy: Testing and 

Certification of Lead Content in 

Children’s Products, and Statement of 

Policy: Testing of Component Parts 

With Respect To Section 108 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act) and an FAQ stating: ‘‘If, however, 

your children’s product is wholly 

composed of components that satisfy 

the determinations and/or satisfy the 

determinations on inaccessibility, and 

there are no other applicable children’s 

product safety rules, then you do not 

have to issue a children’s product 

certificate.’’ 

Response 73: Section 14 of the CPSA 

requires that certificates list all 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations. Accordingly, all finished 

product certificates, including 

children’s products, must list all 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(B). The 

certificate is attesting that the product 

was tested to these rules and passed. 

Where multiple rules apply, as may be 

the case with children’s products, for 

example, the certificate should list all 

applicable rules; the testing information 

where testing was required and 

successfully conducted under the listed 

rules; and any exceptions or exemptions 

that apply under the listed rules. 

CPSC recognizes several types of 

testing and/or certificate ‘‘exceptions’’ 

or ‘‘exemptions.’’ To address the issues 

raised by the commenters, proposed 

§ 1110.11(c) is now prefaced with 

‘‘[u]nless otherwise provided by the 

Commission,’’ the certifier should 

replace the lab place and date with the 

testing exclusion code. This phrase is 

intended to encompass any existing or 

future Commission enforcement 

discretion or other policy statements 

that provide testing or certification 

guidance. Therefore, as stated in the 

quoted FAQ, the Commission will not 

require certificates for products that are 

subject to Commission enforcement 

discretion or are otherwise wholly 

exempt or excluded from testing. 

Importers will use CBP’s ‘‘disclaim’’ 

feature for non-regulated products 

within CPSC’s jurisdiction and for 

products that are regulated but do not 

require certification. CPSC’s CATAIR 

explains how to file a ‘‘disclaim’’ in a 

PGA Message Set for products such as 

adult wearing apparel and refrigerators 

that are not required to issue a 

certificate based on the Commission’s 

enforcement discretion. Using CBP’s 

‘‘disclaim’’ option reduces burden for 

importers by not requiring a certificate 

and allows CPSC to capture data on why 

an importer did not file the expected 

certificate data. 

Tab B of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package, and the Commission’s website 

(https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling) provide 

CPSC’s CATAIR detailing how these 

exemptions and exceptions are 

addressed by the eFiling requirement, as 

well as a list of all exemption/exception 

codes being tested during the Beta Pilot. 

The Product Registry will also assist 

importers to understand the available 

testing exemption/exception codes 

using drop down menus. CPSC 

encourages certifiers to review this 

information and submit comments on 

the proposed implementation of this 

requirement. Domestic manufacturers 

can also use this information to 

understand certificate requirements and 

how testing exemptions or exclusions 

should be noted on a certificate. 

Finally, the 2013 NPR discussed the 

issues involved in certifying to a ban, 

discussing that some bans do not 

remove an entire product category from 

the market, rather, they ban certain 

hazardous product characteristics. 78 

FR 28080. The Commission’s website 

contains a list of product safety rules, 

bans, standards, and regulations that 

require certification in a GCC.19

Comment 74: A commenter (C74) 

stated that certificates should be 

required at manifest and provide only 

those elements included in the importer 

security filing requirements. 

Response 74: Manifest occurs at an 

earlier import stage than entry. CBP has 

now finalized using the PGA Message 

Set to collect data required by PGAs. 

The PGA Message Set is tied to filing 

CBP’s entry. Accordingly, CPSC will use 

this existing infrastructure to establish 

an eFiling requirement for certificates. 

Comment 75: Commenter C7 

suggested requiring a full certificate at 

customs entry would create differential 

treatment between imports and 

domestically produced goods. Another 

commenter (C56) pointed out Article 

5.1.2. of the World Trade Organization’s 

Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 

Agreement, stating that conformity 

assessment procedures should not be 

adopted or applied with the effect of 

creating unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade, and should not be 

applied more strictly than necessary to 

importers. 

Response 75: The SNPR does not 

impose different testing or data element 

requirements on certificates for 

imported products. Unless otherwise 

provided by the Commission, all 

finished products or substances 

regulated by CPSC are required to be 

tested and certified as compliant, 

regardless of whether products are 

manufactured within the United States 

or imported. Regarding the eFiling 

process, CPSC’s economic analysis 

demonstrates that for compliant 

importers, the PGA Message Set 

requirement will not have a significant 

impact on small (or large) importers, 

and thus the requirement should not 

create an obstacle to trade. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85778 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Comment 76: The EU requested that 

the CPSC supply additional information 

on the rationale for imposing third party 

testing requirements for the 

flammability of children’s clothing and 

apparel. 

Response 76: The SNPR does not 

require third party testing of the 

children’s clothing and apparel 

standards set forth in 16 CFR part 1610. 

Rather, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2) and 16 CFR 

part 1107 require third party testing to 

all children’s product rules. Part 1107 

has been in effect for more than 10 

years. 

IV. Description and Explanation of 

Proposed Revisions to Part 1110 

Below we explain the basis for the 

SNPR to amend the current 1110 rule 

and describe the provisions of the 

current rule, proposed revisions in the 

2013 NPR, and how the 2023 SNPR 

either retains or changes the 2013 

proposals. Because of the number of 

changes, the Commission proposes to 

strike and replace the existing 1110 rule 

in its entirety, as described below. 

A. Purpose and Scope (§ 1110.1) 

Current rule: Existing § 1110.1 

describes the purpose and scope of the 

rule, explaining that the rule limits the 

entities required to issue certificates; 

specifies the content, form, and 

availability of certificates; and specifies 

the form of electronic certificates. 16 

CFR 1110.1(a). Existing § 1110.1(b) 

explains that the rule does not 

implement eFiling certificates with CBP 

under section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR proposed to 

increase the number of entities 

responsible for issuing certificates, 

stating that the purpose was to 

‘‘specify’’ the entities that must issue 

certificates. Proposed § 1110.1(b) 

explained that the rule would 

implement section 14(g)(4) and require 

certificates for imported products to be 

eFiled with CBP. 78 FR 28081. The 

proposed changes also would clarify 

which provisions in part 1110 apply to 

voluntary component part certificates. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR maintains the 

scope proposed in 2013, with nonsubstantive editorial changes. 

B. Definitions (§ 1110.3) 

Current rule: This section of part 1110 

defines ‘‘electronic certificate’’ as ‘‘a set 

of information available in, and 

accessible by, electronic means that sets 

forth the information required by CPSA 

section 14(a) and section 14(g) and that 

meets the availability requirements of 

CPSA section 14(g)(3)’’ and states that 

definitions of section 3 of the CPSA and 

additional definitions in the CPSIA 

apply to part 1110. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR added 13 

new definitions to introduce concepts 

and terms used in the 1107 and 1109 

rules and to clarify the requirements of 

part 1110. 78 FR 28081–82. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR maintains the 

additional terms proposed in the 2013 

NPR, adds several more terms, and 

revises several definitions. Newly 

defined terms include: ‘‘eFiled 

certificate,’’ to differentiate an electronic 

certificate from a certificate that is 

submitted to CBP in a PGA Message Set, 

and ‘‘Product Registry,’’ to describe the 

CPSC-maintained repository for 

certificate data. The SNPR revises 

several definitions to better describe the 

types of merchandise under CPSC’s 

jurisdiction, which includes not only 

consumer products, but also hazardous 

substances. The SNPR replaces the term 

‘‘General Conformity Certificate’’ with 

‘‘General Certificate of Conformity,’’ 

because the latter is the statutory term. 

The SNPR broadens the definition of 

‘‘importer’’ to include any entity CBP 

allows to be an importer of record (19 

U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)). Proposed § 1110.3 

also defines additional terms to develop 

the revised definition of ‘‘importer’’ in 

the SNPR, such as ‘‘importer of record,’’ 

‘‘consignee,’’ and ‘‘owner or purchaser.’’ 

These definitions are based on CBP’s 

definitions, found in 19 CFR 101.1 and 

Customs Directive 3530–002A, with 

slight changes to reflect CPSC’s 

purposes. 

The 2013 NPR proposed to codify the 

existing policy of placing the obligation 

to test and certify consumer products 

and substances on the IOR. In response 

to comments on the NPR and staff’s 

experience with enforcement, the SNPR 

broadens the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

beyond the IOR to allow a party familiar 

with the products with a beneficial 

ownership in the goods to be the 

importer responsible for testing and 

certification. The revised definition of 

‘‘importer’’ includes the IOR, consignee, 

owner, or purchaser, which are typically 

all parties that have a financial interest 

in the products or substances being 

imported, and effectively caused the 

consumer product to be imported into 

the United States. The private labeler, 

which could certify a privately labeled 

product, is also included under this 

proposed definition, because a private 

labeler can be the consignee, owner, or 

purchaser. 

C. Products Required To Be Certified 

(§ 1110.5) 

Current rule: The current § 1110.5 

states what is an acceptable form for 

certificates. In the existing rule, the 

Commission sought to allow ‘‘electronic 

certificates’’ to ease the burden of 

placing paper copies of certificates in a 

shipping container or box. Accordingly, 

the existing rule explains that a 

certificate that is in hard copy or 

electronic form and complies with all 

applicable requirements of part 1110 

meets the certificate requirements of 

section 14 of the CPSA. The existing 

rule states that the importer or domestic 

manufacturer must also meet the 

underlying statutory requirements to 

support a certificate, meaning the 

required testing and/or other bases to 

support certification and issuance of 

certificates. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR proposed to 

revise § 1110.5 to state when a 

certificate is required, clarifying that 

only finished products 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 are imported 

for consumption or warehousing, or are 

distributed in commerce, need to be 

accompanied by a certificate. This is a 

restatement of the statutory 

requirement. Use of the term ‘‘finished 

product’’ in the 2013 NPR clarified that 

component parts of a consumer product 

are not required to be certified; the 1109 

rule allows for voluntary component 

part testing and/or certification, but 

testing or certification of component 

parts not intended to be offered for sale 

as finished products is never required. 

78 FR 28082–83. 

The 2013 NPR also explained when 

banned products are required to be 

certified, stating that bans ‘‘generally 

remove the subset of products with 

hazardous characteristics, but still leave 

some products subject to CPSC 

regulation. In sum, manufacturers of 

products in a category where a subset of 

the products are subject to a ban must 

still issue certificates.’’ 78 FR 28082. 

The 2013 NPR provided a list of bans for 

which a GCC certifying compliance is 

required. 78 FR 28083. This list is also 

maintained on CPSC’s website at 

https://www.cpsc.gov/Business-- 

Manufacturing/Testing-Certification/ 

Lab-Accreditation/Rules-Requiring-aGeneral-Certificate-of-Conformity. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR retains 

proposals in the 2013 NPR clarifying 

that a certificate is required only when: 

(1) the product is a finished product; (2) 

the product 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; and (3) the product is 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing, or is distributed into 

commerce. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85779 

D. Who Must Certify Finished Products 

(§ 1110.7) 

Current Rule: Section 1110.7 of the 

existing rule states that, except as 

otherwise provided in a specific 

standard, for products manufactured 

outside the United States the importer is 

required to certify the product and 

provide a certificate, as required by 

section 14(a) of the CPSA. Certificates 

must be available to the Commission as 

soon as the product is available for 

inspection in the United States. For 

products manufactured in the United 

States, the manufacturer must certify 

products and provide the required 

certificate. Certificates must be available 

prior to the introduction of the product 

or shipment into domestic commerce. 

2013 NPR: Section 1110.7 of the 2013 

NPR continued to require that, unless a 

specific rule states otherwise, importers 

certify imported products, except for 

products that are delivered directly to 

consumers in the United States, such as 

products purchased through an internet 

website. For products delivered directly 

to a consumer, the Commission 

proposed that the foreign manufacturer 

be required to issue a certificate, unless 

the product bears a private label, and 

then the private labeler would be 

required to issue a certificate. Thus, the 

2013 NPR would have placed on a 

private labeler the responsibility for 

ensuring testing and certification of 

privately labeled products, either by 

testing and certifying the product, or by 

ensuring that the manufacturer has done 

so. The proposed revision clarified that 

the consumer would not typically be 

responsible for certifying a product, 

even if the consumer could technically 

meet the definition of an ‘‘importer’’ 

under a direct-purchase scenario. 78 FR 

28083–84. 

For finished products manufactured 

in the United States that are required to 

be certified, the 2013 NPR maintained 

the requirement that, unless a specific 

rule requires otherwise, a manufacturer 

must issue the certificate. But, as with 

imported products, the 2013 NPR 

placed testing and certification 

responsibility for domestically 

manufactured, privately labeled 

products on the private labeler. The 

2013 NPR allowed private labelers to 

continue to rely on a manufacturer’s 

certification if they choose to do so and 

follow the requirements in part 1109. Id. 

2023 SNPR: For imported consumer 

products that require testing and 

certification, the SNPR retains 

requirements from the existing rule, 

rather than the changes proposed in the 

2013 NPR. The SNPR requires that, 

unless a specific rule states otherwise, 

only importers, as newly defined, must 

issue a certificate for imported products. 

However, a private labeler could assume 

responsibility for certifying an imported 

product under the SNPR, because a 

private labeler would fall within the 

definition of a consignee, owner, or 

purchaser of the goods under the new 

importer definition proposed in 

§ 1110.3. 

For domestically manufactured 

finished products, the SNPR maintains 

the 2013 NPR proposal that, unless 

otherwise required in a specific rule, the 

manufacturer must issue the certificate, 

except for consumer products or 

substances that are privately labeled. 

When a product is privately labeled, a 

manufacturer name does not appear on 

the product. Accordingly, for such 

products, placing responsibility on the 

private labeler is both pragmatic and 

appropriate. However, the SNPR 

proposes to allow private labelers to 

continue to rely on a manufacturer’s 

testing or certification if they choose to 

do so. Importantly, if a manufacturer’s 

name appears on a product, the product 

is not privately labeled under the 

definition in section 3 of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(12), and the 

manufacturer would be required to test 

and certify the product. 

The SNPR moves the requirement 

regarding the availability of certificates 

for imports and domestic products, 

found in § 1110.7(c) of the existing rule, 

to proposed § 1110.13. 

E. Certificate Language and Format 

(§ 1110.9) 

Current Rule: Section 1110.9 of the 

existing rule provides that certificates 

may be in hard copy or electronic form 

and must be provided in English but 

also may be provided in any other 

language. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR maintained 

the two requirements in the existing 

rule with minor edits. The 2013 NPR 

continued to allow a broad range of 

formats for electronic certificates, as 

long as the certificate is identified by a 

unique ID and can be accessed online 

via a URL or other electronic means. 

The 2013 NPR proposed that the unique 

ID be ‘‘identified prominently on the 

finished product, shipping carton, or 

invoice.’’ The 2013 NPR discussed that 

experience with electronic certificates 

had shown that they can be effective 

when they are easily accessible. 78 FR 

28084–85. 

The 2013 NPR proposed that 

electronic certificates be available 

without password protection, stating 

that the number of manufacturers, 

private labelers, and importers that 

certify products could make the 

maintenance of password information 

burdensome on CPSC and diminish the 

efficiencies achieved by allowing 

electronic certificates. 78 FR 28085. The 

2013 NPR also clarified that electronic 

certificates, the URL or other electronic 

means, and the unique ID must be 

accessible to the Commission, CBP, 

distributors, and retailers ‘‘on or before 

the date the finished product is 

distributed in commerce.’’ Id. 

Finally, the requirements for 

electronic certificates in the 2013 NPR 

only applied to: products manufactured 

in the United States; foreignmanufactured products that are 

delivered directly to a consumer in the 

United States; certificates furnished to 

retailers and distributors; and imported 

finished products after importation, 

such as when requested by CPSC or 

CBP. 78 FR 28084. The 2013 NPR 

specifically excluded certificates filed 

with CBP from the electronic certificate 

requirements in this section, because 

certificates eFiled with CBP would 

likely require different formatting based 

on CBP’s system of records. Id. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR retains most of 

the language proposed in the 2013 NPR 

with several changes for clarity. 

Proposed § 1110.9 (a) states that an 

eFiled certificate must be in English. 

Certificate data eFiled in an IT system 

built by CBP, or uploaded into CPSC’s 

Product Registry, must be in English 

based on system design. Proposed 

§ 1110.9 (a) provides that a hard copy or 

electronic certificate must be in English, 

but may also contain the same content 

in any other language. 

Proposed § 1110.9(b) clarifies the 

formats for eFiled and for hard copy and 

electronic certificates. The SNPR 

proposes that an eFiled certificate must 

meet the requirements in proposed 

§ 1110.13(a), and that certificates 

furnished to retailers, distributors, or to 

CPSC pursuant to § 1110.13(b) and (c) 

may be provided in hard copy or 

electronically. 

Proposed § 1110.9(c) describes the 

format for the electronic certificates 

described in § 1110.13(b) and (c), which 

are used to furnish a certificate to 

retailers or distributors, or to CBP or 

CPSC upon request. Based on the 

agencies’ IT development and 

comments received, the SNPR removes 

the provision that an electronic 

certificate must not be password 

protected. eFiled certificates will be 

filed into a government IT system with 

appropriate protections. However, if an 

importer provides a password protected 

electronic certificate to CPSC or CBP, 

the password must be provided to the 

relevant agency at the same time. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85780 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

F. Certificate Content (§ 1110.11) 

Current Rule: This section of the 

existing rule identifies the statutorily 

required seven data elements that must 

be present on all certificates: (1) 

information identifying the product 

covered by the certificate; (2) a list of all 

applicable rules for which the product 

is being certified; (3) the name, full 

mailing address, and telephone number 

of the importer or domestic 

manufacturer certifying the product; (4) 

the name, email address, full mailing 

address, and telephone number of the 

individual maintaining records of test 

results; (5) the date (minimally, the 

month and year) and place (including 

city and state, country, or administrative 

region) of manufacture; (6) the date and 

place (including city and state, country, 

or administrative region) where the 

product was tested; and (7) the name, 

full mailing address, and telephone 

number of the laboratory that conducted 

any required third party testing. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR proposed to 

clarify and expand upon the existing 

seven data elements and to add three 

new data elements that would assist in 

identifying the products covered by the 

certificate. 78 FR 28085–88. It clarified 

that additional identifying information 

for products may be included on a 

certificate, such as UPCs and GTINs. 78 

FR 28085. The NPR allowed more than 

one product on a certificate, provided 

they were created at the same factory 

and relied upon the same testing. Id. 

The 2013 NPR also proposed to modify 

certificate content requirements to allow 

for certificates to cover finished 

products or component parts. 

Accordingly, the NPR proposed to 

require finished product certificates to 

list all applicable rules, while 

component part certificates would list 

only those rules for which the 

component part is being certified 

(because certifiers of component parts 

can choose which standards to test and 

certify to, and they may not know all of 

the standards that eventually may apply 

to the component part when it is 

integrated with a finished product). 78 

FR 28086. 

The three proposed new content 

requirements for certificates were date 

of initial certification, scope of the 

certificate, and attestation certifying 

compliance. The existing rule requires 

the date of initial certification, but it 

only applies to electronic certificates. 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(2) of the NPR 

sought to ensure that all certifiers are 

using the same date on certificates. 78 

FR 28086. Proposed § 1110.11(a)(3) 

sought to require the scope of the 

finished product or component part for 

which the certificate applies, so that 

CPSC can better match a certificate to a 

product. 78 FR 28086. Finally, to 

educate certifiers of their legal 

obligations, proposed § 1110.11(a)(10) 

required an attestation certifying 

compliance indicating that the 

information provided by the certifier is 

true and accurate. 78 FR 28087. 

The 2013 NPR also proposed in 

§ 1110.11(b), (c), and (d), to describe 

more fully the requirements for 

certificate formats. 78 FR 28088. 

Proposed § 1110.11(b) would allow, but 

not require, the certifier to include a 

URL or other electronic means on the 

certificate, along with identification of 

the custodian of records, to allow for 

electronic access to supporting records 

such as test records. Proposed 

§ 1110.11(c) described what certifiers 

must do when a product is subject to 

more than one consumer product safety 

rule, and the certifier is claiming a 

testing exception for some, but not all, 

of the applicable rules. Proposed 

§ 1110.11(d) clarified that although each 

applicable rule must be listed on a 

certificate, finished product certifiers 

are not required to conduct duplicative 

third party testing for any rule that 

refers to or incorporates fully another 

applicable consumer product safety rule 

or similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other law enforced 

by the Commission. 78 FR 28088. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR requires the 

seven statutory data elements in the 

existing rule, and includes only one of 

the three additional requirements 

proposed in the 2013 NPR—attestation. 

However, the SNPR provides additional 

detail on the required data elements. 

Below we describe each data element 

proposed in § 1110.11(a) of the SNPR. 

Product Identification 

(§ 1110.11(a)(1)): The SNPR proposes to 

require identification of the finished 

product covered by the certificate, 

including at least one unique ID from a 

list of seven options and a sufficient 

description to match the finished 

product to the certificate. Certifiers may 

provide optional additional IDs to assist 

with product identification. The SNPR 

would clarify that ‘‘identification’’ 

means a unique ID is necessary for 

eFiling, so that certificates can be better 

tracked in the Product Registry and 

RAM. CPSC expects that it would be 

easier for importers to provide a unique 

ID that already exists for the product as 

allowed by the SNPR, instead of having 

certifiers manage an additional 

identifier assigned by CPSC but invites 

comment on this question. 

The SNPR also proposes to expand 

the term ‘‘description’’ from the 2013 

NPR to mean a ‘‘sufficient description to 

match the finished product to the 

certificate.’’ Currently, the description 

in a certificate is sometimes insufficient 

to enable CPSC staff to determine 

whether the certificate describes the 

product being examined. 

List of Applicable Rules 

(§ 1110.11(a)(2)): The SNPR would 

retain without change the requirement 

in the existing rule and the 2013 NPR 

to provide a list of all applicable rules 

to which the product is being certified. 

The eFiling system makes this 

requirement easier for certifiers because 

CPSC will provide a standardized list of 

all rules, each assigned a code. When 

eFiling certificate data, the certifier 

would only need to select from these 

codes, either in the Full Message Set or 

in the Product Registry. 

Identification of Certifier 

(§ 1110.11(a)(3)): The SNPR would 

maintain the requirement from the 2013 

NPR to identify the party certifying 

compliance of the finished product(s), 

including the party’s name, street 

address, city, state or province, country 

or administrative region, electronic mail 

(email) address, and telephone number. 

Adding a more specific street address 

interprets the statutory requirement for 

a ‘‘full mailing address,’’ and would 

assist staff in distinguishing facilities or 

locating certifiers for site visits. If a 

certifying party’s physical location does 

not have a street address, then a location 

identification typical of the country of 

origin, or a GPS coordinate, is also 

permissible. We also retain the proposal 

to include an email address, which is 

intended to improve communication 

between CPSC and the certifying party, 

particularly across time zones. 

Contact for Records (1110.11(a)(4)): 

The SNPR proposes to maintain the 

requirement from the existing rule and 

2013 NPR to provide the identity and 

contact information for the individual 

maintaining records of test results. As 

with the certifier’s contact information, 

the SNPR describes in more detail the 

concept of a ‘‘full mailing address’’ to 

include ‘‘street address, city, state or 

province, country or administrative 

region, electronic mail (email) address, 

and telephone number.’’ The 2013 NPR 

also referenced the recordkeeping 

sections of the Code of Federal 

Regulations that apply to GCCs and 

CPCs, which the SNPR maintains. 

The SNPR clarifies that the individual 

maintaining records may be a position 

title, provided that this position is 

always staffed and responsive to CPSC’s 

requests. This change is in response to 

public comments concerned that the 

individual maintaining the records of 

test results may leave the company or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85781 

otherwise be unavailable, and that a 

position title would provide continuity. 

Manufacture Date and Place 

(1110.11(a)(5)): The SNPR would 

maintain the requirement from the 

existing rule to provide the date when 

the finished product(s) were 

manufactured, produced, or assembled. 

The first date of a batch run is the date 

of manufacturing. The SNPR also 

maintains the statutory requirement 

from the existing rule to provide the 

place where the finished product(s) 

were manufactured. The SNPR aligns 

the manufacturer information with the 

other data elements regarding contact 

information, proposing to require the 

manufacturer name, street address, city, 

state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number where the 

finished product(s) were manufactured, 

produced, or assembled. This 

requirement is consistent with section 

14(g)(1) of the CPSA which requires 

‘‘each party’s name, full mailing 

address, [and] telephone number.’’ 

CPSC proposes to require additional 

manufacturer detail, for eFiling in 

particular, because staff has experienced 

situations where it is difficult to 

distinguish between multiple firms with 

similar addresses and contact the 

correct manufacturer. If a location does 

not have a street address, a location 

identification typical of the country of 

origin or a GPS coordinate is 

permissible. 

Test Date and Place (1110.11(a)(6)): 

The SNPR would maintain the 

requirement from the existing rule to 

provide the date when the finished 

product(s) were tested for compliance. 

The SNPR, however, amends this 

requirement to clarify that the required 

date is the most recent date of testing. 

This change is to aid CPSC in assessing 

the validity and integrity of a certificate, 

and to promote consistency across 

certificates for CPSC and certifiers, 

particularly where laboratory testing is 

done over several days. 

The SNPR maintains the requirement 

from the existing rule to provide the 

place where the finished product(s) 

were tested for compliance. The SNPR 

standardizes the contact information 

required, including the name of each 

third party conformity assessment body 

or other party on whose testing the 

certificate depends, and the street 

address (or locally comparable location 

identification), city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, email 

address, and telephone number. The 

SNPR requires an email address, so staff 

has another means of contacting the 

testing laboratory. 

Attestation (§ 1110.11(a)(7)): The 

SNPR proposes to maintain the 

requirement from the 2013 NPR to 

provide an attestation certifying 

compliance, indicating that the 

information provided by the certifier is 

true and accurate and that the certified 

product complies with all rules, bans, 

standards, or regulations applicable to 

the product under the CPSA or any 

other Act enforced by the Commission. 

We note that the Product Registry 

contains a certifier attestation and also 

allows an importer to designate third 

parties that can enter certificate 

information and certify on behalf of the 

importer, if such permission is granted. 

The importer remains responsible for 

the information provided to CPSC, 

making an attestation by each party 

entering information important to 

maintain accountability for the 

information. 

The SNPR does not include two 

proposals from the 2013 NPR: the date 

of initial certification and the scope of 

the finished product(s) covered by the 

certificate. Based on revisions to the 

identification of the product, and 

manufacture and test dates, the 

proposed new fields are now 

unnecessary because CPSC will know 

the date of laboratory testing and the 

date the certificate was filed. Similarly, 

the proposed product identification 

requirement of at least one unique ID 

and a ‘‘sufficient description to match 

the finished product to the certificate’’ 

makes it unnecessary to have a 

statement of the scope of the finished 

product(s). However, the SNPR would 

allow certifiers to provide production 

start and end dates and lot numbers as 

optional fields. 

Furthermore, the SNPR retains the 

proposal in § 1110.11(b) of the 2013 

NPR for a certificate to optionally 

include a URL or other electronic 

means, along with the identification of 

the custodian of records, to allow for 

electronic access of supporting records, 

such as test records. If certifiers provide 

this information, staff can more easily 

confirm the veracity of the certificate. 

The SNPR contains minor clarifications 

that specify the sections of the CFR 

containing the recordkeeping 

requirements for supporting records. 

The SNPR also retains the proposal in 

§ 1110.11(c) of the 2013 NPR for 

certifiers to list all claimed testing 

exclusions, instead of providing the date 

and place where the product was tested 

for compliance. The Product Registry 

lists all available exclusions for each 

rule, streamlining and standardizing 

how to record these exclusions. These 

exclusions will also be maintained on 

CPSC’s website for use in a Full PGA 

Message Set. The SNPR does not keep 

the proposal to include the basis for 

each exclusion, because this is resolved 

by stating the testing exclusion. Many 

certifiers already list their testing 

exclusions, so this requirement will 

standardize the process for all certifiers. 

Furthermore, this requirement would 

only be relevant when the product is 

subject to a product safety rule. If no 

product safety rule or similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation applies, or the 

product is subject to enforcement 

discretion (such as adult wearing 

apparel relying on § 1610.1(d), which 

only requires a disclaim), then no 

certificate would be required. 

Finally, the SNPR retains the proposal 

in § 1110.11(d) regarding duplicative 

testing. The SNPR states that certifiers 

are not required to conduct duplicative 

testing for any rule that refers to, or 

incorporates fully, another applicable 

consumer product safety rule or similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any other law enforced by the 

Commission. This proposal is 

maintained for the same reasons stated 

in the 2013 NPR, to reduce burden for 

certifiers. 

G. Certificate Availability (§ 1110.13) 

Current Rule: Section 1110.13(a) of 

the existing rule restates the statutory 

requirement in section 14(g)(3) of the 

CPSA that certificates must 

‘‘accompany’’ each product or product 

shipment and be furnished to 

distributors and retailers. Section 

1110.13(a)(1) and (2) explains how 

electronic certificates satisfy the 

‘‘accompany’’ and ‘‘furnish’’ 

requirements of that section, and 

§ 1110.13(b) states that an electronic 

certificate must have a means to verify 

the date of its creation or last 

modification. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR proposed to 

move the requirements for electronic 

certificates to proposed § 1110.9(c), 

while proposed § 1110.13 addressed 

when certificates had to ‘‘accompany’’ a 

product or product shipment, be 

‘‘furnished’’ to retailers or distributors, 

and be ‘‘furnished’’ to CPSC and CBP. 

The 2013 NPR also proposed that 

certificates be eFiled with CBP prior to 

arrival of an imported product, as 

authorized in section 14(g)(4) of the 

CPSA. 78 FR 28088. 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(1) of the 2013 

NPR stated that for imported products to 

meet the ‘‘accompany’’ requirement, 

importers must eFile certificates with 

CBP, either when the entry is filed, or 

when the entry and entry summary are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85782 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

20An entry summary (CBP Form 7501) must be 

filed within 10 days of the cargo’s release from CBP 

custody or within 10 working days after entry of the 

merchandise and estimated duties deposited. 

21See, for example, § 1107.23, which explains a 

‘‘material change’’ to a children’s product. Products 

that are not the same in all material respects cannot 

be on the same certificate. 

filed, if they are filed together.20 The 

NPR explained that only finished 

products would require certification, 

and that certificates filed in the form of 

data elements would allow more 

efficient targeting. 78 FR 28089. The 

2013 NPR acknowledged that, at that 

time, CBP was not yet able to collect 

PGA data. 78 FR 28089. 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(2) of the 2013 

NPR required that for finished products 

manufactured domestically to meet the 

‘‘accompany’’ requirement, the finished 

product certifier must make the 

certificate available for inspection by 

CPSC on or before the date the finished 

product is distributed in commerce. 78 

FR 28089. 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(3) of the 2013 

NPR stated that for imported finished 

products that are required to be certified 

and that are delivered directly to a 

consumer in the United States, the 

finished product certifier could either 

eFile the certificate with CBP, or they 

could make the certificate available for 

inspection by CPSC on or before the 

date the finished product is distributed 

in commerce. In the case where no entry 

is filed, a finished product certifier 

could meet the ‘‘accompany’’ 

requirement either by placing a hard 

copy of the certificate in the box with 

the product or by following the 

requirements for an electronic 

certificate. 78 FR 28089. 

Proposed § 1110.13(b) of the 2013 

NPR restated the statutory requirement 

in section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA that 

finished product certificates be 

furnished to distributors and retailers. 

Proposed § 1110.13(c) of the NPR added 

a new section reflecting the requirement 

in section 14(g)(3) that certificates must 

be furnished to CPSC and CBP upon 

request. The proposal states that 

certificates be made available 

immediately upon request by the CPSC 

or CBP. The preamble to the 2013 NPR 

defined the term ‘‘immediately’’ to 

mean ‘‘within 24 hours,’’ as it has been 

interpreted by CPSC in other rules. 78 

FR 28089. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR retains some of 

the 2013 NPR’s proposals and amends 

others. Now that the IT solutions are 

available and more fully developed, 

proposed § 1110.13(a) in the SNPR 

points to a CPSC-specific CATAIR and 

Product Registry that contain the IT 

solutions for eFiling. Thus, for example, 

the SNPR does not retain a separate 

‘‘accompany’’ requirement for imported 

finished products that are delivered 

directly to a consumer in the United 

States, but rather provides for collecting 

these certificates electronically. 

Like the 2013 NPR, proposed 

§ 1110.13(a) explains that a finished 

product certificate must accompany 

each finished product or finished 

product shipment required to be 

certified pursuant to § 1110.5. 

Additionally, § 1110.13(a) requires that 

each certificate describe a single 

product. One product per certificate 

allows the RAM to conduct risk analysis 

on unique products in a shipment, 

which allows better targeting of 

potentially violative products and 

avoids delaying delivery of products in 

a shipment that do not warrant 

examination.21

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(1) of the SNPR 

states that GCC or CPC data elements for 

an imported product must be eFiled in 

ACE at the time of entry filing, or entry 

summary, if both are filed together, and 

as provided in CPSC’s CATAIR (and 

discussed in Tab B of the Staff SNPR 

Briefing Package). The requirement 

applies to all imported finished 

products subject to a CPSC regulation, 

including de minimis shipments and 

products imported from an FTZ. The 

SNPR also explains that for finished 

products that are imported by mail, the 

finished product certifier must enter the 

required GCC or CPC data elements into 

CPSC’s Product Registry prior to the 

product or substance arriving in the 

United States. 

Proposed § 1110.13(b) of the SNPR 

maintains the statutory requirement 

from the 2013 NPR to ‘‘furnish’’ a 

required CPC or GCC to each distributor 

or retailer. Proposed § 1110.13(c) of the 

SNPR maintains the statutory 

requirement to make certificates 

available for inspection immediately 

upon request by CPSC or CBP. To be 

clear regarding the expectation, the 

SNPR proposes in the regulation text 

that ‘‘immediately’’ means within 24 

hours. The 2013 NPR stated this in the 

preamble. 

H. Legal Responsibility for Certificate 

Information (§ 1110.15) 

Current Rule: Current § 1110.15 states 

that another entity may maintain an 

electronic certificate platform, but the 

certifier is still responsible for ensuring 

its validity, accuracy, completeness, and 

availability. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR maintained 

the requirement in the existing rule with 

slight edits. 78 FR 28090. 

2023 SNPR: Proposed § 1110.15 of the 

SNPR maintains the NPR requirement, 

but proposes that the entity that 

maintains an electronic certificate 

platform and enters the requisite data 

into U.S. Government systems on behalf 

of the certifier may also certify the 

product(s) on the certifier’s behalf. This 

addition accommodates diverse 

relationships between certifiers and 

their trade partners to better facilitate 

trade. The SNPR maintains 

accountability for certifiers, who are 

ultimately responsible for testing and 

certification. Certifiers will have the 

ability in the Product Registry to 

manage permissions for trade partners 

to enter data and/or to certify products, 

including managing the roles of specific 

individuals who enter data or certify 

products on the certifier’s behalf. 

Certifiers should exercise due diligence 

if they allow another entity to certify on 

their behalf. 

I. Recordkeeping Requirements 

(§ 1110.17) 

Current Rule: The current rule does 

not contain recordkeeping requirements. 

2013 NPR: The 2013 NPR proposed a 

new § 1110.17 to establish 

recordkeeping requirements. 78 FR 

28090. For CPCs, the 2013 NPR 

summarized the existing recordkeeping 

requirements in other rules that apply to 

CPCs, including §§ 1107.26, 1109.5(g), 

and 1109.5(j), all of which have a fiveyear record retention period based on 

the applicable statute of limitations. The 

2013 NPR proposed to align the record 

retention requirements for GCCs with 

those for CPCs, such that certifiers 

would maintain the certificate and 

supporting test records for at least five 

years. 78 FR 28090. The NPR explained 

that maintenance of such records may, 

for example, aid both the certifier and 

the Commission in the event of an 

investigation or product recall. Id. 

2023 SNPR: Proposed § 1110.17 of the 

SNPR maintains the recordkeeping 

requirement from the 2013 NPR. CPCs 

have a five-year record retention period 

based on the 1107 and 1109 rules and 

the statute of limitations for 

enforcement. 

J. Component Part Certificates 

(§ 1110.19) 

Current Rule: The current rule does 

not address component part certificates. 

2023 NPR: Proposed § 1110.19 of the 

2013 NPR added a new section to clarify 

for stakeholders which sections of the 

1110 rule apply to voluntary component 

part certificates. If a finished product 

certifier chooses to rely on a component 

part certificate, the component part 

certificate must meet the requirements 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85783 

22The full list of HTS codes can be found in the 

Appendix to Tab D of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package. 

of the 1109 rule, as well as the form, 

content, and availability requirements 

described in the 2013 NPR. 78 FR 

28090. 

2023 SNPR: The SNPR’s proposal 

retains the component part certificate 

requirements from the 2013 NPR. 

V. Effective Date 

The APA generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the final rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission 

proposes that a final rule for revisions 

to 16 CFR part 1110 will become 

effective 120 days after publication in 

the Federal Register. Although the 

SNPR makes few changes in the 

certificate requirements for domestic 

manufacturers, importers will require 

this time to onboard with CPSC’s 

Product Registry and upgrade software 

to send a PGA Message Set to their 

broker for eFiling. 

The proposed 120-day effective date 

is consistent with the experience of 

eFiling Beta Pilot participants that 

advised on IT solutions and initially 

tested the eFiling system. CPSC expects 

that once software is updated to submit 

entry data to CBP, gaining login 

credentials into the Product Registry 

will take less than 10 minutes and 

training will take less than two hours. 

CPSC seeks comment on the proposed 

effective date and intends to consider 

the experience of all Beta Pilot 

participants when considering a final 

effective date. 

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that agencies review a proposed 

rule for the rule’s potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. 

Tab C of the Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package, which we summarize in this 

section, assesses the impact of the SNPR 

on small businesses. Based on staff’s 

analysis, the Commission certifies that 

the proposed rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Staff assesses that firms affected by 

the SNPR import or domestically 

manufacture products that fall under 

numerous North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) codes 

and HTS codes.22 Using these 

guidelines, staff estimates that as many 

as 43,061 small firms import regulated 

non-children’s consumer products and 

substances annually, and will be 

required to eFile GCCs, while 211,148 

firms annually import regulated 

children’s products and would be 

required to eFile CPCs. 

A. Compliance, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements of the 

SNPR 

The SNPR would impose a new 

reporting burden on importers who 

must eFile certificates at the time of 

entry, or at entry summary, if both entry 

and entry summary are filed together. 

The SNPR would also impose a minor 

additional recordkeeping burden for 

GCCs, which is the mandatory retention 

of records for two additional years in 

most cases, from three to five years. To 

achieve compliance with the SNPR’s 

eFiling requirements, small importers of 

products requiring either a GCC or CPC 

could possibly incur costs from several 

activities including: (1) the costs of 

inputting and filing certificate 

information with CBP through a PGA 

Message Set; (2) the one-time 

conversion costs of updating 

technology; and (3) broker fees. 

Because of the creation of CPSC’s 

Product Registry, CPSC does not expect 

small businesses to need to invest in 

technology to eFile certificates. A small 

business only needs a laptop with a 

hard drive for storing records and an 

internet connection to enter certificates 

into the Product Registry. Larger 

importers and manufacturers who 

import larger volumes of regulated 

consumer products and substances 

would be more likely to invest in 

technology to enable batch uploads of 

data into the Product Registry, or to 

create their own registries. But because 

the SNPR does not require a technology 

investment, and because small 

importers are unlikely to need to invest 

in new technology, we do not forecast 

technology costs in this burden analysis. 

The Commission anticipates that 95 

percent of importers will choose to use 

the Product Registry, and this estimate 

holds for small importers. When using 

the Product Registry, the Reference PGA 

Message Set is a shortened data set that 

only requires a few data elements, 

including the Unique ID for the 

certificate stored in CPSC’s Product 

Registry each time the associated 

product is imported. Accordingly, if 

importers use the Product Registry and 

a Reference PGA Message Set at the time 

of entry, 95 percent of importers will 

bear an additional 20 second burden per 

Reference Message Set filed during 

entry, while five percent of importers 

will bear a one minute burden per Full 

Message Set filed. 

CPSC does not expect the SNPR to 

change the number of firms that chose 

to use brokers. Brokers typically charge 

a fee for each entry line that is filed. 

Through discussions with importers and 

brokers, Commission staff understands 

that this fee is greatly dependent on the 

number of entry lines filed, and the 

complexity of the PGA Message Set. The 

latter factor is greatly reduced by 

importers electing to use the Product 

Registry. By using the Product Registry, 

each time the same product is imported 

the importer can streamline eFiling by 

supplying the Unique ID for the 

associated product certificate to the 

broker. 

Tab C of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package explains staff’s procedure in 

classifying small businesses using 

NAICS codes. The Commission requests 

comment on staff’s procedure, including 

methods of obtaining more precise 

estimates of percentages of small 

businesses belonging to a given NAICS, 

how many small firms covered by the 

SNPR fall within that NAICS, and how 

many certificates these firms may create. 

Table 1 in Tab C of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package shows an estimated 

43,061 small businesses that will need 

to eFile GCCs with CBP and keep 

records for certificates and supporting 

information. Staff estimates that the net 

cost of the SNPR’s additional burdens 

on small suppliers of general use 

products is $611,089. On average, each 

small business will spend 

approximately $14 ($611,089/43,061 ≈ 

$14) on the SNPR’s new requirements. 

This can be described as the cost of 

eFiling these certificates, with a small 

increase in the time cost of 

recordkeeping each certificate. 

Table 2 in Tab C of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package shows that an 

estimated 211,148 small businesses will 

need to eFile CPCs with CBP. The total 

additional cost to eFile for children’s 

products suppliers is $922,934 

annually. This means on average, that 

each small business will spend 

approximately $4 ($922,934/211,148 ≈ 

$4) annually to comply with the SNPR. 

Note that the five-year recordkeeping 

requirement for children’s products is 

consistent with the existing 

requirements of 16 CFR part 1107. 

Therefore, the additional burden that 

the SNPR imposes on small importers 

supplying children’s products is that of 

eFiling. Except for the potential for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

some small private labelers to need to 

test and certify privately labeled 

children’s products, domestic 

manufacturers will have no change in 

burden pursuant to the SNPR. 

For the $18 per firm costs (assuming 

both a $14 cost per firm for GCCs and 

$4 per firm for CPC impacts) to be 

greater than the one percent threshold 

that indicates a significant burden, a 

firm’s revenues would have to be less 

than $1,800 per year. We seek comment 

on the average annual revenues of small 

businesses within the impacted 

industries, as well as on alternative 

industry classifications that we should 

consider when classifying the relevant 

industry for SBA purposes. 

B. Alternatives for Reducing the Adverse 

Impact on Small Businesses 

Instead of the proposals in the SNPR, 

CPSC considered the alternatives of 

making the eFiling of certificates at 

entry voluntary rather than mandatory, 

and requiring PDF submissions of 

certificates rather than eFiling 

certificates. 

Allowing, rather than requiring, 

certificates for imported products to be 

eFiled at entry would still require 

certificates to be made available for 

examination upon request, as it is now. 

Allowing, instead of requiring, 

certificates to be eFiled at entry could 

reduce the burden on small businesses, 

but it would not enhance the 

Commission’s ability to target 

shipments for examination by using the 

additional certificate data elements 

collected via eFiling and to verify the 

accuracy of certificates. Noncompliant 

firms likely would not choose to eFile 

certificates, thwarting CPSC’s ability to 

identify noncompliant products using 

algorithms and decreasing the accuracy 

and capabilities of algorithms that can 

learn based on eFiled data. 

The alternative of requiring PDF 

submissions of certificates, to be 

uploaded into CBP’s Document Image 

System, would not enhance the 

Commission’s ability to target 

shipments for examination by using the 

additional certificate data elements 

collected via eFiling. It is cumbersome 

to extract data from PDF files for 

targeting purposes, and PDF files 

require a relatively large amount of 

storage space to maintain, particularly 

compared to isolated data elements. 

C. Request for Comment 

Based on staff’s analysis, we conclude 

that the additional burden imposed by 

the SNPR is small when compared to 

one percent of the revenue for small 

firm typical of its industry. The SNPR 

does not change small firms’ statutory 

obligations to certify that their products 

meet applicable safety standards. The 

SNPR adds a minor burden of an 

additional two years of recordkeeping 

for GCCs, and adds a reporting burden 

for importers to eFile certificates with 

CBP using the PGA Message Set. These 

additional burdens add approximately 

$1.5 million in cost to the industry, 

which is small when compared to the 

respective 43,000 and 211,000 suppliers 

of non-children’s and children’s 

products. 

Small businesses that believe they 

would be affected by the SNPR are 

encouraged to submit comments. The 

comments should be specific and 

describe the potential impact and its 

magnitude, and the industry in which 

the firm resides. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This SNPR contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521. The PRA requires an agency to 

publish the following information: 

D a title for the collection of 

information; 

D a summary of the collection of 

information; 

D a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

D a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

D an estimate of the burden that will 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

D notice that comments may be 

submitted to OMB. 

44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). The SNPR 

creates a new collection of information 

for certificates for non-children’s 

products, and would expand the 

existing collection for Third Party 

Testing of Children’s Products, OMB 

Control No. 3041–0159. The Children’s 

Product OMB control number would be 

expanded to include eFiling certificates 

for imported children’s products that 

are subject to a CPSC rule requiring 

certification. Tab D of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package contains a detailed 

burden analysis by CPSC regulation. We 

summarize that information here. In 

accordance with OMB’s requirement, 

the Commission provides the following 

information: 

Title: (1) Certification of NonChildren’s Products; (2) Amendment to 

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products, approved previously under 

OMB Control Number 3041–0159. 

Summary, Need, and Use of 

Information: Sections I and II of this 

preamble, and Tab D of Staff’s SNPR 

Briefing Package, contain this 

information. 

Respondents and Frequency: For 

products manufactured outside of the 

United States, respondents include 

importers of consumer products and 

substances subject to a CPSC-enforced 

regulation. For products manufactured 

within the United States, respondents 

include manufacturers and private 

labelers of consumer products and 

substances subject to a CPSC-enforced 

regulation. 

Estimated Burden: CPSC has 

estimated the respondent burden in 

hours and the estimated labor costs to 

respondents. 

Estimate of Respondent Burden: 

Below we categorize and estimate the 

burden created by both the statute and 

the SNPR for children’s and nonchildren’s regulated products as follows: 

Certificates: The burden associated 

with the creation of certificates (GCCs 

and CPCs). This can be considered a 

general recordkeeping burden. 

Disclosure: The burden derived from 

disclosing certificate information and 

from furnishing the certificates to these 

third parties (distributors and retailers). 

This is considered a third party 

disclosure. 

Recordkeeping: The burden 

associated with the initial storage and 

routine maintenance of records, 

including records of the certificates and 

any supporting and testing 

documentation, for a period of five 

years. This is considered a 

recordkeeping burden. 

eFiling: The initial burden from 

electronically filing the certificates, 

using either the CPSC-maintained 

Product Registry or the systems 

provided by the brokers that support 

importers’ activities, as well as the 

routine burden on importers submitting 

associated Full or Reference PGA 

Message Sets. This would be considered 

a reporting burden. 

The additional burden imposed 

specifically by the SNPR includes (1) 

the additional recordkeeping period for 

GCCs from three to five years and (2) 

eFiling GCC and CPC data for regulated, 

imported finished consumer products 

and substances. 

A. Total Burden for GCCs 

CPSC estimates that there may be 

49,364 non-children’s products firms 

subject to the SNPR. Staff expects these 

firms to create 1,333,952 certificates and 

spend 111,163 hours on their creation. 

These same firms must keep the records 

supporting the certificates for a period 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85785 

23Total compensation for Office and 

Administrative Support Occupation in Goodsproducing industries as of March of 2023. U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ March 2023, Table 4. 

See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ 

ecec_06162023.pdf. 

of five years. This annual burden comes 

to 27,791 hours. The firms must also 

furnish each certificate to retailers and 

distributors of the product upon request; 

thus, we estimate an additional 0.25 

hours (15 minute) burden for third party 

disclosure. This sums to 333,488 hours. 

Staff estimates the number of 

responses for eFiling as 18,997,724 and 

estimates the eFiling burden as 200,532 

hours. The aggregate burden associated 

with the SNPR for non-children’s 

products suppliers is 672,973 hours and 

has a total cost of $27,399,039. This 

number includes burden imposed by 

statute, which the non-children’s 

products suppliers would bear in 

absence of the SNPR. The net burden 

from the SNPR—excluding the statutory 

burden—is 202,755 hours and the net 

cost is $6,828,781. Table 2 shows that 

importers of general use products 

requiring a GCC bear most of both the 

statutory burden and the additional 

burden from the eFiling requirement. 

Staff expects that 82 percent of the 

firms subject to the SNPR will be 

importers with the remaining 18 percent 

as manufacturers. We estimate the 

statutory burden borne by importers as 

536,950 hours (80%) and the expected 

burden to manufacturers as 136,023 

hours (20%). The net burden from the 

SNPR is 202,115 hours for importers 

(99.7%) and 640 hours for 

manufacturers (0.3%). Tab D of Staff’s 

SNPR Briefing Package explains in more 

detail the methodology staff used to 

derive the burden estimate, as well as a 

PRA burden estimate for each regulated 

product that was used to calculate these 

totals. 

TABLE 2—TOTAL BURDEN ON NON-CHILDREN PRODUCTS COVERED BY PART 1110 

Total burden Respondents 

Frequency 

of 

response 

Responses Response 

time 

Burden 

hours 

Cost per 

burden hour 

Total cost 

of burden 

Certificates .............................................................................. 49,364 27.0 1,333,952 0.0833 111,163 $76.26 $8,477,268 

Disclosure ................................................................................ 49,364 27.0 1,333,952 0.2500 333,488 33.68 11,231,879 

Recordkeeping ........................................................................ 49,364 27.0 1,333,952 0.0208 27,791 33.68 935,990 

eFiling ...................................................................................... 40,665 467.2 18,997,724 0.0106 200,532 33.68 6,753,902 

Total ................................................................................. 49,364 465.9 22,999,581 0.0293 672,973 40.71 27,399,039 

Additional Burden from the Rule 

Total ................................................................................. 49,364 384.9 18,997,724 0.0107 202,755 23 33.68 6,828,781 

Manufacturers: 

Certificates ....................................................................... 8,699 44.2 384,066 0.0833 32,006 76.26 2,440,741 

Disclosure ........................................................................ 8,699 44.2 384,066 0.2500 96,017 33.68 3,233,838 

Recordkeeping ................................................................. 8,699 44.2 384,066 0.0208 8,001 33.68 269,486 

eFiling ............................................................................... 0 0.0 0 0.0000 0 0.00 0 

Total .......................................................................... 8,699 132.5 1,152,199 0.1181 136,023 43.70 5,944,065 

Additional Burden to Manufacturers 

Total .......................................................................... 8,699 0.0 0 0.0000 640 33.68 21,559 

Importers: 

Certificates ....................................................................... 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.0833 79,157 76.26 6,036,527 

Disclosure ........................................................................ 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.2500 237,472 33.68 7,998,042 

Recordkeeping ................................................................. 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.0208 19,789 33.68 666,503 

eFiling ............................................................................... 40,665 467.2 18,997,724 0.0106 200,532 33.68 6,753,902 

Total .......................................................................... 40,665 537.3 21,847,382 0.0246 536,950 39.96 21,454,974 

Additional Burden to Importers 

Total .......................................................................... 40,665 467.2 18,997,724 0.0106 202,115 33.68 6,807,222 

B. Total Burden for eFiling CPCs 

Section 14 of the CPSA requires third 

party testing of children’s products that 

are subject to an applicable children’s 

product safety rule to ensure 

compliance with such rule. Based on 

this testing, manufacturers, including 

importers, are required to certify 

compliance of their products to the 

applicable standards. The burden 

associated with certificate production, 

recordkeeping, and disclosure is already 

subject to an OMB control number, 

3041–0159, for children’s product 

testing, as set forth in 16 CFR parts 1107 

and 1109. The SNPR adds a certificate 

eFiling requirement for importers of 

finished children’s products and 

estimates the reporting burden for this 

requirement. 

Table 3 presents CPSC’s estimate that 

there are 244,000 firms producing 

children’s products. Staff estimates that 

27,540 imported children’s products are 

subject to a children’s product safety 

rule and would be annually required to 

eFile certificates, with an estimated 

eFile burden of 290,710 hours. This 

number only includes burden imposed 

by the SNPR, so the net burden from the 

SNPR is also 290,710 hours, and the net 

cost of the SNPR ($9,791,126) equals the 

total cost. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—eFILING CHILDREN’S PRODUCT CERTIFICATES (CPC) 

Total burden Respondents 

Frequency 

of 

response 

Responses Response 

time 

Burden 

hours 

Cost per 

burden hour 

Total cost 

of burden 

eFiling .................................................................................... 224,000 123.0 27,540,984 0.0106 290,710 $33.68 $9,791,126 

Additional Burden from the Rule 

Total ............................................................................... 224,000 123.0 27,540,984 0.0106 290,710 33.68 9,791,126 

C. Burden Estimate Breakdowns by 

Imported and Domestically 

Manufactured Products 

Table 4 provides a summary of the 

analysis for imported products, and 

Table 5 provides a summary of this 

analysis for domestically manufactured 

products. Tab D of Staff’s SNPR Briefing 

Package contains additional detail on 

how staff estimated the number of 

respondents and responses. 

TABLE 4—IMPORT DATA ANALYSIS BY PRODUCT

Product 

Total CPC GCC 

Total 

respdnts 

Total 

responses 

Percent 

of resp 

as CPC 

CPC 

responses 

Percent of 

resp as 

GCC 

GCC 

responses 

Architectural Glazing Materials ......................................................................... 792 11,717 0 0 100 11,717 

Artificial Emberizing Materials ........................................................................... 16 5 0 0 100 5 

ATVs .................................................................................................................. 41 37,795 25 9,449 75 28,346 

Baby Changing Products .................................................................................. 4,027 523,490 100 523,490 0 0 

Bassinets and Cradles ...................................................................................... 76 2,299 100 2,299 0 0 

Bedside Sleepers .............................................................................................. 230 75,979 100 75,979 0 0 

Bicycle Helmets ................................................................................................. 624 16,300 50 8,150 50 8,150 

Bicycles ............................................................................................................. 194 125,796 50 62,898 50 62,898 

Bunk Beds—Furniture ....................................................................................... 2,076 89,801 75 67,351 25 22,450 

Button Batteries ................................................................................................. 57 523 0 0 100 523 

Candles with metal-cored wicks ....................................................................... 2,616 27,843 0 0 100 27,843 

Carpets and Rugs ............................................................................................. 186 261,374 25 65,344 75 196,031 

Carriages and Strollers ..................................................................................... 243 9,030 100 9,030 0 0 

CB Antennas ..................................................................................................... 538 12,594 0 0 100 12,594 

Cellulose Insulation ........................................................................................... 5,764 46,511 0 0 100 46,511 

Children’s folding chairs and stools .................................................................. 1,273 67,489 100 67,489 0 0 

Children’s Sleepwear ........................................................................................ 112 66,855 100 66,855 0 0 

Cigarette & Multipurpose Lighters .................................................................... 69 3,908 0 0 100 3,908 

Clacker Balls ..................................................................................................... 4,863 10,243 100 10,243 0 0 

Clothing Storage Units ...................................................................................... 2,992 316,923 0 0 100 316,923 

Consumer Patching Compounds ...................................................................... 864 13,101 0 0 100 13,101 

Crib mattresses ................................................................................................. 154 8,294 100 8,294 0 0 

Cribs .................................................................................................................. 81 14,206 100 14,206 0 0 

Dive Sticks and Other Similar Articles .............................................................. 2,003 4,853 100 4,853 0 0 

Drywall ............................................................................................................... 68 35,134 0 0 100 35,134 

Electrically Operated Toys or Articles ............................................................... 1,012 15,794 100 15,794 0 0 

Fireworks ........................................................................................................... 132 47,076 0 0 100 47,076 

Frame Child Carriers ......................................................................................... 0 0 100 0 0 0 

Furniture ............................................................................................................ 1,092 5,402,165 0 0 100 5,402,165 

Garage Door Openers ...................................................................................... 3,451 10,533 0 0 100 10,533 

Gates and Enclosures ....................................................................................... 87 7,018 100 7,018 0 0 

Hand-Held Infant Carriers ................................................................................. 0 0 100 0 0 0 

High Chairs ....................................................................................................... 172 14,990 100 14,990 0 0 

Imitation Firearms ............................................................................................. 992 3,853 0 0 100 3,853 

Infant Bath Seats .............................................................................................. 73 507 100 507 0 0 

Infant Bath Tubs ................................................................................................ 1,594 5,929 100 5,929 0 0 

Infant Bouncer Seats ........................................................................................ 82 5,224 100 5,224 0 0 

Infant Sleep Products ........................................................................................ 739 80,644 100 80,644 0 0 

Infant Swings ..................................................................................................... 95 1,388 100 1,388 0 0 

Infant Walkers ................................................................................................... 33 3,183 100 3,183 0 0 

Lawn Darts ........................................................................................................ 2,353 4,704 0 0 100 4,704 

Liquid Nicotine Packaging ................................................................................. 536 2,242 0 0 100 2,242 

Magnets ............................................................................................................. 908 34,846 0 0 100 34,846 

Matchbooks ....................................................................................................... 71 241 0 0 100 241 

Mattresses ......................................................................................................... 329 167,504 50 83,752 50 83,752 

Pacifiers ............................................................................................................. 146 4,166 100 4,166 0 0 

Paints ................................................................................................................ 812 154,543 0 0 100 154,543 

Play Yards ......................................................................................................... 71 3,400 100 3,400 0 0 

Pool and Spa Drain Covers .............................................................................. 2,636 33,397 0 0 100 33,397 

Portable Bedrails ............................................................................................... 7,605 29,814 100 29,814 0 0 

Portable Fuel Containers .................................................................................. 386 5,974 0 0 100 5,974 

Portable Gas Containers ................................................................................... 386 5,974 0 0 100 5,974 

Portable Hook-On Chairs .................................................................................. 564 5,328 0 0 100 5,328 

Power Mowers .................................................................................................. 111 18,865 0 0 100 18,865 

Rattles ............................................................................................................... 592 7,939 100 7,939 0 0 

Refrigerator Coors ............................................................................................. 140 74,190 0 0 100 74,190 

Refuse Bins ....................................................................................................... 2,407 2,717 0 0 100 2,717 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85787 

TABLE 4—IMPORT DATA ANALYSIS BY PRODUCT—Continued 

Product 

Total CPC GCC 

Total 

respdnts 

Total 

responses 

Percent 

of resp 

as CPC 

CPC 

responses 

Percent of 

resp as 

GCC 

GCC 

responses 

Sling Carriers .................................................................................................... 0 0 100 0 0 0

Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers ....................................................................... 0 0 100 0 0 0 

Special Packaging (PPPA) ............................................................................... 310 1,410,691 0 0 100 1,410,691 

Stationary Activity Centers ................................................................................ 37 3,093 100 3,093 0 0 

Swimming Pool Slides ...................................................................................... 886 4,184 0 0 100 4,184 

Toddler Beds ..................................................................................................... 76 1,839 100 1,839 0 0 

Toys ................................................................................................................... 1,926 1,349,066 100 1,349,066 0 0 

Vinyl Plastic Film ............................................................................................... 729 33,719 50 16,859 50 16,859 

Wearing Apparel ............................................................................................... 220 16,290,891 50 8,145,446 50 8,145,446 

TABLE 5—DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER DATA BY PRODUCT CATEGORY

CFR Product categories NAICS NAICS_Desc Respdnts 

16 CFR part 1201 .......................... Architectural Glazing Materials ..... 327211 Flat Glass Manufacturing ...................................................................... 19 

16 CFR part 1201 .......................... Architectural Glazing Materials ..... 321911 Wood Window and Door Manufacturing ............................................... 48 

16 CFR part 1201 .......................... Architectural Glazing Materials ..... 326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing: Doors and door frames, 

plastics, manufacturing.

139 

16 CFR part 1201 .......................... Architectural Glazing Materials ..... 327215 Glass Product Manufacturing Made of Purchased Glass .................... 50 

16 CFR part 1201 .......................... Architectural Glazing Materials ..... 332321 Metal Window and Door Manufacturing ............................................... 45 

16 CFR part 1305 .......................... Artificial Emberizing Materials ....... 327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing: 

Asbestos products (except brake shoes and clutches) manufacturing.

7 

16 CFR part 1420 .......................... ATVs .............................................. 336999 All other transportation equipment manufacturing: All-terrain vehicles 

(ATVs), wheeled or tracked, manufacturing.

5 

16 CFR part 1203 .......................... Bicycle Helmets ............................. 339920 Sporting and athletic goods manufacturing .......................................... 38 

16 CFR part 1512 .......................... Bicycles ......................................... 336991 Motorcycle, bicycle, and parts manufacturing: Bicycles and parts 

manufacturing.

125 

16 CFR part 1500.17(a)(13) .......... Candles w/Metal Core Wicks ........ 339999 All other miscellaneous manufacturing: candle manufacturing ............ 1,000 

16 CFR parts 1630 and 1631 ........ Carpets and Rugs ......................... 314110 Carpet and rug mills ............................................................................. 185 

16 CFR parts 1630 and 1631 ........ Carpets and Rugs ......................... 314999 All other miscellaneous textile product mills ......................................... 219 

16 CFR part 1204 .......................... CB Band Base Station Antennas .. 334220 Radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications 

equipment manufacturing.

10 

16 CFR part 1209 .......................... Cellulose Insulation ....................... 321219 Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing ........................................ 65 

16 CFR part 1210 and 1212 .......... Cigarette Lighters .......................... 339999 All other miscellaneous manufacturing: Cigarette lighters (except precious metal) manufacturing.29 

16 CFR part 1261 .......................... Clothing Storage Units .................. 337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing ................ 2,012 

16 CFR part 1261 .......................... Clothing Storage Units .................. 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing .................................................... 581 

16 CFR part 1507; 16 CFR 

1500.17(3) and 1500.17(8).

Fireworks Devices ......................... 325998 All other miscellaneous chemical product and preparation manufacturing: Fireworks manufacturing.................

16 CFR parts 1213 ........................ Furniture (bunk beds) .................... 337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing ................ 50 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337122 Nonupholstered Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing ................ 201 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing .................................................... 29 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing ................................. 73 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337211 Wood Office Furniture Manufacturing ................................................... 15 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing ............. 52 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Furniture (paint & entrapment) ...... 337214 Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing .................................... 5 

16 CFR part 1211 .......................... Garage Door Openers .................. 335999 All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing: Garage door openers manufacturing.9 

16 CFR part 1306 .......................... Lawn Darts .................................... 339920 Sporting and Athletic Goods Manufacturing ......................................... 10 

15 USC sec 1472a ........................ Liquid Nicotine Packaging ............. 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing: Nicotine and derivatives (i.e., 

basic chemicals) manufacturing.

278 

16 CFR part 1262 .......................... Magnets ......................................... 327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing—Magnets, 

permanent, ceramic or ferrite, manufacturing.

7 

16 CFR part 1262 .......................... Magnets ......................................... 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing— 

Magnets, permanent, metallic, manufacturing.

18 

16 CFR part 1202 .......................... Matchbooks ................................... 325998 All other miscellaneous chemical product and preparation manufacturing: Matches and matchbook manufacturing.6 

16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633 ........ Mattresses, Pads, and Sets .......... 337910 Mattress manufacturing ........................................................................ 314 

16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633 ........ Mattresses, Pads, and Sets .......... 337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing ................................. 686 

16 CFR part 1303 .......................... Paints and Coatings ...................... 325510 Paint and coating manufacturing .......................................................... 100 

16 CFR part 1304 .......................... Patching Compounds .................... 327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing: 

Asbestos products (except brake shoes and clutches) manufacturing.

10 

16 CFR part 1460 .......................... Portable gas containers ................ 326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing ............................................. 10 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 324110 Petroleum Refineries: Solvents made in petroleum refineries ............. 16 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing—Fuel propellants, 

solid inorganic, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing; 

Caustic soda (i.e., sodium hydroxide) manufacturing, Potassium 

hydroxide (i.e., caustic potash) manufacturing.

94 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing: Turpentine.13 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing: Fuel propellants, 

solid organic, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing.

156 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing: Dietary supplements, 

uncompounded, manufacturing.

115 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER DATA BY PRODUCT CATEGORY—Continued 

CFR Product categories NAICS NAICS_Desc Respdnts 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing ......................................... 262 

D. Cost to the Federal Government 

The estimated annual cost of the 

information collection requirements to 

the Federal Government is 

approximately $1.2 million, which 

includes 2,080 staff hours to manage the 

eFiling program and $1 million in 

contracting costs. This estimate is based 

on an average annual compensation for 

a mid-level salaried GS–13 employee of 

$88.45 per hour. Assuming that 

approximately 2,080 hours will be 

required annually, this results in an 

annual labor cost of $183,976 ($88.45 

per hour × 2,080 hours = $183,976) plus 

an annual contracting cost of $1 million 

in IT development for an annual cost to 

the government of $1.2 million. 

Contracting costs are expected to 

decrease over time and will only be 

required for ongoing operations and 

maintenance. 

E. Comments 

CPSC has submitted the information 

collection requirements of this rule to 

OMB for review in accordance with 

PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 

CPSC requests that interested parties 

submit comments regarding information 

collection to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this NPR). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

the Commission invites comments on: 

• whether the proposed and revised 

collections of information are necessary 

for the proper performance of CPSC’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

D the accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collections 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

D ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information the 

Commission proposes to collect; 

D ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

D the estimated respondent cost other 

than burden hour cost. 

VIII. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether the agency is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

Under these regulations, certain 

categories of CPSC actions normally 

have ‘‘little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment,’’ and therefore, 

do not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Rules 

regarding product certification fall 

within this categorical exclusion. 16 

CFR 1021.5(c)(2). 

IX. Preemption 

Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2075(a), addresses the preemptive effect 

of CPSC’s consumer product safety 

standards. Part 1110, however, is a 

procedural rule, not a consumer product 

safety standard. Therefore, the 

preemption provision of section 26(a) of 

the CPSA would not apply to a final 

rule. 

X. Request for Comments 

The Commission requests comment 

on all aspects of the SNPR, including 

specifically the following items: 

• proposed definition of ‘‘importer’’; 

• whether the proposed requirement 

in § 1110.9(c) regarding the prominence 

of an electronically available certificate 

on an invoice or shipping container is 

supported by a valid concern for 

furnishing a certificate; 

• how do regulated fireworks meet 

the obligation to test and certify now, 

and how will regulated fireworks meet 

the eFiling requirement in the SNPR if 

finalized; 

• eFiling options and solutions for 

products imported from an FTZ; 

• the proposed effective date of 120 

days after publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register; 

• analysis and information regarding 

small business impacts, including: 

Æ whether CPSC can obtain more 

precise estimates of percentages of small 

businesses belonging to a given NAICS, 

how many small firms covered by the 

SNPR fall within that NAICS, and how 

many certificates these firms may create; 

and 

Æ the average annual revenues of 

small businesses within the impacted 

industries, as well as alternative 

industry classifications that CPSC 

should consider when classifying the 

relevant industry for SBA purposes; and 

• PRA burden estimates. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1110 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Business and industry, 

Certificate, Certification, Children, 

Component part certificate, Consumer 

protection, Electronic filing, Imports, 

Labeling, Product testing and 

certification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Record 

retention, Regulated products. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

revise 16 CFR part 1110 to read as 

follows: 

PART 1110—CERTIFICATES OF 

COMPLIANCE 

Sec. 

1110.1 Purpose and scope. 

1110.3 Definitions. 

1110.5 Products required to be certified. 

1110.7 Who must certify finished products. 

1110.9 Certificate language and format. 

1110.11 Certificate content. 

1110.13 Certificate availability. 

1110.15 Legal responsibility for certificate 

information. 

1110.17 Recordkeeping requirements. 

1110.19 Component part certificates. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063, Secs. 3 and 102 

of Pub. L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 

(2008), Pub. L. 112–28 (2011). 

§ 1110.1 Purpose and scope. 

This part specifies the entities that 

must issue certificates for finished 

products in accordance with section 

14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act (CPSA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a); specifies certificate content, 

form, and availability requirements that 

must be met to satisfy the requirements 

of section 14 of the CPSA; requires 

importers to file certificates 

electronically (eFile) with CBP for 

imported finished products that are 

required to be certified; and clarifies 

which provisions of this part apply to 

component part certificates. This part 

does not address the type or frequency 

of testing necessary to support a 

certificate. 

§ 1110.3 Definitions. 

(a) The definitions of section 3 of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052, and additional 

definitions in the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(CPSIA), Public Law 110–314, apply to 

this part. 

(b) Additionally, the following 

definitions apply for purposes of this 

part: 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) means the automated and 

electronic system for processing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85789 

commercial importations that is 

operated by CBP in accordance with the 

National Customs Automation Program 

established in Subtitle B of Title VI— 

Customs Modernization, in the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103–182, 

107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) 

(Customs Modernization Act), or any 

other CBP-authorized electronic data 

interchange system. 

CBP or Customs means U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection. 

Certificate or certificate of compliance 

means a certification that the finished 

products or component parts within the 

scope of the certificate comply with the 

consumer product safety rules under the 

CPSA, or similar rules, bans, standards, 

or regulations under any other law 

enforced by the Commission, as set forth 

on the certificate. ‘‘Certificate’’ and 

‘‘certificate of compliance’’ generally 

refer to all three types of certificates: 

General Certificates of Conformity 

(GCC), Children’s Product Certificates 

(CPC), and component part certificates. 

Certifier means the party who issues 

a certificate of compliance. 

Children’s Product Certificate (CPC) 

means a certificate of compliance for a 

finished product issued pursuant to 

section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2063, and part 1107 of this chapter. 

Commission or CPSC means the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

Component part means a component 

part of a consumer product or other 

product or substance regulated by the 

Commission, as defined in § 1109.4(b) of 

this chapter, that is intended to be used 

in the manufacture or assembly of a 

finished product, and is not intended 

for sale to, or use by, consumers as a 

finished product. 

Component part certificate means a 

certificate of compliance for a 

component part, as defined in this 

section. 

Consignee means the recipient of the 

goods being shipped or transported and 

who typically takes ownership of 

consumer products or other products or 

substances regulated by the Commission 

once they have cleared customs. A 

consignee includes the ‘‘ultimate 

consignee,’’ who is the party in the 

United States to whom the overseas 

supplier sold, consigned, or delivered 

the imported merchandise. 

eFiled certificate means an electronic 

filing of the data elements in § 1110.11 

in ACE, in the format required in 

§ 1110.13(a). 

Electronic certificate means a set of 

information available in, and accessible 

by, electronic means that sets forth the 

information required in § 1110.11, in the 

format described in § 1110.9(c). 

Finished product means a consumer 

product or other product or substance 

regulated by the Commission that is 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing or is distributed in 

commerce. Parts of such products or 

substances, including replacement 

parts, that are imported for consumption 

or warehousing or are distributed in 

commerce that are packaged, sold, or 

held for sale to, or use by, consumers 

are considered finished products. 

Finished product certificate means a 

certificate of compliance for a finished 

product, as defined in this section. 

There are two types of finished product 

certificates: Children’s Product 

Certificates and General Certificates of 

Conformity. 

Finished product certifier means a 

party who is required to issue a finished 

product certificate pursuant to § 1110.7. 

General Certificate of Conformity 

(GCC) means a certificate of compliance 

for a finished product issued pursuant 

to section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). 

Importer means the importer of 

record; consignee; or owner, purchaser, 

or party that has a financial interest in 

the product or substance being offered 

for import and effectively caused the 

product or substance to be imported 

into the United States. An importer can 

also be a person holding a valid customs 

broker’s license, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1641, when appropriately designated by 

the owner, purchaser, or consignee of 

the product or substance. For purposes 

of testing and certification, CPSC will 

not typically consider a consumer 

purchasing or receiving products for 

personal use or enjoyment to be an 

importer. 

Importer of Record means the entity 

listed as the importer of record on CBP 

forms 3461 and 7501. 

Owner or purchaser means any party 

with a financial interest in the imported 

product or substance, including, but not 

limited to, the actual owner of the 

goods, the actual purchaser of the goods, 

a buying or selling agent, a person or 

firm who imports on consignment, or a 

person or firm who imports under loan 

or lease. 

Product Registry means a database 

created and maintained by CPSC that 

allows for the electronic entry of data 

elements required on GCCs and CPCs, as 

provided in § 1110.11. This definition 

includes any CPSC successor system. 

Third party conformity assessment 

body means a testing laboratory whose 

accreditation has been accepted by the 

CPSC to conduct certification testing on 

children’s products. 

§ 1110.5 Products required to be certified. 

Finished products 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, which are imported 

for consumption or warehousing, or are 

distributed in commerce, must be 

accompanied by a GCC or a CPC, as 

applicable. 

§ 1110.7 Who must certify finished 

products. 

(a) Imports. Except as otherwise 

provided in a specific rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation enforced by 

CPSC, for a finished product 

manufactured outside of the United 

States that must be accompanied by a 

certificate as set forth in § 1110.5, the 

importer must issue a certificate that 

meets the requirements of this part. 

(b) Domestic products. Except as 

otherwise provided in a specific rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation enforced by 

the Commission, for a finished product 

manufactured in the United States that 

must be accompanied by a certificate, as 

set forth in § 1110.5, the manufacturer 

must issue a certificate that meets the 

requirements of this part. However, if a 

finished product manufactured in the 

United States is privately labeled, the 

private labeler must issue a certificate 

that meets the requirements of this part, 

unless the manufacturer issues the 

certificate. 

§ 1110.9 Certificate language and format. 

(a) Language. An eFiled certificate 

must be in the English language. All 

other certificates, including hard copy 

and electronic certificates, must be in 

the English language and may also 

contain the same content in any other 

language. 

(b) Format. Certificates for finished 

products that are manufactured outside 

the United States and offered for 

importation into the United States for 

consumption or warehousing are 

required to be eFiled using the format 

required in § 1110.13(a)(1). All other 

certificates must be made available as 

provided in § 1110.13(b) and (c), and 

may be provided in hard copy or 

electronically, as set forth in (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Electronic certificates. An 

electronic certificate meets the 

requirements of § 1110.13(b) and (c) if it 

is identified prominently on the 

finished product, shipping carton, or 

invoice by a unique identifier and can 

be accessed via a World Wide Web 

uniform resource locator (URL) or other 

electronic means, provided that the 

certificate, the URL or other electronic 

means, and the unique identifier are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
85790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

accessible, along with access to the 

electronic certificate itself, to the 

Commission, CBP, distributors, and 

retailers, on or before the date the 

finished product is distributed in 

commerce. If the electronic certificate is 

password protected, the password must 

be provided at the same time as the 

certificate when requested by CPSC or 

CBP. 

§ 1110.11 Certificate content. 

(a) Content requirements. Each 

certificate must: 

(1) Identify the finished product(s) 

covered by the certificate. Certifiers 

must provide at least one of the 

following unique identifiers: global 

trade item number (GTIN), model 

number, registered number, serial 

number, stock keeping number (SKU), 

universal product code (UPC), or 

alternate identifier, along with a 

sufficient description to match the 

finished product to the certificate. 

Certifiers may also include other 

identifiers, such as lot number, model 

style, and model color, that may assist 

with product identification. 

(2) State each consumer product 

safety rule under the CPSA, or similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any law enforced by the Commission, to 

which the finished product(s) are being 

certified. Finished product certificates 

must identify separately all applicable 

rules, bans, standards, or regulations. 

(3) Identify the party certifying 

compliance of the finished product(s), 

as set forth in § 1110.7, including the 

party’s name, street address, city, state 

or province, country or administrative 

region, electronic mail (email) address, 

and telephone number. 

(4) Identify and provide contact 

information (consisting, at a minimum, 

of the individual’s name, street address, 

city, state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number) for the 

individual maintaining the records 

stated in this paragraph. An individual 

can be a position title, provided that this 

position is always staffed and 

responsive to CPSC’s requests. 

(i) Records of test results on which a 

GCC is based, and records described in 

§§ 1109.5(g) and (j) of this chapter 

(where applicable). 

(ii) Records of test results and other 

records on which a CPC is based, as 

required by § 1107.26, and § 1109.5(g) 

and (j) of this chapter (where 

applicable). 

(iii) Records of test results and other 

records on which a component part 

certificate is based, as required by 

§ 1109.5(g) and (j) of this chapter. 

(5) Provide the date (month and year, 

at a minimum) and place (including a 

manufacturer name, street address, city, 

state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number) where the 

finished product(s) were manufactured, 

produced, or assembled. For 

manufacturing runs over a series of 

days, provide the initial date of 

manufacture (month and year, at a 

minimum). 

(6) Provide the most recent date and 

places (including the name of each third 

party conformity assessment body or 

other party on whose testing the 

certificate depends: name, street 

address, city, state or province, country 

or administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number) where the 

finished product(s) were tested for 

compliance with the rule(s), ban(s), 

standard(s), or regulation(s) cited in 

§ 1110.11(a)(4). 

(7) Include the following attestation: 

I hereby certify that the finished 

product(s) covered by this certificate 

comply with the rules, bans, standards, 

and regulations stated herein, and that 

the information in this certificate is true 

and accurate to the best of my 

knowledge, information, and belief. I 

understand and acknowledge that it is a 

United States federal crime to 

knowingly and willfully make any 

materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 

statement, representation, or omission 

on this certificate. 

(b) Electronic access to records. In 

addition to identification of the 

custodian of records as described in 

§ 1110.11(a)(6), a certificate may include 

a URL, or other electronic means, which 

provides electronic access to the 

required underlying records to support 

the certificate as specified in §§ 1107.26 

and 1109.5(g), or any other applicable 

consumer product safety rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation enforced by the 

Commission. 

(c) Statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusions: Unless otherwise provided 

by the Commission, if a certifier is 

claiming a statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusion to an applicable consumer 

product safety rule or similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation, then in addition 

to listing all applicable rules, bans, 

standards, and regulations as required 

under § 1110.11(a)(2) and in lieu of 

providing the date and place where 

testing was conducted for that 

regulation under § 1110.11(a)(6), a 

certifier shall list on the certificate the 

applicable testing exclusions. 

(d) Duplicative testing not required. 

Although certificates must list each 

applicable rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation separately, finished product 

certifiers are not required to conduct 

duplicative third party testing for any 

rule that refers to, or incorporates fully, 

another applicable consumer product 

safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation under any other law 

enforced by the Commission. 

§ 1110.13 Certificate availability. 

(a) Accompanying certificates. A 

certificate issued by a finished product 

certifier must accompany each finished 

product or finished product shipment 

required to be certified pursuant to 

§ 1110.5. Each certificate must describe 

only one product. 

(1) In the case of finished products 

that are manufactured outside the 

United States and are offered for 

importation into the United States for 

consumption or warehousing, including 

products offered for importation from a 

Foreign Trade Zone or products under 

the de minimis value (as defined in 

§ 901 of the Trade Facilitation and 

Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 or any 

successor act), the finished product 

certifier must eFile the GCC or CPC data 

elements required under § 1110.11 in 

ACE at the time of filing the CBP entry, 

or the time of filing the entry and entry 

summary, if both are filed together, as 

provided in CPSC’s PGA Message Set 

CATAIR Implementation Guide 

(including revisions thereto). In the case 

of finished products that are 

manufactured outside of the United 

States and imported as a mail shipment, 

the finished product certifier must enter 

the GCC or CPC data elements required 

under § 1110.11 into CPSC’s Product 

Registry prior to the product or 

substance arriving in the United States. 

(2) In the case of finished products 

manufactured in the United States, the 

finished product certifier must issue the 

required certificate on or before the date 

the finished product is distributed in 

commerce, and make the certificate 

available for inspection immediately, 

meaning within 24 hours, upon request 

by CPSC. 

(b) Furnishing certificates. A finished 

product certifier must furnish a required 

GCC or CPC to each distributor or 

retailer of the finished product. 

(c) Availability. Certifiers must make 

certificates available for inspection 

immediately, meaning within 24 hours, 

upon request by CPSC or CBP. 

§ 1110.15 Legal responsibility for 

certificate information. 

Certifiers may, directly or through 

another entity, maintain an electronic 

certificate platform, enter the requisite 

data into the Product Registry or into 

ACE, or certify the product(s) or 

substance(s). The certifier is legally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 235 / Friday, December 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules 85791 

responsible for the information in a 

certificate, including its validity, 

accuracy, completeness, and 

availability. 

§ 1110.17 Recordkeeping requirements. 

For CPCs and component part 

certificates, certifiers must satisfy the 

recordkeeping provisions contained in 

§§ 1107.26, 1109.5(g), and 1109.5(j) of 

this chapter, as applicable. For GCCs, 

certifiers must maintain for at least five 

years from their creation the certificate 

and supporting test records required 

under this chapter. 

§ 1110.19 Component part certificates. 

Pursuant to part 1109 of this chapter, 

component part certificates are 

voluntary. Certificates should not be 

filed in ACE upon importation of 

component parts. Certifiers of 

component parts must meet the 

requirements in part 1109 of this 

chapter, and component part certificates 

must meet the form, content, and 

availability requirements described in 

§§ 1110.9, 1110.11, 1110.13(c), 1110.15, 

and 1110.17. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2023–25911 Filed 12–7–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS3