Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 92 May 13, 2013 

Part IV 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

16 CFR Part 1110 

Certificates of Compliance; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1110 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2013–0017] 

Certificates of Compliance 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(Commission, CPSC, or we) is issuing a 

proposed rule that would amend the 

existing regulation on certificates of 

compliance. The proposed amendment 

is intended to update the rule to clarify 

requirements in light of new regulations 

on testing and labeling pertaining to 

product certification, and component 

part testing. The proposed amendment 

would, among other things, use newly 

defined terms such as ‘‘finished product 

certificate’’ and ‘‘component part 

certificate’’; require that regulated 

finished products that are privately 

labeled be certified by the private 

labeler for products manufactured in the 

United States; clarify requirements for 

the form, content, and availability of 

certificates of compliance; and require 

that importers of regulated finished 

products manufactured outside of the 

United States file the required certificate 

electronically with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) at the time of 

filing the CBP entry or at the time of 

filing the entry and entry summary, if 

both are filed together. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by July 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013– 

0017, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

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

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Comments related to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act aspects of the proposed 

rule should be directed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 

202–395–6974, or emailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Cave, Director, Office of Import 

Surveillance, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; ccave@cpsc.gov; 

telephone (301) 504–7677. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

A. Background on 16 CFR Part 1110 

The Commission promulgated a direct 

final rule on ‘‘certificates of 

compliance,’’ also referred to as 

‘‘certificates,’’ on November 18, 2008 

(73 FR 68328), which is codified at 16 

CFR part 1110 (the existing 1110 rule). 

The Commission published the existing 

1110 rule shortly after the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA) was enacted on August 

14, 2008, to clarify for stakeholders the 

certificate requirements imposed by the 

newly amended section 14(a) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) 

and section 14(g) of the CPSA. The 

CPSIA amended section 14(a) of the 

CPSA to require that manufacturers and 

private labelers of children’s products 

subject to a children’s product safety 

rule certify such products as compliant 

based on testing conducted by a third 

party conformity assessment body, and 

that manufacturers and private labelers 

of regulated non-children’s products 

certify compliance based on a test of 

each product, or on a reasonable testing 

program. Section 14(g) of the CPSA 

states requirements for certificate 

content. Thus, the existing part 1110 

rule sets forth certificate requirements, 

such as: 

• Limiting the parties who must issue 

a certificate to the importer, for products 

manufactured outside the United States, 

and, in the case of domestically 

manufactured products, to the 

manufacturer; 

• Allowing certificates to be in hard 

copy or electronic form; 

• Clarifying requirements for an 

electronic form of certificate; and 

• Providing certificate content 

requirements. 

B. Why is the Commission proposing to 

amend the 1110 rule now? 

The Commission is proposing to 

amend the 1110 rule now to clarify 

certificate requirements in light of new 

rules related to testing and certification 

of consumer products and to implement 

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

allows the Commission, in consultation 

with the Commissioner of Customs, to 

require that certificates for imported 

products be filed electronically with 

CBP up to 24 hours before arrival of an 

imported product. 

Since the existing 1110 rule was 

promulgated in 2008, the Commission 

has been working diligently to 

implement the requirements of the 

CPSIA, including the requirements in 

section 14 of the CPSA for testing, 

labeling, and certification of consumer 

products. Recently, the Commission 

issued two key rules: (1) Testing and 

Labeling Pertaining to Product 

Certification, 16 CFR part 1107 (the 

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

Conditions and Requirements for 

Relying on Component Part Testing or 

Certification, or Another Party’s 

Finished Product Testing or 

Certification, to Meet Testing and 

Certification Requirements, 16 CFR part 

1109 (the Component Part Rule or the 

1109 rule). Both rules were published in 

the Federal Register on November 8, 

2011 (76 FR 69482 and 76 FR 69546, 

respectively). The Testing Rule sets 

forth requirements for the testing, 

certification, and labeling of regulated 

children’s products. It became effective 

on February 8, 2013. The Component 

Part Rule, which allows for component 

part testing and certification to meet 

testing and certification requirements, 

became effective on December 8, 2011. 

Amending the existing 1110 rule would 

allow the Commission to define and use 

new terms introduced by the 1107 and 

1109 rules, and to describe and explain 

how certificates must be integrated and 

consistent with these new rules. 

C. What statutory requirements apply to 

certificates of compliance? 

This section of the preamble describes 

the statutory requirements that apply to 

certificates and the Commission’s 

authority to implement such 

requirements. Section 14(a)(1) of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28081 

CPSA, as amended by the CPSIA, 

requires that except for certificates that 

apply to children’s products, every 

manufacturer, or private labeler if there 

is one, of a consumer product that is 

subject to a consumer product safety 

rule under the CPSA, or similar rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation under any 

other law enforced by the Commission 

that is imported for consumption or 

warehousing, or distributed in 

commerce, must issue a certificate. 

Section 3(a)(8) of the CPSA defines 

‘‘distribute in commerce’’ to mean ‘‘to 

sell in commerce, to introduce or 

deliver for introduction into commerce, 

or to hold for sale or distribution after 

introduction into commerce.’’ For nonchildren’s products, the certificate must 

be based on a test of each product or on 

a reasonable testing program. The 

certificate must specify each applicable 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

enforced by the Commission and certify 

that the product complies with all such 

listed rules. 

Similarly, section 14(a)(2) of the 

CPSA requires that every manufacturer 

or private labeler, if there is one, of a 

children’s product that is subject to a 

children’s product safety rule must have 

the children’s product tested by a third 

party conformity assessment body, and 

based on such testing, certify that the 

product is compliant with all applicable 

rules. Before importing such children’s 

products for consumption or 

warehousing, or before distributing such 

children’s products in commerce, 

manufacturers or private labelers must 

submit sufficient samples of the 

children’s product, or samples that are 

identical in all material respects to the 

children’s product, to a third party 

conformity assessment body, whose 

accreditation has been accepted by the 

Commission to perform such testing, to 

be tested for compliance with all 

applicable children’s product safety 

rules. The manufacturer or private 

labeler must issue a certificate or 

certificates based on such testing, 

certifying that the children’s products 

covered by the certificate(s) comply 

with all applicable children’s product 

safety rules. Section 14(a)(2)(B) of the 

CPSA states that a certificate can be 

issued for each applicable children’s 

product safety rule, or one certificate for 

the product can combine all applicable 

rules, by listing each applicable 

children’s product safety rule separately 

and certifying compliance with all of 

them. 

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

the term ‘‘manufacturer’’ as any person 

who manufactures or imports a 

consumer product. As such, any 

statutory obligation assigned to a 

manufacturer, by definition, applies to 

an importer. Thus, as written, the 

statutory obligation to issue a certificate 

for children’s and non-children’s 

products falls to the manufacturer, 

importer, or the private labeler of a 

consumer product, if the product is 

privately labeled under section 3(a)(12) 

of the CPSA. Section 14(a)(4) of the 

CPSA provides that in the case of a 

consumer product that has more than 

one manufacturer or private labeler, the 

Commission may, by rule, designate 

which person is responsible for issuing 

a certificate, and exempt all other 

persons from issuing certificates. 

Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains 

certificate requirements. Section 14(g)(1) 

of the CPSA requires that a certificate 

shall 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. At a minimum, certificates are 

required to include: the date and place 

of manufacture; the date and place 

where the product was tested; each 

party’s name, full mailing address, and 

telephone number; and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. Additionally, section 

14(g)(2) of the CPSA requires that every 

certificate be legible and that all 

contents must be in English. Contents 

may also be in any other language. 

Moreover, pursuant to section 14(g)(3) 

of the CPSA, 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. Finally, section 

14(g)(4) of the CPSA states that in 

consultation with the Commissioner of 

Customs, the CPSC may, by rule, 

provide for the electronic filing of 

certificates up to 24 hours before 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 or to CBP. 

In addition to the statutory authority 

to require certificates for regulated 

products, as outlined in sections 14(a) 

and (g) of the CPSA, the Commission 

has general implementing authority 

with regard to certificates, pursuant to 

section 3 of the CPSIA, which provides: 

‘‘[t]he Commission may issue 

regulations, as necessary, to implement 

this Act and the amendments made by 

this Act.’’ 

II. Description of the Proposed Rule 

Because of the number of proposed 

changes, the Commission intends to 

strike the existing 1110 rule in its 

entirety and replace it with the 

proposed rule set forth below. 

A. What is the purpose and scope of this 

part?—Proposed § 1110.1 

Proposed § 1110.1 would continue to 

describe the purpose of part 1110 but 

does so in language that is clearer and 

more simple. The changes also clarify 

which provisions of this part apply to 

component part certificates. Existing 

§ 1110.1(a)(1) states that the purpose of 

the rule is to ‘‘limit’’ the entities 

required to issue certificates because the 

existing rule does not cover private 

labelers. The proposed rule would 

increase the number of entities 

responsible for issuing certificates and 

therefore would state that the purpose is 

to ‘‘specify’’ the entities that must issue 

certificates. The proposed rule also 

would implement section 14(g)(4) and 

require certificates for imported 

products to be filed electronically with 

CBP. Proposed § 1110.1(b) would reflect 

this change. 

B. What definitions apply to this part?— 

Proposed § 1110.3 

Existing § 1110.3 defines an 

‘‘electronic certificate,’’ and 

incorporates definitions from section 3 

of the CPSA as well as definitions set 

forth in the CPSIA. Proposed § 1110.3 

would maintain these provisions, with 

minor grammatical changes, and would 

add 13 new definitions. The proposed 

new definitions would clarify the 

different types of certificates outlined in 

the Testing and Component Part Rules, 

such as ‘‘Children’s Product Certificate 

(CPC),’’ ‘‘General Conformity Certificate 

(GCC),’’ ‘‘finished product certificate,’’ 

and ‘‘component part certificate.’’ For 

example, two types of finished product 

certificates would be defined in the 

proposed rule: CPCs and GCCs. Either a 

CPC or GCC would only be required for 

‘‘finished products’’ but not for 

‘‘component parts’’ of consumer 

products under the proposed rule. Only 

certain regulated finished products 

would be required to be certified 

because our regulations typically are 

based on finished products. Under the 

Component Part Rule certification of 

component parts is voluntary, so not all 

component parts will be tested or 

certified, unless and until they become 

part of a regulated finished product; and 

component part suppliers may not know 

how the component part will be used 

and whether it will become part of a 

regulated finished product. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28082 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed new definitions would 

also make part 1110 consistent with the 

Component Part Rule, by including and 

clarifying terminology used in that rule, 

such as ‘‘component part’’ and ‘‘finished 

product.’’ Proposed § 1110.3(b)(6) 

would define a ‘‘component part’’ as ‘‘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.’’ Thus, 

the term ‘‘component part’’ would refer 

only to parts of products that are 

intended to be used in the manufacture 

or assembly of a finished product. In 

contrast, the term ‘‘finished product’’ 

refers to a product that is ‘‘imported for 

consumption or warehousing or is 

distributed in commerce.’’ Under the 

proposed definition, parts of such 

products that are packaged, sold, or held 

for sale to or use by consumers would 

also be considered finished products. 

The distinction between a 

‘‘component part’’ and a ‘‘finished 

product’’ is important because it defines 

when a product must be accompanied 

by a certificate under the proposed rule. 

‘‘Finished products’’ are intended for 

sale to, or use by, consumers. 

‘‘Component parts’’ are intended for 

incorporation into a finished product, 

and are not packaged, sold, or held for 

sale for use by consumers. In contrast, 

replacement parts of finished products 

that are sold separately would be 

considered finished products under the 

proposed rule. Because use of the 

Component Part Rule is voluntary, not 

every component part will be certified. 

It is only at the finished product stage 

that finished product certifiers will 

know all of the regulations that apply to 

a product and whether it must be 

accompanied by a certificate. 

For example, doll clothing can be 

packaged and sold directly to 

consumers as a doll accessory. Such 

doll clothing that is packaged for sale to 

consumers would be considered a 

finished product under the proposed 

rule and must be certified. However, the 

same doll clothing could also be 

imported for use in the final assembly 

of a doll. Doll clothing that is imported 

for the purpose of being assembled with 

a doll for sale to consumers would be 

considered a component part under the 

proposed rule, and it would not be 

required to be accompanied by a 

certificate. If such doll clothing is a 

portion of a children’s product, 

however, it still must comply with the 

applicable rules. Moreover, such doll 

clothing would need to be certified as 

compliant as part of a finished 

children’s product. 

Proposed § 1110.3(b)(11) would 

define a ‘‘finished product certifier’’ as 

‘‘a party that is required to issue a 

finished product certificate pursuant to 

§ 1110.7.’’ Note that § 1107.2 of the 

Testing Rule defines a ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

as ‘‘the parties responsible for 

certification of a consumer product 

pursuant to 16 CFR part 1110.’’ Thus, 

changing the party responsible for 

issuing a certificate in the proposed rule 

would also change the party responsible 

for third party testing under the Testing 

Rule. 

The proposed rule would continue to 

place on the importer the obligation to 

certify finished products manufactured 

outside the United States that are not 

delivered directly to consumers in the 

United States. Proposed § 1110.3(b)(13) 

would define an ‘‘importer’’ as the 

importer of record, as defined under the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1484(a)(2)(B)) (Tariff Act). Pursuant to 

the Tariff Act, the importer of record is 

either ‘‘the owner or purchaser of the 

merchandise or, when appropriately 

designated by the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee of the merchandise, a person 

holding a valid’’ customs broker’s 

license, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641. 

C. When are certificates required?— 

Proposed § 1110.5 

Existing § 1110.5 states that a 

certificate that is in hard copy or 

electronic form ‘‘and complies with all 

applicable requirements of this part 

1110 meets the certificate requirements 

of section 14 of the CPSA,’’ and that 

such a certificate ‘‘does not relieve the 

importer or domestic manufacturer from 

the underlying statutory requirements 

concerning the supporting testing and/ 

or other bases to support certification 

and issuance of certificates.’’ 

Requirements for certificate format have 

been moved to proposed § 1110.9. 

Proposed § 1110.5 would clarify when 

consumer products are required to be 

certified. Proposed § 1110.5 would 

require that only finished products that 

are 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. 

Component parts of a consumer product 

are not required to be accompanied by 

a certificate. 

The issue of whether banned products 

require certificates presents an unusual 

question. It could be argued that if a 

product is banned and no longer on the 

market, the need for a certificate is moot 

since there are theoretically no products 

to test and certify. However, very few 

CPSC bans completely remove all 

products in a specific category from the 

market. Instead, they 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. 

For example, the Commission’s ban 

on non-children’s lawn darts at 16 CFR 

1306.1 et seq. states that ‘‘any lawn dart 

is a banned hazardous product.’’ This 

appears to ban the entire product 

category, yet the Commission is aware 

that certain manufacturers continue to 

sell products advertised as plastictipped lawn darts. These lawn darts 

appear not to present the hazard of 

death or injury that metal-tipped lawn 

darts do. In such a case, the Commission 

expects such manufacturers to issue 

GCCs that certify that the plastic-tipped 

lawn darts do not fit within the class of 

banned lawn darts. 

The Commission acknowledges it may 

be difficult at times to distinguish those 

bans that function more like a standard 

from those that ban an entire product 

category. To address this concern, Table 

A provides guidance as to which bans 

require certification. For those bans 

listed in which the Commission is not 

requiring certification we do so because 

either the entire product category 

should not exist so there is nothing to 

certify to or certification is captured by 

certification to another rule, standard or 

regulation (e.g., certain fireworks are 

covered by certification to 16 CFR part 

1507). For example, the Commission is 

proposing to not require the issuance of 

GCCs to show compliance with the ban 

on soluble cyanide salts. However, we 

realize the use of this chemical may 

have changed since the ban was first 

issued in 1972 and are seeking 

comments on the current use of cyanide 

salts in consumer products. Please see 

section III.3 of this preamble for 

additional information on this issue. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28083 

TABLE A 

Ban Description GCC 

Required 

1301 ........................... Ban of unstable refuse bins ................................................................................................................................. Yes. 

1302 ........................... Ban of extremely flammable contact adhesives ................................................................................................... No. 

1303 ........................... Ban of lead-containing paint and certain consumer products bearing lead-containing paint ..............................

—General Use: Applies to consumer paints and paint used on non-metal furniture ...................................

Yes. 

1304 ........................... Ban of consumer patching compounds containing respirable free-form asbestos .............................................. Yes. 

1305 ........................... Ban of artificial emberizing materials (ash and embers) containing respirable free-form asbestos .................... Yes. 

1306 ........................... Ban of hazardous lawn darts ............................................................................................................................... Yes. 

1500.17(a)(1) ............. Ban of ‘‘extremely flammable’’ interior masonry wall sealers .............................................................................. No. 

1500.17(a)(2) ............. Ban of carbon tetrachloride and mixtures containing it ........................................................................................ No. 

1500.17(a)(3) ............. Ban of fireworks with audible effects produced by a charge of more than 2 grains of pyrotechnic composition No. 

1500.17(a)(4) ............. Ban of liquid drain cleaners containing 10 percent or more by weight of sodium and/or potassium hydroxide, 

unless packaged in special packaging under the PPPA.

No. 

1500.17(a)(5) ............. Ban of products containing soluble cyanide salts ................................................................................................ No. 

1500.17(a)(7) ............. Ban of general-use garments containing asbestos .............................................................................................. No. 

1500.17(a)(8) ............. Ban of firecrackers with audible effects produced by a charge of more than 50 mg of pyrotechnic composition.No. 

1500.17(a)(9) ............. Ban of all fireworks, other than firecrackers, unless they meet the requirements of 1507 ................................. No. 

1500.17(a)(10) ........... Ban of self-pressurized products intended or suitable for household use that contain vinyl chloride monomer No. 

1500.17(a)(11) ........... Ban of reloadable tube aerial shell fireworks that use shells larger than 1.75 inches in outer diameter ........... No. 

1500.17(a)(12) ........... Ban of multiple-tube mine and shell fireworks that have any tube measuring 1.5 inches (3.8cm) or more in 

inner diameter, and that have a minimum tip angle less than 60 degrees when tested in accordance with 

1500.12.

No. 

1500.17(a)(13) ........... Candles with metal-cored wicks ........................................................................................................................... Yes. 

CPSA ......................... Butyl Nitrite ........................................................................................................................................................... No. 

CPSA ......................... Isopropal Nitrites ................................................................................................................................................... No. 

D. Who must certify finished 

products?—Proposed § 1110.7 

Existing § 1110.7 provides that, except 

as otherwise provided in a specific 

standard, in the case of a product 

manufactured outside the United States, 

only the importer must certify a product 

and provide a certificate in accordance 

with section 14(a) of the CPSA, and that 

only the manufacturer must certify a 

product and provide a certificate for 

products manufactured in the United 

States. As explained below, the 

proposed rule would modify this 

section. 

1. Imports—Proposed § 1110.7(a) 

Proposed § 1110.7 would retitle the 

section to read: ‘‘Who must certify 

finished products?’’ to state more 

accurately the focus of proposed 

§ 1110.7 and to clarify that only finished 

products must be certified. Proposed 

§ 1110.7(a) would maintain the 

requirement that an importer certify 

products manufactured outside the 

United States, except in the 

circumstance of products that are 

delivered directly to consumers in the 

United States, such as products 

purchased through an Internet Web site. 

In such a case, the proposed rule would 

require that the foreign manufacturer 

certify the product, unless the product 

bears a private label. The private labeler 

would be required to issue a certificate 

for products that bear a private label 

that are delivered directly to a consumer 

in the United States, unless the foreign 

manufacturer issues the certificate. 

The proposed rule would continue to 

place on the importer the obligation to 

certify products manufactured outside 

the United States that are not delivered 

directly to a consumer. Section 

1110.3(b)(13) of the proposed rule 

would define ‘‘importer’’ to be the 

importer of record, as defined under the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1484(a)(2)(B)) (Tariff Act). Pursuant to 

the Tariff Act, the importer of record is 

either ‘‘the owner or purchaser of the 

merchandise or, when appropriately 

designated by the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee of the merchandise, a person 

holding a valid’’ customs broker’s 

license, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641. 

Thus, a validly licensed customs broker 

who serves as the importer of record for 

the imported products would be 

responsible for issuing the certificate 

required by section 14(a) of the CPSA 

and this rule with respect to the 

imported products. 

Some common carriers, contract 

carriers, third party logistics providers, 

and freight forwarders (collectively, 

carriers), in addition to their delivery 

and transportation services, also may 

become licensed customs brokers and 

may serve as importer of record when 

bringing goods into the United States. 

Like any other customs broker that 

agrees to serve as an importer of record, 

when such a carrier chooses to serve as 

the importer, the carrier would be 

responsible for issuing a required 

certificate under the proposed rule. 

Treating a carrier who also serves as 

an importer of record as an ‘‘importer’’ 

under the proposed rule is consistent 

with section 3(b) of the CPSA, which 

provides: 

A common carrier, contract carrier, third 

party logistics provider, or freight forwarder 

shall not, for purposes of this Act, be deemed 

to be a manufacturer [including importer], 

distributor, or retailer of a consumer product 

solely by reason of receiving or transporting 

a consumer product in the ordinary course of 

its business as such a carrier or forwarder. 

This provision protects carriers from 

being ‘‘deemed’’ a manufacturer, 

importer, distributor, or retailer, based 

‘‘solely’’ on ‘‘receiving or transporting a 

consumer product’’ in the ordinary 

course of business as a carrier. Under 

the proposed rule, imposing importerrelated certification requirements on a 

carrier that chooses to become a 

licensed customs broker and that agrees 

to serve as the importer of record is 

based on the carrier’s status as importer 

of record and related customs functions 

rather than on the carrier’s 

transportation-related functions. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

would place the obligation to certify 

products that are delivered directly to 

consumers in the United States, such as 

products purchased through an Internet 

Web site, on the foreign manufacturer, 

unless the product bears a private label. 

This proposed revision would clarify 

and remove any doubt about which 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28084 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

entity has the burden to certify products 

directly delivered to consumers. The 

Commission recognizes that when a 

foreign entity delivers products directly 

to a consumer in the United States, the 

consumer could be considered the 

importer. Placing the obligation to test 

and certify consumer products on the 

purchasing consumer would be 

inconsistent with the goals of the 

statute, in that it would not protect 

consumers as intended by the testing 

and certification scheme set forth by 

Congress, and implemented by the 

Commission. Accordingly, the proposed 

rule would not place the burden of 

ensuring such compliance on 

consumers; rather, the Commission 

believes that the appropriate way to 

ensure compliance is to require 

companies that purposefully send their 

products into the United States to test 

and certify their products, as required 

by United States law. 

For the vast majority of products 

imported into the United States through 

CBP, the proposed rule would continue 

to require that the importer of record 

certify the product, to provide a 

uniform, consistent, and predictable 

means of enforcing testing and 

certification requirements for imported 

products. We understand that some 

private labelers and brand owners with 

foreign manufacturing facilities want to 

test and certify their products. The 

Component Part Rule, which is already 

in effect, allows an importer to rely on 

testing or certification conducted by 

another party, as long as the importer 

meets the requirements of the 1109 rule, 

including exercising due care (see 16 

CFR 1109.5(i)). Thus, private labelers 

and brand owners already can test and 

certify products on which an importer 

can then rely to issue their own 

certificate. The proposed rule would 

clarify that a finished product certificate 

must be issued by a required finished 

product certifier. An importer cannot 

simply pass along a component 

supplier’s certificate. Thus, proposed 

§ 1110.7(a) would ensure that the 

certificate required by the CPSC must be 

issued by the importer, who is required 

to certify the product. The ability of 

finished product certifiers, such as 

importers, to rely on another party’s 

testing or certification under the 1109 

rule allows a private labeler to test and 

certify, as needed, while maintaining 

the Commission’s ability to enforce its 

regulations against the party responsible 

for importing the product. 

2. Domestic Products—Proposed 

§ 1110.7(b) 

For products manufactured in the 

United States, the proposed rule would 

continue to place the responsibility for 

issuing a required finished product 

certificate on the manufacturer, except 

in circumstances where a product is 

privately labeled, as defined in the 

CPSA. If a product is privately labeled, 

the proposed rule would place the 

obligation to certify the product on the 

private labeler, unless the manufacturer 

certifies the product. The Commission 

recognizes that under the existing 1110 

rule, privately labeled products are 

required to be certified by the 

manufacturer. This relationship may 

continue as long as the product is 

certified. The proposed rule, however, 

would shift the obligation to ensure 

compliance for privately labeled 

products on to the private labeler. 

Duplication of effort to issue a 

certificate should not occur by requiring 

the private labeler to certify privately 

labeled products. A ‘‘private labeler’’ is 

a defined term in the CPSA. Pursuant to 

section 3(a)(12) of the CPSA, the term 

applies only to products that carry the 

private labeler’s brand or trademark on 

the product and not the manufacturer’s 

brand or trademark. Therefore, all 

products manufactured in the United 

States that contain a brand or trademark 

in addition to a manufacturer brand or 

trademark are not considered privately 

labeled under the CPSA, and the 

manufacturer would remain the 

required finished product certifier 

under the proposed rule. The proposed 

rule would change only the obligation to 

certify a product to the private labeler 

for products manufactured in the United 

States that bear a private label, which 

are those products that do not contain 

the brand or trademark of the 

manufacturer. 

A ‘‘brand owner’’ is not defined in the 

CPSA. A brand owner would not be a 

required finished product certifier 

under the proposed rule, unless that 

entity imports products, manufactures 

products in the United States, or meets 

the definition of a ‘‘private labeler’’ for 

products made in the United States. We 

understand that some brand owners 

license their brand or trademark to 

appear on consumer products. Like 

‘‘brand owner,’’ ‘‘licensee’’ and 

‘‘licensor’’ are not defined terms under 

the CPSA, and the Commission cannot 

require a ‘‘licensee’’ or a ‘‘licensor’’ to 

issue a certificate. Regardless of who the 

required finished product certifier is 

under the proposed rule, brand owners 

can already test and certify products 

under § 1109.5(i) of the Component Part 

Rule. If the product is imported, an 

importer can rely on a brand owner’s 

testing or certification as a basis to issue 

the required finished product certificate. 

Moreover, a domestic manufacturer can 

rely on a brand owner’s testing or 

certification to issue a required 

certificate, as long as all parties follow 

the requirements in the 1109 rule. 

The proposed revisions to expand the 

required finished product certifier to 

include the private labeler for privately 

labeled products should not necessarily 

result in a change to existing 

relationships with regard to testing 

products and issuing certificates. 

Testing and certification can already be 

conducted by other parties under the 

Component Part Rule, and in both cases, 

where the private labeler has been 

included, the manufacturer can 

continue to issue the certificate. 

E. What form(s) may the certificate 

take?—Proposed § 1110.9 

Existing § 1110.9, titled, ‘‘Form of 

certificate,’’ states that ‘‘the information 

on a hard copy or electronic certificate 

must be provided in English and may be 

provided in any other language.’’ 

Proposed § 1110.9 would revise and 

elaborate on this concept, establishing 

requirements for language, format, and 

electronic certificates. This section 

would restate the statutory requirement 

that certificates must be in English, and 

may also contain the same content in 

any other language. The section would 

state that, except as provided in 

proposed § 1110.13(a)(1), which 

requires an electronic certificate for 

products imported into the United 

States, certificates may be provided in 

hard copy or electronically. 

Proposed § 1110.9(c) would set forth 

requirements for electronic certificates 

in all cases, except certificates that 

would be required to be filed 

electronically with CBP at importation. 

The proposed rule would continue to 

allow a broad range of formats for 

electronic certificates, as long as they 

are identified by a unique identifier and 

can be accessed via a World Wide Web 

uniform resource locator (URL) or other 

electronic means. However, several 

changes are proposed. First, proposed 

§ 1110.9(c) would provide requirements 

for electronic certificates other than the 

filing of certificates electronically with 

CBP for imported products, which is 

discussed in detail in proposed 

§ 1110.13(a)(1) in section II.G of this 

preamble. Accordingly, proposed 

§ 1110.9(c) would apply only to: 

products manufactured in the United 

States; foreign-manufactured products 

that are delivered directly to a consumer 

in the United States; and imported 

finished products after importation, 

such as when requested by CPSC or 

CBP, or when certificates are furnished 

to retailers and distributors. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28085 

Second, proposed § 1110.9(c) would 

still allow for use of a ‘‘unique 

identifier’’ to access a certificate 

electronically, but it would require that 

the unique identifier be ‘‘identified 

prominently on the finished product, 

shipping carton, or invoice.’’ Experience 

with electronic certificates has shown 

that they can be effective as long as they 

are easily accessible. Searching products 

and paperwork for a certificate identifier 

should not require significant time and 

resources because it detracts from the 

efficiencies achieved by allowing 

electronic certificates. Requiring the 

placement of a unique identifier to be 

‘‘prominent’’ and limiting the placement 

to three distinct options is intended to 

ensure the efficiency of allowing 

electronic certificates. 

Third, proposed § 1110.9(c) would 

state that electronic certificates must be 

accessible ‘‘without password 

protection.’’ This amendment would 

ensure that access to electronic 

certificates is easy and efficient and 

does not require significant CPSC time 

and resources. If accessing information 

electronically is cumbersome, it defeats 

any efficiency achieved by electronic 

certificates. Thousands of entities, 

including manufacturers, private 

labelers, and importers, likely must 

certify consumer products. Maintenance 

of password information by the CPSC 

could become burdensome for CPSC’s 

import surveillance and other 

enforcement efforts. Accordingly, we 

propose that electronic certificates be 

accessible without password protection. 

Finally, existing § 1110.13(a)(1) 

requires that electronic certificates be 

available to ‘‘the Commission or to the 

Customs authorities as soon as the 

product or shipment itself is available 

for inspection.’’ Neither CPSC nor CBP 

regulations define or interpret this 

phrase, so it is currently unclear when 

the obligation to present a certificate on 

demand actually vests. Proposed 

§ 1110.9(c) would clarify that electronic 

certificates, the URL, or other electronic 

means, and the unique identifier be 

accessible to the Commission, CBP, 

distributors, and retailers, ‘‘on or before 

the date the finished product is 

distributed in commerce,’’ to set forth a 

definite point in a finished product’s 

distribution chain when the certificate 

must be available. This requirement is 

intended to prevent a scenario where 

the CPSC or a retailer or distributor 

attempts to access an electronic 

certificate to find that it does not exist 

yet or is unavailable. 

F. What must the certificate contain?— 

Proposed § 1110.11 

Existing § 1110.11 restates and 

interprets the requirements for the 

contents of certificates, as provided in 

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

Proposed § 1110.11 would revise 

content requirements to reflect that such 

content requirements apply to all three 

types of certificates: GCCs, CPCs, and 

component part certificates. In addition, 

proposed § 1110.11 would add three 

content requirements to a certificate: (a) 

Date of initial certification (proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(2)); (b) scope of the 

certificate (proposed § 1110.11(a)(3)); 

and (c) an attestation of compliance 

(proposed § 1110.11(a)(10)). Each 

requirement in the proposed rule is 

discussed below. 

1. Identification of the Component Part 

or Finished Product—Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(1) 

The existing rule requires: 

‘‘Identification of the product covered 

by the certificate.’’ Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a) would state that each 

certificate must contain the information 

described therein, and then list each 

piece of information as numbered items 

1 through 10, under proposed 

§ 1110.11(a). Thus, proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(1) would incorporate the 

requirement to identify the product 

being certified, but it would broaden the 

nature of the ‘‘product’’ that can be 

covered by a certificate to include 

component parts as well as finished 

products. The proposed rule would 

require the certificate to state whether it 

covers a finished product or a 

component part to assist with 

enforcement and to clarify for all other 

parties the scope of the certificate. 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(1) would 

further state that ‘‘[a] model number, 

style, or other unique identifier of the 

product should be provided, if any, 

along with a description of the finished 

product or component part. Certifiers 

may also include an identifier, such as 

a universal product code (UPC), a global 

trade item number (GTIN), or other 

identifying code that may assist with 

product identification.’’ This 

clarification is intended to provide 

guidance on the type of information that 

would be considered to be identifying 

information for a product. Providing a 

model number or style number, if they 

exist, would be the most useful way for 

the CPSC to identify the product, along 

with a narrative description of the 

product. Certifiers may also provide a 

stock-keeping unit, or SKU, to assist in 

product identification. Additionally, the 

CPSC is aware that many manufacturers 

use codes for purposes of product 

identification, such as UPC codes and 

GTINs. This type of information is also 

useful for CPSC to identify products. 

Certifiers would be encouraged to 

include any type of identifying code on 

the certificate, if it would aid in product 

identification. UPCs and GTINs are 

examples of identifying codes. 

Stakeholders are encouraged to 

comment on whether other types of 

codes should be stated specifically in 

the codified text. Although harmonized 

tariff codes may be placed on a 

certificate, they are insufficient, alone, 

to identify a product on a certificate. 

Similarly, a registered identification 

number, or RN, on wearing apparel, 

alone, is insufficient to identify a 

product on a certificate. An RN is a 

number, assigned by the Federal Trade 

Commission, which identifies a 

business, and does not distinguish 

products. This type of information can 

be used in conjunction with other 

identifying information to identify a 

product adequately on a certificate but 

is not sufficient by itself to identify a 

product. 

Certifiers are reminded that they may 

rely on one certificate to certify more 

than one product, if products are 

manufactured at the same facility and 

the tests apply to all of the products on 

the certificate. For example, several 

sizes of a garment may be listed on one 

certificate, if they were manufactured at 

the same facility and the testing on the 

component parts (e.g., fabric, buttons, 

and zippers) is applicable to each size 

garment produced. Certificates can be 

based on the one set of tests. The 

manufacturer could create one 

certificate, or it could create a certificate 

for each product. For example, under 

the Component Part Rule, a 

manufacturer of plastic trains that uses 

the same plastic resin in five different 

molds to create five different types of 

trains may test the plastic resin under 

the 1109 rule and then use those test 

results to support certification of all 

products made with the plastic resin. If 

that were the only testing required, the 

manufacturer could create one 

certificate for all five types of trains, or 

it could create five separate certificates 

relying on the same testing. The 

certificate must be explicit as to which 

product or products it is intended to 

cover. If additional testing is required 

that is unique to each product, certifiers 

should certify each product, but may 

rely on the same testing, where 

warranted. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28086 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2. Date of Initial Certification—Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(2) 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(2) would 

require the certificate to: ‘‘[s]tate the 

date of initial certification of the 

finished product(s) or component part(s) 

to which the certificate refers.’’ This 

would be a new content requirement on 

the certificate, but the requirement is 

drawn from a current requirement in 

existing § 1110.13(b), which requires 

that electronic certificates have a means 

to verify the date of creation or last 

modification. In practice, many 

certificates, regardless of whether they 

are electronic or paper based, contain a 

date. The proposed rule would 

standardize the date required to be 

provided to reflect the date the product 

was originally certified. If a children’s 

product undergoes a material change, a 

new certificate must be issued, pursuant 

to the Testing Rule. Accordingly, we 

anticipate that the certification date 

would be updated after a material 

change to reflect that the product was 

subjected to testing for applicable 

consumer product safety rules affected 

by the material change, and a new 

certificate was issued, as required. 

3. Identification of Certificate Scope— 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(3) 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(3) would 

require the certificate to: ‘‘[i]dentify the 

scope of finished product(s) or 

component part(s) for which the 

certificate applies, such as by a start 

date, a start and end date, by a lot 

number, starting serial number, serial 

number range, or other means to 

identify the set of finished product(s) or 

component part(s) that are covered by 

the certificate.’’ This would be a new 

content requirement on the certificate 

that would assist the Commission in 

understanding the scope of the products 

covered by a certificate. By adding this 

requirement, the Commission does not 

intend to require certifiers to modify or 

create certificates to change the scope of 

the certificate for each shipment. 

Certifiers can identify the scope of 

products covered by a certificate 

through any reasonable means, such as 

a date or dates, lot numbers, or serial 

numbers, providing such information 

will assist the Commission in 

understanding the scope of each 

certificate. Certifiers are required to 

maintain information on the scope of 

certificates for children’s products, 

pursuant to § 1107.26 of the Testing 

Rule and § 1109.5(g) and (j) of the 

Component Part Rule, when applicable. 

4. List of Rules Being Certified— 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(4) 

Existing § 1110.11(b) requires: 

‘‘Citation to each CPSC product safety 

regulation or statutory requirement to 

which the product is being certified. 

Specifically, the certificate shall identify 

separately each applicable consumer 

product safety rule under the Consumer 

Product Safety Act and any similar rule, 

ban, standard or regulation under any 

other Act enforced by the Commission 

that is applicable to the product.’’ 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(4) would 

incorporate the statutory requirement in 

section 14(a) of the CPSA to specify 

each rule on a certificate, but it would 

broaden the nature of the ‘‘product’’ that 

can be covered by the certificate to 

include component parts of a product. 

Accordingly, the first sentence in 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(4) would require 

the certifier to: ‘‘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) or component part(s) are 

being certified.’’ 

Moreover, proposed § 1110.11(a)(4) 

would clarify the different requirements 

for finished product certificates versus 

component part certificates. A finished 

product certificate would need to 

‘‘identify separately all applicable rules, 

bans, standards, or regulations.’’ A 

finished product certifier is responsible 

for knowing what rules, bans, standards, 

or regulations apply to each product and 

for listing all of them on the certificate, 

or providing a certificate for each 

applicable rule. However, a component 

part certifier would have the option to 

certify a component part to specific 

rules or parts of rules, even though such 

certification may not ultimately cover 

all applicable rules. This is because the 

component part certifier might not 

know the final use of the component 

part, and thus, not know the scope of all 

applicable rules or because additional 

tests may be required to be conducted 

on a finished product. Accordingly, a 

component part certificate would need 

to ‘‘identify all rules, or parts of rules, 

standards, bans, or regulations for 

which the component part(s) are being 

certified.’’ The proposed component 

part requirement recognizes that some 

component parts can be certified to 

portions of a standard. For example, an 

accessory used on a children’s product 

may be tested separately from the 

children’s product with regard to lead in 

paint. It would remain the responsibility 

of a finished product certifier, relying 

on a component part test or 

certification, to ensure that all 

component parts of a finished children’s 

product are tested and certified not only 

to the lead in paint standard, but also to 

all other applicable rules, bans, 

standards, and regulations. 

5. Identification of the Certifying 

Party—Proposed § 1110.11(a)(5) 

Existing § 1110.11(c) requires: 

‘‘Identification of the importer or 

domestic manufacturer certifying 

compliance of the product, including 

the importer or domestic manufacturer’s 

name, full mailing address, and 

telephone number.’’ Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(5) would incorporate the 

statutory requirement in section 14(g)(1) 

of the CPSA to ‘‘identify the 

manufacturer or private labeler issuing 

the certificate’’ and provide ‘‘each 

party’s name, full mailing address, 

telephone number,’’ but would broaden 

the requirement to include certificates 

for both finished products and 

component parts. Regardless of the type 

of certificate being issued, proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(5) would require the 

certificate to ‘‘[i]dentify the party 

certifying compliance of the finished 

product(s) or component part(s), 

including the party’s name, electronic 

mail (email) address, full mailing 

address, including the street address, 

and telephone number.’’ Note that the 

proposed rule would broaden the 

identification requirement to include an 

electronic mail (email) address and a 

street address. The email address would 

provide CPSC with an additional means 

of contacting and communicating with 

certifiers, including those located 

overseas or in different time zones. 

Providing a street address would ensure 

that CPSC staff can locate the certifier’s 

place of business should an 

investigation require a site visit. 

6. Contact Information for Records 

Custodian—Proposed § 1110.11(a)(6) 

Existing § 1110.11(d) requires: 

‘‘Contact information for the individual 

maintaining records of test results, 

including the custodian’s name, email 

address, full mailing address, and 

telephone number. (CPSC suggests that 

each issuer maintain test records 

supporting the certification for at least 

three years as is currently required by 

certain consumer product specific CPSC 

standards, for example at 16 CFR 

1508.10 for full-size baby cribs.)’’ 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(6) would 

incorporate the statutory requirement in 

section 14(g)(1) of the CPSA to provide 

contact information for the individual 

maintaining records of test results but 

would broaden it to include contact 

information for the custodian of all 

records required for each type of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28087 

certificate, as set forth in the Testing 

Rule and the Component Part Rule. 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(6)(ii) would 

require contact information for the 

individual ‘‘maintaining records of test 

results and other records on which a 

CPC is based.’’ Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(6)(iii) would require 

contact information for the individual 

‘‘maintaining records of test results and 

other records on which a component 

part certificate is based.’’ As in 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(5), proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(6) would require the record 

custodian’s email address, in addition to 

a full mailing address and telephone 

number to provide additional means for 

CPSC to contact the custodian of 

records. Further, the proposed rule 

would delete the portion of existing 

§ 1110.11(d) that requires records be 

maintained ‘‘for at least three years’’ for 

all records, because the 1107 and 1109 

rules require certificates and test results 

to be maintained for 5 years. 

Recordkeeping requirements are 

discussed in section II.I of this 

preamble. 

7. Date and Place of Manufacture— 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(7) 

Existing § 1110.11(e) requires: ‘‘Date 

(month and year at a minimum) and 

place (including city and state, country, 

or administrative region) where the 

product was manufactured. If the same 

manufacturer operates more than one 

location in the same city, the street 

address of the factory in question 

should be provided.’’ 

In addition to requiring that a 

certificate contain the date and place of 

manufacture of a product, proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(7) would use the newly 

defined term ‘‘finished product’’ and 

broaden the nature of the ‘‘product’’ to 

include component parts. Moreover, 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(7) would 

interpret ‘‘place’’ to include a street 

address in all circumstances, not just 

when a manufacturer operates more 

than one location in the same city. A 

post office box would be insufficient to 

meet this requirement. In addition, the 

proposed rule would clarify that 

‘‘place’’ also includes either the name of 

a state or a province, as well as either 

the name of a country or an 

administrative region. To clarify where 

a product has been ‘‘manufactured,’’ the 

definition of ‘‘manufactured’’ is 

included in the proposed rule. Section 

3(a)(10) of the CPSA states: 

‘‘manufactured’’ means ‘‘to 

manufacture, produce, or assemble.’’ 

The Commission is also requesting 

comment on the possibility of requiring 

additional information on a certificate, 

such as the name of the manufacturer, 

including foreign manufacturers. Please 

see section III.1 of this preamble for 

further discussion of this issue. 

8. Date and Place of Testing To Support 

the Certificate—Proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(8) 

Existing § 1110.11(f) requires: ‘‘Date 

and place (including city and state, 

country or administrative region) where 

the product was tested for compliance 

with the regulation(s) cited above in 

subsection (b).’’ In addition to requiring 

that a certificate contain the date and 

place where the product was tested, 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(8) would use the 

newly defined term ‘‘finished product’’ 

and broaden the nature of the ‘‘product’’ 

to include component parts. Moreover, 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(8) would make 

the words ‘‘date’’ and ‘‘place’’ plural, 

recognizing that finished products and 

component parts may be tested in 

multiple or different locations. The 

Commission’s preference is that all 

required information be condensed into 

one certificate, but we acknowledge that 

section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA allows for 

a certificate for each applicable 

standard. Supporting documentation, 

such as test results, component part 

certificates, and other finished product 

certificates, should be available for 

review upon request, or may be bundled 

with the required certificate but do not 

take the place of a required certificate 

that contains the 10 elements in 

proposed § 1110.11(a). The proposed 

rule would also require ‘‘place’’ to 

include a street address, city, state, or 

province, and country or administrative 

region. Thus, proposed § 1110.11(a)(8) 

would state: ‘‘Provide the dates and 

places (including a street address, city, 

state or province, and country or 

administrative region) where the 

finished product(s) or component part(s) 

were tested for compliance with the 

rule(s), ban(s), standard(s), or 

regulation(s) cited in § 1110.11(a)(4) of 

this part.’’ 

9. Identification of Parties That 

Conducted Testing To Support the 

Certificate—Proposed § 1110.11(a)(9) 

Existing § 1110.11(g) requires: 

‘‘Identification of any third party 

laboratory on whose testing the 

certificate depends, including name, full 

mailing address and telephone number 

of the laboratory.’’ In addition to 

requiring that a certificate identify and 

provide contact information for any 

third party conformity assessment body 

on whose testing the certificate 

depends, proposed § 1110.11(a)(9) 

would use the statutory language for a 

third party laboratory, i.e., ‘‘third party 

conformity assessment body,’’ and 

would broaden the scope to include all 

parties who conducted testing on which 

the certificate depends. This provision 

would allow all parties, including the 

CPSC, to identify whether a GCC or a 

CPC is based on first or third party 

testing. Finally, required contact 

information would be broadened to 

include an email address and a street 

address, in addition to a name, mailing 

address, and telephone number. 

Providing an email address would 

provide CPSC with additional means of 

contacting and communicating with 

parties conducting testing, including 

those located overseas or in different 

time zones. Providing a street address 

would ensure that CPSC staff can locate 

the third party conformity assessment 

body if an on-site visit becomes 

necessary. 

10. Attestation of Compliance— 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(10) 

Proposed § 1110.11(a)(10) would be a 

new section of the certificate that would 

require an attestation that the finished 

products or component parts covered by 

the certificate are compliant with the 

applicable rules. The attestation would 

be made by the party identified as the 

certifier under proposed § 1110.11(a)(5). 

The certifier would attest that the 

finished products or component parts 

covered under the certificate comply 

with the rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations stated in the certificate, at 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(4), and that the 

information in the certificate is true and 

accurate to the best of the certifier’s 

knowledge, information, and belief. 

Finally, the certifier would acknowledge 

an understanding that it is a federal 

crime to knowingly and willfully make 

any materially false, fictitious, or 

fraudulent statements, representations, 

or omissions, on the certificate. The 

proposed language stems from 18 U.S.C. 

1001. The language in this section 

serves several purposes. First, the 

certificate is an attestation of 

compliance. The existing certificate 

requirements do not state explicitly 

what attestation or affirmation the 

certifier is making with regard to the 

products covered by the certificate. 

Thus, the proposed language would 

make plain to everyone the scope and 

gravity of the obligation being made. 

Second, requiring each certificate to 

include this language would educate the 

certifier, including foreign certifiers, of 

the certifier’s obligations under United 

States law. Finally, some portions of the 

applicable consumer product safety 

rules that require compliance, such as 

certain labeling requirements, are not 

subject to testing. The attestation is an 

affirmation by the certifier that the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28088 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

product complies with all the 

requirements of the applicable rules, not 

only those provisions for which there 

are test results. 

11. Electronic Access to Records— 

Proposed § 1110.11(b) 

Proposed § 1110.11 would contain a 

new subsection (b) regarding electronic 

access to records. This new provision 

would allow a certificate to include a 

Web address that links to required 

records, in addition to identification of 

the custodian of records, as described in 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(6). Providing 

contact information for a custodian of 

records is a statutory requirement, but 

certifiers may find it efficient for 

business and regulatory purposes also to 

provide a direct link to the required 

records. For example, § 1109.5(g) of the 

Component Part Rule requires that 

‘‘testing parties’’ and ‘‘certifiers,’’ as 

defined in that rule, must provide 

certain documentation, which may 

include, for example, a component part 

certificate to certifiers intending to rely 

upon such documentation to certify a 

product. Thus, to the extent that such 

records already exist in an easily 

accessible electronic format to meet 

recordkeeping requirements in other 

rules, access to this same electronic 

format can be provided on a certificate. 

12. Statutory or Regulatory Testing 

Exclusions—Proposed § 1110.11(c) 

Proposed § 1110.11(c) is a new 

provision that would describe what 

certifiers must put on a certificate when 

a certifier is claiming statutory or 

regulatory testing exclusions for any 

applicable rules. In such a case, the 

certifier must list all of the applicable 

rules, and then state when the product 

is not subject to testing for a specific 

rule, and the statutory or regulatory 

basis for such claim, instead of 

providing the date and place where 

testing was conducted. Certifiers are 

already doing this in many instances, 

but this requirement would ensure that 

certifiers are consistent in how they 

document exceptions on a certificate. 

So, for example, if a manufacturer 

makes a children’s product (not a toy) 

that is made entirely of untreated wood, 

but the product is painted, then the 

certifier will need to issue a certificate 

of compliance stating that the paint on 

the product is compliant with 16 CFR 

part 1303, the Commission’s rule on 

lead in paint. The children’s product is 

also subject to the lead content 

requirement in section 101 of the 

CPSIA, but the manufacturer can rely on 

the Commission’s determination at 16 

CFR 1500.91 that untreated wood does 

not contain more than 100 ppm lead 

content. The manufacturer must list 

both the lead in paint and the lead 

content rule on the certificate. 

Applicable information on the date and 

place of testing, and the third party 

conformity assessment body that 

conducted testing, must be provided for 

the testing conducted on lead in paint. 

For lead content testing, however, the 

certifier must state on the certificate that 

it is relying on § 1500.91 to meet the 

requirement. 

13. Duplicative Testing Not Required— 

Proposed § 1110.11(d) 

Finally, proposed § 1110.11(d) is a 

new section of the rule that would 

explain that ‘‘[a]lthough 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 law enforced by the Commission.’’ 

It has come to the attention of the 

Commission that some standards, such 

as some of the durable infant and 

toddler standards, may fully incorporate 

or refer to an existing mandatory rule for 

children’s products, such as the rule on 

lead in paint, codified at 16 CFR part 

1303, and the rule on small parts, 

codified at 16 CFR part 1501. Some 

testing laboratories have advised their 

clients that such testing must be 

conducted twice; once as a standalone 

requirement and once as part of another, 

larger standard. This is not the position 

of the Commission. Although each 

applicable standard must be listed on 

the certificate, a certifier may certify 

compliance to both the standalone rule 

and the rule as incorporated into 

another standard, by testing it once as 

part of the larger standard where it is 

incorporated. For example, the 

mandatory standard for toddler beds, 

codified at 16 CFR part 1217, 

incorporates the Commission’s standard 

for lead in paint (16 CFR part 1303) and 

for small parts (16 CFR part 1501). A 

certificate for a toddler bed must list all 

three mandatory standards, but may rely 

on the lead in paint and small parts 

testing conducted as part of the testing 

for the toddler bed standard to meet the 

requirements for 16 CFR parts 1303 and 

1501. 

G. When must certificates be made 

available?—Proposed § 1110.13 

Existing § 1110.13 states the 

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

CPSA that certificates required by 

section 14(a) ‘‘accompany’’ each 

product or product shipment and be 

‘‘furnished to each distributor and 

retailer of the product in question.’’ 

Existing § 1110.13 states that an 

electronic certificate satisfies the 

‘‘accompany’’ requirement if the 

certificate is identified by a unique 

identifier and can be accessed via a 

World Wide Web URL or other 

electronic means, provided the URL or 

other electronic means and the unique 

identifier are created in advance and are 

available, along with access to the 

electronic certificate itself, to the 

Commission or to the Customs 

authorities as soon as the product or 

shipment itself is available for 

inspection. The existing section also 

states that an electronic certificate 

satisfies the ‘‘furnish’’ requirement if the 

distributor(s) and retailer(s) of the 

product are provided a reasonable 

means to access the certificate and it 

further provides that ‘‘[a]n electronic 

certificate shall have a means to verify 

the date of its creation or last 

modification.’’ 

Proposed § 1110.13 would modify the 

existing section in several ways, and 

incorporate the concept of availability 

in existing § 1110.7(c). Unlike the 

current provision, proposed § 1110.13 

would not be limited to requirements 

for electronic certificates because 

requirements for electronic certificates 

generally have been moved to proposed 

§ 1110.9(c). Accordingly, proposed 

§ 1110.13 would set forth requirements 

for when certificates must accompany 

regulated products, and when they must 

be made available to CPSC and 

furnished to retailers or distributors. 

The proposed rule would describe 

requirements for when a certificate must 

accompany a finished product or 

finished product shipment that is 

required to be certified pursuant to 

§ 1110.5. It would require that such 

certificates be issued by a finished 

product certifier and state that only 

finished products would be required to 

be accompanied by a certificate. The 

Commission would limit the 

requirement for products to be 

accompanied by a certificate to finished 

products because component part 

certification is voluntary, and not all 

component parts are certified. 

Component part certificates must be 

maintained as supporting 

documentation, as described in the 1109 

rule, if such component part certificates 

are being relied upon by a required 

finished product certifier to issue a 

finished product certificate. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28089 

1Electronic filing of entries is required by CBP 

rule, titled, Importer Security Filing and Additional 

Carrier Requirements commonly known as ‘‘10+2.’’ 

1. Accompanying Certificates for 

Imported Products—Proposed 

§ 1110.13(a)(1) 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(1) would 

require that for finished products that 

are manufactured outside the United 

States and are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, the 

importer must file the required GCC or 

CPC electronically with the CBP at the 

time of filing the CBP entry or at the 

time of filing the entry and entry 

summary, if both are filed together. 

Such a change would aid the 

Commission in enforcing the 

requirement to certify regulated 

products that require a certificate; and, 

if the certificate were required to be 

filed with CBP in the form of data 

elements, would aid the Commission to 

search the data elements on a certificate 

by uploading the information into a 

database. A database containing 

certificate information would enhance 

the Commission’s ability to target 

shipments for inspection and track the 

accuracy of certificates. Because the 

proposed rule would require filing 

certificates electronically with CBP, the 

certificate, of necessity, would be 

available to the Commission and to CBP 

upon import; accordingly, the 

‘‘accompany’’ requirement does not 

need to be restated as in the existing 

version of § 1110.13(a)(1). 

Note that the requirements for 

certificates filed electronically with CBP 

in proposed § 1110.13(a)(1) would be 

specifically excluded from electronic 

certificate requirements for all other 

purposes as described in proposed 

§ 1110.9(c). The Commission would 

leave the technical requirements for 

filing certificates electronically with 

CBP broad, to accommodate CBP’s 

system resources. The Commission’s 

ultimate goal would be to require filing 

of certificates with CBP in the form of 

data elements so that certificate contents 

can be uploaded into a database for 

targeting purposes. However, we realize 

that such a requirement may require 

software upgrades by CBP, CPSC, and 

stakeholders that must be completed in 

stages. Additionally, CPSC requires the 

assistance and cooperation of CBP to 

implement and maintain the receipt of 

certificates in an electronic format, and 

the CPSC must be mindful of resource 

limitations and stakeholder adjustments 

in implementing this new requirement. 

Initially, if the Commission requires 

electronic filing of certificates at the 

point of entry, we would likely allow 

such filing of certificates in two ways: 

(1) Inserting an electronic copy of the 

certificate with the entry, such as a pdf 

file of the document; or (2) uploading 

the 10 required data points on a 

certificate into CBP’s designated system 

of record.1

We welcome comments on the 

resources required to file the certificates 

electronically with CBP. Stakeholders 

are encouraged to comment on the 

format for filing certificates with CBP, 

including the two formats discussed 

(pdf format versus data elements 

format). The Commission is requesting 

comment on an additional option for 

filing electronic certificates at an earlier 

point in the import process, at manifest, 

in section III.2 of this preamble. 

2. Accompanying Certificates for 

Products Made in the United States— 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(2) 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(2) would 

require that in the case of finished 

products manufactured in the United 

States, certificates shall not be filed with 

CPSC. Instead, the ‘‘accompany’’ 

requirement is met if a finished product 

certifier, as defined in proposed 

§ 1110.3(11), makes a certificate 

available for inspection by CPSC on or 

before the date the finished product is 

distributed in commerce. Pursuant to 

proposed § 1110.9(b), this may be 

accomplished, for example, by placing a 

copy of the certificate in the shipping 

container with the product, or by 

meeting the requirements for an 

electronic certificate. Unlike imported 

products, we do not want certificates for 

products made in the United States to 

be filed with the government as a matter 

of course. We do not have the 

infrastructure in place to accommodate 

or review certificates for all regulated 

products made in the United States. 

Enforcement of these certificates will 

continue to be based on Commission 

resources and targeting efforts. 

3. Accompanying Certificates for 

Imported Products Delivered Directly to 

Consumers in the United States— 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(3) 

Proposed § 1110.13(a)(3) would 

require that in the case of finished 

products that are manufactured outside 

the United States and are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, that are 

delivered directly to consumers in the 

United States, the foreign manufacturer 

or the importer, as provided in 

§ 1110.7(a), has the option to either file 

the required GCC or CPC electronically 

with the CBP as provided for in 

paragraph (1), or may make the 

certificate available for inspection by 

CPSC on or before the date the finished 

product is distributed in commerce as 

provided in paragraph (2). Whether the 

certificates are filed with CBP depends 

on whether formal entry is made. If no 

formal entry is made for these products 

with CBP, then the certificate must still 

be made available to the Commission, 

either in hard copy or electronically, as 

set forth in § 1110.9, on or before the 

products are distributed into United 

States commerce. 

4. Furnishing Certificates—Proposed 

§ 1110.13(b) 

Existing § 1110.13(b) states that an 

electronic certificate must have a means 

to verify the date of its creation or the 

last modification. The proposed rule 

would delete this provision because 

proposed § 1110.11(a)(2) would require 

the certificate to state the date of initial 

certification. Proposed § 1110.13(b) 

would state the statutory requirement in 

section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA that a copy 

of the certificate shall be furnished to 

each distributor or retailer of the 

product. The proposed rule would 

clarify who must provide such a 

certificate (a ‘‘finished product 

certifier,’’ which is defined in 

§ 1110.3(11) as a party that is required 

to issue a finished product certificate 

pursuant to § 1110.7), and for what 

types of products (finished products). 

5. Availability of Certificates—Proposed 

§ 1110.13(c) 

Proposed § 1110.13(c) is a new section 

that would state the requirement 

contained in sections 14(g)(3) and (g)(4) 

of the CPSA, that certificates must be 

provided to the Commission and to CBP 

upon request. The proposed rule would 

state: ‘‘Certifiers must make certificates 

available for inspection immediately 

upon request by CPSC or CBP.’’ This 

provision would apply to all types of 

certifiers, to all types of certificates 

(GCCs, CPCs, and component part), and 

at any time after a product is offered for 

import or distributed in commerce. The 

Commission interprets the word 

‘‘immediately’’ consistent with other 

CPSC rules, to mean ‘‘within 24 hours.’’ 

However, we would expect that GCCs 

and CPCs would be made available to 

CPSC in a very short time, either at the 

time of request, or shortly afterward, 

because finished products are required 

to be accompanied by a certificate that 

is generated before importation or 

distribution in commerce, and must be 

either in hard copy with the product, or 

electronically available, as described in 

proposed § 1110.9(c). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28090 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

H. Who is responsible for the 

information in a certificate?—Proposed 

§ 1110.15 

Existing § 1110.15 states: ‘‘Any entity 

or entities may maintain an electronic 

certificate platform and may enter the 

requisite data. However, the entity or 

entities required by CPSA section 14(a) 

to issue the certificate remain legally 

responsible for the accuracy and 

completeness of the certificate 

information required by statute and its 

availability in timely fashion.’’ This 

provision was intended to allow third 

parties to assist with electronic 

certificate maintenance, while ensuring 

that the party certifying the product 

remained responsible for its contents. 

Proposed § 1110.15 would maintain 

this concept but would broaden it to 

include component part certifiers by 

using the term ‘‘certifiers’’ in the first 

sentence. Certifiers may have any entity 

maintain an electronic certificate 

platform, or enter the requisite data, but 

the certifier would remain responsible 

for the contents of a certificate. The 

description of the certifier’s 

responsibility with regard to certificate 

content would be broadened in the 

proposed rule to include its validity, 

accuracy, completeness, and 

availability, as applicable. 

I. What recordkeeping requirements 

apply to certificates?—§ 1110.17 

Proposed § 1110.17 would be a new 

provision intended to summarize the 

existing recordkeeping requirements 

that apply to certificates. The 

requirement to create and maintain 

certificates based on third party testing 

of children’s products arises from 

§ 1107.26 of the Testing Rule. 

Recordkeeping for component part 

certificates, and reliance on another 

party’s certificate or testing to certify a 

finished product, arises out of 

§§ 1109.5(g) and 1109.5(j) of the 

Component Part Rule. To assist 

stakeholders in understanding the 

various recordkeeping provisions that 

apply to certificates, proposed § 1110.17 

restates such requirements. 

While some consumer product safety 

rules, and other similar rules, bans, 

standards, or regulations, may already 

have a recordkeeping requirement; other 

regulations may not be subject to a 

recordkeeping provision. For example, 

the Commission’s safety standard for 

bicycle helmets (16 CFR part 1203) 

contains a recordkeeping provision, but 

the safety standard for swimming pool 

slides (16 CFR part 1207) does not. For 

all GCCs, regardless of whether there are 

underlying record keeping requirements 

or not, the proposed rule states that 

certifiers of GCCs must maintain the 

certificate and supporting test records 

where required for at least 5 years. 

Maintenance of such records, for 

example, may aid both the certifier and 

the Commission in the event of an 

investigation or product recall. 

J. What requirements apply to 

component part certificates?—§ 1110.19 

Proposed § 1110.19 would be a new 

provision to explain which 

requirements in part 1110 apply to 

component part certificates. It would 

state that component part certificates are 

voluntary and that component parts of 

consumer products would not be 

required to be accompanied by a 

certificate, nor would such certificates 

need to be furnished to retailers and 

distributors, as described in proposed 

§ 1110.13(b). CPSC also would not want 

component part certificates to be filed 

with CBP upon importation of 

component parts. Instead, certifiers of 

component parts would need to meet 

the requirements in the Component Part 

Rule, and component part certificates 

would also need to meet the form, 

content, and availability requirements 

described in the proposed rule in 

sections 1110.9, 1110.11, 1110.13(c), 

1110.15, and 1110.17. 

III. Request for Comments 

The Commission encourages 

stakeholders to comment on all sections 

of the proposed amendments to 16 CFR 

part 1110, and specifically request 

comment on the following additional 

issues. Comments should be submitted 

in accordance with the instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

1. The Commission is considering 

requiring certificates to state not only 

the place of manufacture in proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(7), but also to identify the 

name of the manufacturer, including 

foreign manufacturers. Stakeholders 

have argued in other contexts that the 

name of a foreign manufacturer is 

proprietary. This information, however, 

would be useful to the Commission and 

distributors in recall situations, and it 

would also be useful to the Commission 

for enforcement purposes. Investigating 

facts and limiting recalls would be 

enhanced, and thus, enforcement would 

be enhanced. We welcome comments on 

the nature of the information, whether, 

why, and how it may be confidential, 

and how the information being available 

outside the Commission advances, or 

does not advance, safety. The 

Commission is also interested in ideas 

that would allow manufacturers to be 

named on a certificate for disclosure to 

the Commission, but would protect their 

name from others, should it be an issue. 

The Commission, for example, could 

allow a private labeler or distributor to 

redact the name of a foreign 

manufacturer or supplier, as long as this 

information is readily available to CPSC. 

What reasons are there for retailers or 

others to know the names of suppliers 

on a certificate, if the CPSC has ready 

access to this information? 

2. The Commission is also 

considering allowing, but not requiring, 

certificates to be filed electronically 

with CBP in advance of filing an entry, 

such as at the time of manifest. We 

welcome stakeholder input on this 

concept. 

3. Proposed § 1110.5 states that 

finished products subject to a ban 

enforced by the Commission, which are 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing or are distributed in 

commerce, must be accompanied by a 

GCC or CPC. The Commission has 

provided guidance regarding which 

bans require certification because we 

recognize it may be difficult at times to 

distinguish those bans that ban an entire 

product category leaving no products 

left to certify. Some bans enforced by 

the Commission apply to multiple 

products or more than one product 

category. For example, when the ban on 

products containing soluble cyanide 

salts, (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(5)) was first 

established in 1972, it was known that 

cyanide salts were used in different 

products or product categories such as 

soldering solutions, coin cleaning 

solutions, and some silver polishes. The 

banning rule excludes unavoidable 

manufacturing residues of cyanide salts 

in other chemicals that under 

reasonable and foreseeable conditions of 

use will not result in a concentration of 

cyanide greater than 25 part per million. 

The Commission seeks comments from 

stakeholders regarding the current use 

of cyanide salts in consumer products as 

it considers its guidance as to whether 

manufacturers must issue a GCC to 

show compliance with the ban on 

soluble cyanide salts. 

4. When the Commission originally 

issued part 1110 in 2008, it did so as a 

direct final rule and without performing 

a Paperwork Reduction Act analysis. 

Therefore, the Commission seeks 

comments now from the public on ways 

that the economic burden of part 1110 

could be reduced, consistent with the 

Commission’s underlying obligation to 

enforce 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

5. The Commission has proposed 

language at § 1110.5 that identifies the 

products subject to a ban that would be 

required to provide certificates under 

this rule. Table A in section II.C of this 

preamble provides the agency staff’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28091 

2U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, 

Manufacturing: Industry Series: Detailed Statistics 

by Industry for the United States: 2007. http:// 

factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/

pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2

007_US_31I1&prodType=table. 

assessment identifying which banning 

rules apply to products that would 

require a certificate. The Commission 

seeks comments regarding Table A. 

6. Although the Commission believes 

that the recordkeeping provision to 

harmonize the time period for keeping 

GCCs and CPCs will not present any 

significant compliance challenges, we 

seek comments on whether any 

recordkeeping provisions contained in a 

specific CPSC rule will present difficult 

or unusual compliance challenges due 

to the unique recordkeeping 

requirements of the specific rule. 

7. Proposed § 1110.9(c) states that an 

electronic certificate can meet the 

requirements of the relevant provisions 

if it is identified prominently by a 

unique identifier and can be accessed 

via a World Wide Web uniform resource 

locature (URL) or other electronic means 

by the Commission (and others) without 

password protection. The Commission 

seeks comments on ways to make that 

information available only to the 

agency, CBP, distributors, and retailers. 

IV. Environmental Impact 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). The certificate requirements 

in the proposed rule are not expected to 

have an adverse impact on the 

environment, and fall within the 

categorical exclusion in 16 CFR 

1021.5(c)(2) for product certification 

rules. Accordingly, an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement is not required. 

V. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption) 

Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 

1996) requires agencies to state in clear 

language the preemptive effect, if any, of 

new regulations. The proposed rule 

would be issued under the authority of 

the CPSA and the CPSIA. The CPSA 

provision on preemption appears at 

section 26 of the CPSA. The CPSIA 

provision on preemption appears at 

section 231 of the CPSIA. The 

preemptive effect of this rule would be 

determined in an appropriate 

proceeding by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that proposed rules be 

reviewed for the potential economic 

impact on small entities, including 

small businesses. Section 603 of the 

RFA requires agencies to prepare and 

make available for public comment an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA), describing the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

identifying impact-reducing 

alternatives. In addition, the IRFA must 

contain a description of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

would minimize any significant 

economic impact of the proposed rule 

on small entities. This section 

summarizes CPSC staff’s initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

proposed rule amending 16 CFR part 

1110. 

A. Reasons for Agency Action and 

Objective of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed revisions to 16 CFR 

Part 1110: Certificates of Compliance 

are needed to add definitions, clarify 

language, and make the requirements 

consistent with new regulations, Testing 

and Labeling Pertaining to Certification 

(16 CFR part 1107) and Conditions and 

Requirements for Relying on Component 

Part Testing or Certification, or Another 

Party’s Finished Product Testing or 

Certification, to Meet Testing and 

Certification Requirements (16 CFR part 

1109). The proposed rule would also 

implement part of section 14(g) of the 

CPSA by requiring that importers of 

regulated finished products file the 

required certificate electronically with 

CBP. 

More specifically, the proposed rule 

revises the existing regulation by adding 

13 new definitions. The new definitions 

clarify the three different types of 

certificates of compliance: General 

Conformity Certificates, Children’s 

Product Certificates, and component 

part certificates. The definitions also 

clarify the types of products that can be 

certified as either finished products or 

component parts. The proposed rule 

clarifies when certificates are required 

to accompany a finished product, who 

must certify a finished product, as well 

as the form and content requirements 

for certificates. Among these 

clarifications is new language holding 

foreign manufacturers responsible for 

certification of products delivered 

directly to consumers in the United 

States, such as products purchased 

through an Internet Web site, unless 

private labelers certify the products. The 

proposed rule revises the certificate 

requirement for domestically 

manufactured products to require a 

private labeler to certify a privately 

labeled product, unless a domestic 

manufacturer certifies the product. 

Finally, the proposed rule requires 

importers of regulated finished products 

manufactured outside of the United 

States to file the required certificate 

electronically with CBP at the time of 

filing the CBP entry or at the time of 

filing the entry and entry summary, if 

both are filed together. 

B. Small Entities Subject to the 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed revisions to part 1110 

will apply to importers and domestic 

manufacturers, and will be extended to 

include private labelers for privately 

labeled domestic products (unless 

certificates are provided by 

manufacturers). It is difficult to know 

the number of small businesses that 

would, with certainty, be affected by the 

rule. Research of CBP data by CPSC staff 

found that during 2009, there were 

231,094 distinct importers of products 

categorized in import codes likely to 

include products under CPSC’s 

jurisdiction. The great majority of these 

firms (perhaps 90 percent or more) are 

likely to be small businesses under U.S. 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standards for manufacturers, 

wholesalers, or retailers. On the basis of 

this information, each year as many as 

210,000 small businesses might import 

products under CPSC jurisdiction that 

would make them subject to the 

proposed rule. However, firms that only 

import consumer products that are not 

subject to product safety rules requiring 

certification would not be affected by 

the electronic filing requirement. 

In most cases, domestic 

manufacturers will continue to have the 

responsibility of providing certificates 

for products subject to a consumer 

product safety rule under the CPSA or 

other laws enforced by the Commission. 

According to Census of Manufactures 

data for 2007, about 104,000 companies 

manufactured products in the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes that are likely to 

have included products under CPSC 

jurisdiction.2 Although more than 90 

percent of these firms (i.e., close to 

100,000) are considered small 

businesses under SBA guidelines, a 

significant percentage probably are not 

engaged in manufacturing products that 

are subject to a product safety rule. Still, 

tens of thousands of small 

manufacturers currently are responsible 

for providing certificates. Under the 

proposed rule, some of the burden of 

providing certificates could be 

transferred to small private labelers. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28092 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3 Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection, Importer Security 

Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, Interim 

final rule. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 228, 

November 25, 2008, p. 11765. Retrieved from 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/ 

E8-27048.pdf. 

4 Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Importer 

Security Filing and Additional Carrier 

Requirements: Regulatory Assessment and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final 

Rule, November 6, 2008, p. 4–7 (97 of 266). 

Retrieved from http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/ 

cgov/trade/cargo_security/carriers/security_filing/ 

ra.ctt/ra.pdf. 

C. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed revisions to part 1110 

include the imposition of the new 

reporting requirement on importers of 

regulated finished products to file 

certificates of compliance (General 

Conformity Certificates or Children’s 

Product Certificates) electronically with 

CBP at the time of filing the CBP entry 

or at the time of filing the entry and 

entry summary, if both are filed 

together. This electronic filing 

requirement would be in addition to 

other electronic importer security filing 

requirements already imposed by CBP. 

It is important to note that many 

importers, including those that are small 

businesses, already make electronic 

certificates available under the existing 

part 1110, to satisfy the requirement that 

certificates accompany products, are 

furnished to distributors and retailers, 

and are available to the CPSC ‘‘as soon 

as the product or shipment is available 

for inspection.’’ Thus, for these firms, 

the incremental requirement would 

simply call for these certificates also to 

be provided electronically to the CBP. 

Because the proposed requirement for 

electronic filing of certificates for 

imported products does not specify how 

that is to be accomplished, importers 

will have some flexibility in their 

method of compliance. For example, the 

preamble of the proposed rule discusses 

that certificates could be maintained as 

pdf files, or certificates could be 

provided in the form of data elements 

and uploaded to CBP’s system of 

records. Importers relying on paper 

certificates of compliance for 

distributors and retailers would have to 

create electronic certificates; however, 

these firms are likely to have the 

necessary office equipment and 

personnel to create and transmit these 

certificates electronically. Since 2010, 

small businesses that import 

merchandise (including products under 

CPSC jurisdiction) by ocean vessel have 

been required to file information related 

to the shipments electronically with 

CBP no later than 24 hours prior to the 

ship’s arrival at a U.S. port, pursuant to 

CBP’s rule titled, Importer Security 

Filing and Additional Carrier 

Requirements (commonly known as 

‘‘10+2’’). Small importers often hire 

Customs brokers licensed by CBP to 

handle the procedures that must be 

followed to import goods; the proposed 

requirement of electronic filing of 

certificates will likely be added to the 

duties performed by these brokers. 

Based on the current business 

practices of small businesses that import 

consumer products, the incremental 

costs of the requirement to file an 

electronic certificate of compliance 

should be minor. If electronic filing 

costs are similar to typical fees 

reportedly charged by Customs brokers 

for filing the required Importer Security 

Filing data elements, they might be $25 

or less, per filing. CBP estimated that 

‘‘in 2005, more than 70 to 85 percent of 

all importers imported fewer than 12 

shipments.’’ 3 Assuming this applies to 

importers of consumer products, annual 

incremental costs of electronic filing of 

certificates of compliance could be less 

than $275 for most small businesses that 

import products that require certificates 

of compliance. This estimate is based on 

the assumption that one certificate of 

conformance would be required per 

shipment. If multiple certificates are 

required per shipment, costs could be 

higher. As noted by CBP in its 

assessment of costs of security filing 

requirements, some small importers of 

consumer products subject to electronic 

filing of certificates under part 1110 

could choose to file the certificates 

electronically themselves with CBP, if 

their own filing costs are lower than fees 

charged by brokers.4

Another proposed revision to part 

1110 revises the requirement for 

certification of domestically 

manufactured products to require that 

privately labeled products be certified 

by the private labeler, unless the 

domestic manufacturer issues a 

certificate. This amendment would 

result in a shift in the obligation to 

provide certificates from some small 

manufacturers to some small private 

labelers. However, these small private 

labelers can choose to continue to rely 

on the certificates that the 

manufacturers are currently required to 

provide, or they can use such 

certificates as a basis for issuing their 

own certificates. Moreover, the revisions 

would grant private labelers the 

authority to issue certificates, which 

some may prefer. While some private 

labelers may experience some impact, 

this impact should not be significant 

because it is expected that some 

manufacturers will continue to issue 

certificates as they are now legally 

required to do. 

D. Other Federal Rules 

For small businesses importing 

consumer products by containerized 

shipping vessel, this electronic filing 

requirement would be in addition to 

other electronic importer security filing 

requirements already imposed by CBP. 

Since 2010, small businesses that 

import merchandise (including products 

under CPSC jurisdiction) by ocean 

vessel have been required to file 

information related to the shipments 

electronically with CBP no later than 24 

hours prior to the ship’s arrival at a U.S. 

port. One of the elements required to be 

filed under the CBP’s rule (Importer 

Security Filing and Additional Carrier 

Requirements, or ‘‘10+2 rule’’) is the 

name and address of the manufacturer 

or supplier of the finished goods in the 

country or origin, although alternative 

forms of manufacturer identification, 

such as identification numbers, are also 

acceptable. This CBP element is similar, 

but not identical, to the required 

information on date and place of 

manufacture required by certificates of 

compliance. 

E. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

One alternative to the proposed rule 

would be allowing, rather than requiring 

certificates for imported products to be 

filed at entry. If this alternative were to 

be adopted, the certificate would still 

have to be available for inspection upon 

request, as it is now. Allowing, instead 

of requiring certificates to be filed 

electronically at entry would reduce the 

burden on small businesses, but it might 

not enhance the Commission’s ability to 

target shipments for inspection and to 

track the accuracy of certificates. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule to amend 16 CFR 

part 1110 would create a new 5-year 

recordkeeping retention burden for 

GCCs and would also create a new 

reporting requirement by mandating 

that certificates for imported products 

be filed electronically with CBP. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule 

contains information collection 

requirements that are subject to public 

comment and review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

In addition to the new recordkeeping 

and reporting burden associated with 

the proposed rule, our burden estimates 

presented below provide additional 

estimates to cover categories of burdens 

omitted in previous information 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28093 

collections. The existing 1110 rule was 

issued by direct final rule in November 

2008, and implemented the 

requirements in sections 14(a) and (g) of 

the CPSA to issue certificates for 

regulated products. For over four years 

now, regulated entities have incurred 

the costs associated with complying 

with these statutory requirements. 

Because a burden analysis for the 

creation and disclosure of certificates 

was not conducted in 2008, we provide 

here an estimated burden of 

$118,166,724 for those statutory 

requirements imposed by existing 16 

CFR 1110 for costs associated with 

documenting test results, creating GCCs, 

and disclosing GCCs to third parties. We 

note these costs are separate from the 

$56,118,876 in estimated costs 

associated with filing GCCs with CBP 

and retaining GCCs and supporting test 

records for at least five years as required 

by this proposed amendment to 16 CFR 

1110. 

The recordkeeping burden analysis 

for the creation and maintenance of 

certificates based on third party testing 

of regulated children’s products, CPCs, 

was set forth in 2011, in the Testing 

Rule and the Component Part Rule, 

culminating in a collection of 

information titled, Third Party Testing 

of Children’s Products. That analysis 

did not cover third party disclosure of 

certificates for regulated children’s 

products. Therefore, we provide here an 

estimated burden of $14,936,000 for 

third party disclosure of certificates for 

regulated children’s products as 

required by 16 CFR 1107. We note this 

cost is separate from the $18,700,000 in 

estimated costs associated with filing 

CPCs with CBP as required by this 

proposed amendment to 16 CFR 1110. 

Pursuant to section 14(a)(1) of the 

CPSA, non-children’s products that are 

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, 

must be certified as compliant with 

such rules, bans, standards or 

regulations. Certificates must meet the 

content, form, and availability 

requirements in the 1110 rule. For nonchildren’s products that are required to 

be certified, the CPSC intends to create 

a new collection of information to 

estimate the burden of: recording test 

results or other information to support 

GCCs; creating GCCs; disclosing 

certificates to retailers or distributors, 

CPSC, and CBP; and maintaining GCCs 

and supporting test records for 5 years. 

Some of the applicable underlying rules 

already have certificate and 

recordkeeping requirements that have 

previously been described in an 

information collection request to OMB, 

but many do not. In addition to 

recordkeeping requirements in an 

underlying rule, the proposed rule 

would require that GCCs and supporting 

test records be maintained for at least 5 

years. 

Even where some rules have 

certificate requirements, such certificate 

requirements are not uniform and do 

not meet the minimum certificate 

content requirements set forth in section 

14(g) of the CPSA, as implemented in 

the 1110 rule. Pursuant to section 14(g) 

of the CPSA, each certificate must 

accompany the applicable product or 

product shipment, be furnished to each 

distributor or retailer of the product, 

and furnished to CPSC, upon request. 

Additionally, each certificate must 

identify: The issuer of the certificate; 

any third party conformity assessment 

body that performed testing on which 

the certificate relies; the date and place 

of manufacture; the date and place of 

testing; each party’s name, full mailing 

address, telephone number; and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. Thus, the certificate 

requirement in section 14(g) of the 

CPSA, as implemented in the 1110 rule, 

may be seen as an additional 

requirement for rules that require an onproduct certificate, such as 16 CFR part 

1205, Safety Standard for Walk-Behind 

Power Lawn Mowers. The statutory 

certificate requirement also may be seen 

as adding content requirements to the 

certificates described in rules that 

already require a certificate, such as 16 

CFR part 1204, Safety Standard for 

Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base 

Station Antennas. 

The recordkeeping burden for the 

creation and maintenance of certificates 

required by sections 14(a) and (g) of the 

CPSA for children’s products is already 

described in the collection of 

information on Third Party Testing of 

Children’s Products. We propose to 

amend the collection of information on 

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products to estimate the increase in 

burden for third party disclosure of 

CPCs to retailers, distributors, and to 

CBP, as set forth in the proposed rule. 

We invite comments on: (1) Whether 

the amendment to the collection of 

information on Third Party Testing of 

Children’s Products, and the new 

collection of information on 

Certification of Non-Children’s 

Products, are necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of 

the CPSC’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the method and 

assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques, 

when appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology. 

Title: Non-Children’s Products— 

Certification of Non-Children’s 

Products. 

Children’s Products—Amendment to 

collection on Third Party Testing of 

Children’s Products (OMB control 

number 3041–0159). 

Description: We would create a new 

collection of information for regulated 

non-children’s products describing the 

annual reporting burden to: document 

test results or other information on 

which a certificate is based; create 

GCCs; furnish GCCs to retailers or 

distributors, the CPSC, and CBP; file 

certificates for imported products 

electronically with CBP; and maintain 

GCCs and supporting test records for 5 

years. We would also amend the 

collection of information related to 

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products to estimate the increase in the 

annual reporting burden for certifiers of 

children’s products to furnish CPCs to 

retailers and distributors, and for 

importers of children’s products to file 

electronic CPCs with CBP. 

The burden analysis for GCCs is 

comprehensive: it includes not only the 

new burdens associated with the 

proposed rule but also covers burdens 

not accounted for in previous 

rulemakings or in burden analysis 

submissions to OMB. As noted above, 

the proposed rule includes a new 

disclosure requirement for finished 

products manufactured outside the 

United States. When products 

manufactured outside the United States 

are imported for consumption or 

warehousing, the importer would be 

required to file either a CPC or GCC 

electronically with the CBP at the time 

of filing the CBP entry or the time of 

filing the entry and entry summary, if 

both are filed together. Such a 

requirement would implement section 

14(g)(4) of the CPSA, which states that 

the Commission, in consultation with 

the Commissioner of Customs, may, by 

rule, provide for the electronic filing of 

certificates up to 24 hours before arrival 

of an imported product. All other 

burdens for GCCs are due to the 

statutory requirements for certificates, 

as set forth in the direct final rule for 

part 1110 issued in November 2008. 

The burden estimates provided below 

are broken into four main categories: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28094 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5Public comment from the Glass Association of 

North America submitted in response to the notice 

of proposed rulemaking on the testing and 

certification rule (16 CFR part 1107). 

6 Information from SGCC provided to Robert 

Squibb on January 28, 2013. 

Creating GCCs for Non-Children’s 

Products; Furnishing Certificates to 

Third Parties; Filing Certificates for 

Imported Products with CBP; and 

Maintaining GCCs and Test Records. 

These estimates reflect the burden to the 

finished product certifier only. We have 

made no attempt to estimate the 

additional burden, if any, to the federal 

government. Our estimates include the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

each collection of information. 

Description of the Respondents: 

Finished product certifiers of 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. 

Estimate of the Burden 

A. Creating GCCs for Non-Children’s 

Products 

The estimates provided are intended 

to reflect the recordkeeping burden per 

product per year. In the collection of 

information for children’s products, we 

estimated that the recordkeeping burden 

was about 3 to 5 hours per product, per 

year, on average. For non-children’s 

products, we generally estimate that the 

recordkeeping burden to create GCCs 

and to document testing or other 

information on which the certificate is 

based is about 1.5 hours per product per 

year. This estimate reflects the fact that 

non-children’s products are subject to 

fewer product safety rules than are 

children’s products. Moreover, although 

some non-children’s products 

manufacturers use third party testing, 

non-children’s products are not subject 

to mandatory third party certification, 

material change, and periodic testing. 

The 1.5 hours per product estimate is 

consistent with comments that were 

received in response to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking for the Testing 

Rule. However, where we have 

information for specific products or 

rules that deviate from the general 

estimate, we use the more specific 

information. 

Like children’s products, great 

diversity exists among regulated nonchildren’s products. Thus, certifiers of 

non-children’s products have significant 

flexibility in procedures for testing and 

certifying their products. Although each 

regulated product must have a GCC, the 

reasonable testing program that 

generates test results or other 

information upon which a GCC relies 

may vary greatly. For example, the 

criteria for meeting the requirements of 

16 CFR part 1202, Safety Standard for 

Matchbooks, can likely be met out of a 

quality assurance or quality 

management program, in contrast to the 

specific testing program that is required 

in 16 CFR part 1209, Interim Safety 

Standard for Cellulose Insulation. For 

this reason, as with children’s products, 

we do not have a strong basis for 

estimating the recordkeeping burden 

based on specific records for each 

product or rule. 

For each product or rule where no 

certificate or other recordkeeping 

requirement is currently in place, or 

where we have not previously provided 

an estimate of the recordkeeping burden 

to OMB, we estimate the burden to 

document testing or other information 

on which the certificate is based and to 

create GCCs to generally be 1.5 hours on 

average per product. For rules that 

already have a certificate requirement 

based on a testing program, we use 

estimates of less than 1.5 hours, 

generally 15 to 30 minutes per product, 

to create the GCC required by part 1110. 

The reduced burden for these rules 

reflects the fact that the recordkeeping 

burden associated with just creating a 

GCC in the required format should be 

less than the burden associated with 

both documenting the results of a 

reasonable testing program and creating 

a GCC. 

We further note that in many, if not 

most cases, these records might be 

prepared several times a year per 

product. Thus, even if completing the 

required records for a single set of tests 

or preparing one GCC might seem to 

take only a few minutes, if multiple 

batches are certified annually, or the 

product is manufactured at more than 

one location, then the total burden 

during the year will be higher. 

1. Glazing Materials (16 CFR part 1201) 

Glazing materials used in or intended 

for use in doors and storm doors 

(including combination doors), bathtub 

doors and enclosures, shower doors and 

enclosures, and patio type sliding glass 

doors, are subject to the safety standard 

for architectural glazing materials (16 

CFR part 1201). Part 1201 requires that 

manufacturers and private labelers of 

glazing materials certify their products 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 14 of the CPSA. Although the 

Commission has previously submitted 

recordkeeping burden estimates to 

OMB, OMB approval of this collection 

of information expired in 1985. 

Accordingly, we will estimate the 

burden of creating GCCs for compliance 

with part 1201, as well as documenting 

test results demonstrating compliance. 

The Glass Association of North 

America reports that it has about 400 

members that are engaged in the 

manufacture, fabrication, and 

installation of glass and glazing 

products for residential and commercial 

applications.5 The Safety Glass 

Certification Council (SGCC) maintains 

a third party certification program for 

glass and glazing products. SGCC states 

that it has certified 1,726 individual 

products from 262 individual 

participant manufacturers. SGCC 

believes that its members represent 

about 70 percent of the square footage 

of safety glazing materials.6 Based on 

the SGCC figures, their 262 industry 

participants each have an average of just 

over six products. The estimates below 

are based on the assumption that the 

firms that do not participate in the 

SGCC program have the same number of 

products. We are estimating that it takes 

about 1.5 hours per product to 

document test results and to create 

GCCs. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

400 2,400 1.5 3,600 

2. Matchbooks (16 CFR part 1202) 

Matchbooks are subject to the safety 

standard for matchbooks (16 CFR part 

1202). Although the Commission has 

submitted previously recordkeeping 

burden estimates to OMB, OMB 

approval of this collection of 

information expired in 1982. 

Part 1202 is relatively straightforward, 

in that compliance to the standard can 

be determined by simply examining 

several samples of the product to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28095 

7 Information about the industry was obtained 

from a Web site called, ‘‘The Matchcover Vault,’’ 

which is a site aimed at collectors of matchbook 

covers. The specific URL for the industry 

information is http://matchpro.org/ 

Matchindustryhistory.html (accessed on 

01/16/2013). 

ensure, for example, that the friction 

plate is on the outside back cover of the 

matchbook and that no match head is 

bridged, split or crumbling. Although 

the time spent keeping records of 

compliance for each batch or lot is 

probably low, multiple batches or lots of 

each product are likely manufactured 

annually. 

According to one source, four 

matchbook manufacturers operate in the 

United States.7 Although the printed 

covers might include a wide variety of 

designs, depending upon the customers, 

matchbooks generally come in just a few 

sizes, such as 20 strike, 30 strike, or 40 

strike. We assume for purposes of this 

analysis that certification is based on 

the broader category of matchbook size, 

and not each individual matchbook 

cover design. Based on this assumption, 

each manufacturer would be certifying 3 

different products or models annually. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

4 12 1.5 18 

3. Bicycle Helmets (16 CFR Part 1203) 

Bicycle helmets are subject to the 

safety standard for bicycle helmets (16 

CFR part 1203). CPSC has provided 

some estimates of the recordkeeping 

burden to OMB in an earlier 

submission, which includes records for 

a reasonable testing program, the 

requirement to place a certification label 

on bicycle helmets, and a 3-year 

minimum record retention period. A 

GCC that meets the requirements 

specified in section 14(g) of the CPSA 

and the 1110 rule is now additionally 

required. Although it could take as little 

as 10 minutes to prepare a GCC for a 

given model of bicycle helmet, it is 

likely that models will be recertified 

several times during a year. 

The most recent submission to OMB 

regarding bicycle helmets estimates that 

there are about 30 manufacturers and 

about 200 models of bicycle helmets. If 

we assume that about 17.5 percent of 

the models are intended for children 

aged 12 years or younger (based on the 

percentage of such children in the 

population), we can assume that about 

165 of the models are not intended for 

children and require a GCC. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

30 165 0.5 83 

4. Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base 

Station Antennas (16 CFR part 1204) 

Omnidirectional citizens band base 

station antennas are subject to a product 

safety standard that is intended to 

reduce electrocution hazards associated 

with the antennas (16 CFR part 1204). 

Part 1204 requires specific types of 

testing, certificates, and certain records 

to be maintained for 3 years. An 

estimate of the burden for these 

requirements has previously been 

detailed in a submission to OMB. The 

content of the certificate required in part 

1204, however, does not contain all of 

the information required by section 

14(g) of the CPSA and the 1110 rule. 

Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the 

increased burden of creating GCCs with 

all of the required information. 

One approach to estimating this 

burden is to assume that it takes about 

half an hour to prepare a GCC with the 

required information. Each certificate 

might take less time to prepare, but 

there could be multiple batches or lots 

of product in a given year that must be 

certified. 

The existing PRA submission 

indicates that five firms manufacture 

these products. A Google search 

indicated that each firm might have 

more than one model, but only one 

company appeared to have more than 

three models. Thus, we estimate that 

each firm has three models. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

5 15 0.5 8 

5. Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers 

(16 CFR part 1205) 

Walk behind power lawn mowers are 

subject to the safety standard for walkbehind power lawn mowers (16 CFR 

part 1205). Part 1205 prescribes certain 

testing and recordkeeping requirements, 

including records of a reasonable testing 

program and certificates which are onproduct labels. Such labels do not 

require the same content information 

required by section 14(g) of the CPSA 

and the 1110 rule. Burden estimates for 

part 1205 have been submitted to OMB 

previously. Thus, here we estimate only 

the increased burden of creating GCCs 

with all of the required information. 

According to the existing PRA 

submission for part 1205, 1 hour per 

production day, per manufacturer, is 

added to the recordkeeping and testing 

burden to collect the information 

required for the certificate and to place 

it on the label. Our existing OMB 

submission for part 1205 assumes 130 

production days a year. Thus, we 

assumed that each day’s production will 

be certified individually or that there 

are multiple batches, and therefore, that 

multiple certificates will be issued for 

each model annually. We will use the 

same methodology to estimate the 

increased burden of creating the 

required GCC here. Accordingly, we 

assume 1 hour per day, per 

manufacturer to create the required 

GCCs for 130 production days out of the 

year. The existing PRA submission 

estimates that there are 20 

manufacturers of walk-behind lawn 

mowers. If each manufacturer is in 

production 130 days per year and 

requires 1 hour per day for 

recordkeeping, then the annual burden 

per manufacturer will be 130 hours, or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28096 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8Robert D. Kurtz, ‘‘Environmental and Economic 

Impacts of the Interim Safety Standard for 

Cellulosic Insulation,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Hazard Identification 

(June 15, 1978). 

2,600 hours for all manufacturers 

together. 

Firms Total models Hours/Mfr. Total hours 

20 ....................................................... 130 2,600 

6. Swimming Pool Slides (16 CFR part 

1207) 

Swimming pool slides are subject to 

the safety standard for swimming pool 

slides (16 CFR part 1207). Part 1207 

includes requirements for testing 

swimming pools slides and for issuing 

a certificate based on a reasonable 

testing program, but no record retention 

period is provided. The certificate 

required in the rule contains fewer data 

elements than required by section 14(g) 

of the CPSA and the 1110 rule. We do 

not appear to have previously reported 

burden estimates for recordkeeping to 

OMB for part 1207. Therefore, we 

estimate the burden for recording test 

results for a reasonable testing program 

on which the GCC relies and for creating 

a GCC. 

A retailer’s Web site, which states that 

it offers swimming pool slides from 

most major manufacturers, has between 

100 and 120 different models of pool 

slides. Some slide models appeared to 

be duplicates, however, and some of the 

products might not actually be covered 

by the standard. Given that the retailer 

might not offer all models, and allowing 

for duplicates and for the proposition 

that some products are not subject to the 

standard, we assume that there are a 

total 120 models of swimming pool 

slides. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

a few 120 1.5 180 

7. Cellulose Insulation (16 CFR part 

1209) 

Cellulose insulation is subject to the 

interim cellulose insulation standard 

(16 CFR part 1209). Part 1209 includes 

comprehensive testing, recordkeeping, 

and certification requirements, 

including a 2-year record retention 

period. The certification required in part 

1209 is in the form of a label on the 

product, and includes the day, month, 

and year of production. No prior OMB 

submission exists for this product, 

likely because part 1209 was 

implemented before enactment of the 

PRA. Therefore, for part 1209, we 

estimate the burden of documenting test 

results from the testing program 

required in part 1209, and creating a 

GCC. 

Thirty-six producer members of the 

Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers 

Association (CIMA) were listed on its 

Web site (www.cellulose.org). 

Additionally, in 2000, CPSC staff 

identified a few manufacturers that were 

not members of CIMA, bringing the total 

estimated number of manufacturers to 

44. Because the on-product certificate 

requirement in part 1209 requires 

specification of the date, month, and 

year of manufacture, and because the 

testing interval required in part 1209 

must be short enough to demonstrate 

compliance with the standard, testing 

and certification of cellulose insulation 

is likely to occur several times a year. 

Thus, the recordkeeping for the required 

reasonable testing program and for 

certification is likely to take several 

hours each year for each manufacturer. 

Assuming that each manufacturer must 

issue a new certificate with the date of 

manufacture, that each manufacturer is 

in production 240 days a year, and that 

the recordkeeping requires 15 minutes 

per day, then the burden per 

manufacturer per year would be 60 

hours. 

The estimate of 44 manufacturers is 

significantly lower than the estimates of 

the number of firms in the market in the 

late 1970s. In 1976, there were 100 

manufacturers with 125 plants. In 1978, 

the Federal Trade Commission 

compiled a list of more than 700 

manufacturers.8 If the current estimate 

of 44 manufacturers is an 

underestimate, or if some manufacturers 

have more than one plant, the total 

recordkeeping burden would also be 

underestimated. 

Firms Total models Hours/Mfr. Total hours 

44 n.a. 60 2,640 

8. Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR part 1210) 

and Multipurpose Lighters (16 CFR part 

1212) 

Cigarette lighters and multipurpose 

lighters are subject to the childresistance requirements established by 

16 CFR parts 1210 and 1212, 

respectively. Parts 1210 and 1212 set 

forth comprehensive testing, 

certification, and recordkeeping 

requirements, including a 3-year 

minimum retention period. Estimates of 

the recordkeeping burden for parts 1210 

and 1212 have been submitted to OMB 

previously. Here, we estimate the 

incremental burden associated with 

creating a certificate containing the 

information required by section 14(g) of 

the CPSA and the 1110 rule because the 

certificates provided in parts 1210 and 

1212 require less information. 

Before a manufacturer or importer can 

distribute a lighter model in the United 

States, it must first file a report with the 

CPSC. From October, 2005 to February 

12, 2013, CPSC has accepted 6,667 

reports of new cigarette or multipurpose 

lighter models from a total 145 

companies. We believe this is a 

reasonable estimate for the number of 

lighter models for which GCCs will be 

required in a given year for the 

following reasons. First, once CPSC 

accepts a report of a new model, the 

lighter model can continue to be 

distributed without future reports. 

Second, although only one or two lots 

of some lighter models might be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28097 

9The calculation is (54,000/0.175) × 0.825 = 

254,571. This could be a low estimate because most 

children’s furniture is limited to the bedroom 

furniture category. However, general use furniture 

also includes categories such as ‘‘dining room’’ and 

‘‘living room’’ furniture. The estimate in the 

memorandum has been rounded. 

10To derive the estimate, we had to make 

assumptions concerning the employee 

compensation and the number of models per 

manufacturer that were not explicitly stated in the 

comment. 

manufactured or imported, multiple lots 

of some lighter models might be 

manufactured in some years. Finally, 

there are probably some lighter models 

that were reported to CPSC prior to FY 

2005, which are still being distributed. 

More than 600 million individual 

lighters are manufactured or imported 

into the United States annually. 

We estimate the burden to create a 

GCC to be about 15 minutes per model. 

Once the certificates are modified, the 

incremental cost of including additional 

data could be negligible. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

145 6,667 0.25 1,667 

9. Residential Automatic Garage Door 

Openers (16 CFR part 1211) 

The automatic residential garage door 

opener standard (16 CFR part 1211) 

contains guidance for a reasonable 

testing program, an on-product 

certificate requirement, and 

recordkeeping requirements, including a 

minimum 3-year record retention 

period. The on-product certificate 

required by part 1211 does not contain 

all of the data elements required for a 

GCC in section 14(g) of the CPSA and 

the 1110 rule. Moreover, an exemption 

for on-product certificates is provided 

under certain circumstances. An 

estimate of the recordkeeping burden of 

the rule has been provided to OMB 

previously. The most recent PRA 

submission to OMB estimates that there 

are 21 respondents that require about 40 

hours each for maintaining the records 

required by the regulation. Therefore, 

here we will estimate only the burden 

of issuing certificates with the required 

information. We estimate the annual 

burden of creating compliant GCCs, 

separate from the label, to be about 30 

minutes per model. 

Based on a review of the garage door 

openers available at some home or 

building supply retailers, each 

manufacturer could offer a few different 

models (e.g., 1⁄2 horsepower, 3⁄4

horsepower, with and without battery 

backup). For purposes of these 

estimates, we assume that each 

manufacturer has about four different 

models. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

21 84 0.5 42 

10. Furniture (16 CFR parts 1303 and 

1213) 

General use furniture, which is 

furniture that is not designed or 

primarily intended for children 12 years 

of age or younger, is subject to the rule 

banning the use of lead paint in excess 

of 90 parts per million (ppm) (16 CFR 

part 1303). General use bunk beds are 

also subject to a standard intended to 

reduce entrapment hazards (16 CFR part 

1213). Neither of these rules has explicit 

recordkeeping or certification 

requirements, and no recordkeeping 

burden estimates have previously been 

submitted to OMB. Furniture subject to 

parts 1303 and 1213 must be certified as 

compliant, based on a test of each 

product, or on a reasonable testing 

program pursuant to section 14(a)(1) of 

the CPSA. 

16 CFR Part 1303—Lead-in-Paint 

When we estimated the recordkeeping 

burden for testing and certification of 

furniture that would be considered a 

children’s product in 16 CFR part 1107, 

we estimated that there were 54,000 

models of furniture intended for 

children 12 years of age or younger. We 

estimated 54,000 models by counting 

the models of children’s furniture 

offered by one large online retailer and 

estimating that it carried only about 

one-quarter of all the models of 

furniture available. If we assume that 

54,000 models represents about 17.5 

percent of all furniture models intended 

for children and adults, based on the 

percentage of the U.S. population that is 

12 years of age or younger, one could 

infer that approximately 250,000 9

furniture models are intended for 

people over 12 years of age. Metal 

furniture and furniture that does not 

have a paint or coating are not subject 

to part 1303. Unless the bunk bed 

standard applies, such furniture does 

not require a certificate. We assume that 

about half of the furniture items might 

be subject to the part 1303 lead-in-paint 

requirement. Based on a comment from 

a furniture industry trade association, 

which was submitted in response to the 

proposed Testing Rule, we derived an 

estimate of 30 to 45 minutes per model 

for the recordkeeping associated with a 

reasonable testing program for part 

1303.10 For purposes of these estimates, 

we have used the low end of this range. 

16 CFR Part 1213—Bunk Beds 

One large online retailer had about 

1,200 items listed under ‘‘bunk bed.’’ If 

this retailer carries about one-quarter of 

all bunk bed models, this indicates that 

there are approximately 4,800 bunk bed 

models available. A review of the first 

75 models indicates that about 12% of 

the models might be appropriate for 

people over the age of 12 years. 

Accordingly, there may be about 600 

general use bunk bed models intended 

for people over the age of 12 years. We 

estimate the cost to document the 

reasonable testing program for bunk 

beds and to create a certificate to be 1.5 

hour per model. 

Regulation Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

1303 ................................. 125,000 0.5 62,500 

1213 ................................. 600 1.5 900 

Total .......................... ............................................................ ............................................................ 63,400 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28098 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11Technically some industrial coatings might be 

subject to the limits on lead in paint in Part 1303 

if they are applied on a consumer product. 

However, in these cases it would be the product 

manufacturer (e.g., furniture or children’s product 

manufacturer) that would be responsible for the 

certification. 

12United States Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of the Census, 2010 County Business 

Patterns. 

13 In fact, many large paint manufacturers 

manufacture both industrial and consumer paints. 

11. Consumer Paints and Coatings (16 

CFR part 1303) 

In addition to paints and coatings 

applied to some furniture, paints and 

coatings for consumers’ use are also 

subject to the 90 ppm lead limit (16 CFR 

part 1303). Exemptions to the scope of 

the paint lead limit include: coatings 

that are not intended for consumer use, 

agricultural and industrial products, 

mirrors, some metal furniture with 

factory-applied coatings, and artist 

paints. The recordkeeping burden to 

create GCCs for consumer paints and 

coatings has not been submitted to OMB 

previously. 

Based on information available from 

the American Coatings Association 

(http://www.paint.org/about-ourindustry/types-of-coatings.html), just 

over 50 percent of the paints, by value, 

would be subject to part 1303. Products 

subject to part 1303 include 

architectural coatings and aerosol 

coatings. Products that are not subject to 

part 1303 include industrial paints, 

marine paints, automotive paints, and 

industrial maintenance coatings.11 The 

Bureau of the Census reports that there 

are 1,002 manufacturers of paint and 

coatings in the United States.12 Based 

on data from the ACA, we assume that 

half of these manufacturers, 501, create 

paints and coating that are subject to 

part 1303.13 One large manufacturer 

lists 82 different consumer products on 

its Web site. While this estimate might 

not account for all different colors 

offered by this manufacturer, some 

smaller manufacturers might not have 

the full range of products that a large 

manufacturer might have. Therefore, we 

estimate that the average number of 

products, per manufacturer, is 82. 

The testing of paint is reasonably 

simple; therefore, maintaining the 

records of a reasonable testing program 

and preparing the required certificate 

should not be overly time consuming. 

However, each batch is probably 

certified and dated, and multiple 

batches of each product are likely to be 

produced annually. Accordingly, we 

assume that 30 minutes, per product, to 

document testing and to create a GCC. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

501 41,082 0.5 20,541 

12. All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) (16 CFR 

part 1420) 

The CPSIA mandated that the 

Commission adopt the voluntary 

standard for ATVs as a mandatory 

standard. The mandatory standard for 

ATVs is codified at 16 CFR part 1420. 

No PRA submission has been made 

previously to OMB regarding part 1420 

because that part does not contain 

specific recordkeeping or certification 

requirements. Pursuant to section 

14(a)(1) of the CPSA, however, ATV 

manufacturers and private labelers are 

required to certify that their products 

meet the requirements of part 1420, 

based on a reasonable testing program or 

a test of each product. 

While ATV testing is likely to take a 

minimum of several hours and could 

take more than a day, documenting the 

results of testing will likely take less 

time. We estimate that the burden to 

document a reasonable testing program 

for ATVs and to create the required GCC 

will be about 1.5 hours. One and a half 

hours could be a low estimate if 

multiple lots or shipments of ATVs are 

tested and certified annually. Based on 

information from the Motorcycle 

Industry Council and Power Products 

Marketing, we estimate that there are 32 

manufacturers of ATVs that produce a 

total of 132 general use, non-children’s, 

ATVs. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

32 132 1.5 198 

13. Pools and Spas (16 CFR part 1450) 

All pool and spa drain covers must 

meet the requirements of the Virginia 

Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 

which is codified at 16 CFR part 1450. 

The Commission has not previously 

estimated a recordkeeping burden 

associated with testing and certifying 

drain covers subject to part 1450. 

Accordingly, we estimate the burden to 

document a reasonable testing program 

for drain covers and to create the 

required GCC. A manufacturer 

directory, located at 

www.poolspanews.com, listed 12 

manufacturers of drain covers. An 

examination of the Web sites of each of 

the manufacturers indicates a total of 

136 different drain covers that are 

advertised as being compliant with the 

VGB requirements. Although this list 

might not be complete, it likely 

represents most of the industry. We 

assume that the recordkeeping burden 

to document a reasonable testing 

program and to create the required GCC 

will be about 1.5 hours per product, per 

year. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

12 136 1.5 204 

14. Fireworks Devices (16 CFR part 

1507; 16 CFR 1500.17(3) and 1500.17(8)) 

Fireworks that are not banned are 

subject to requirements set forth in 16 

CFR part 1507 and sections 1500.17(3), 

and 1500.17(8). These fireworks 

provisions do not contain specific 

recordkeeping or certification 

requirements. Thus, the Commission 

has not provided a paperwork burden 

estimate to OMB previously. Here, we 

estimate the burden to document a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28099 

14This estimate is rounded. 

reasonable testing program for fireworks 

and to create the required GCC. 

Based on its knowledge of the 

industry, the Office of Compliance 

estimates that 115,000 different lots of 

fireworks devices are certified annually. 

The recordkeeping burden for 

documenting the testing and creating 

the GCCs is estimated to be about one 

hour per lot. 

Firms Total lots Hours/Lot Total hours 

115,000 1 115,000 

15. Bicycles (16 CFR part 1512) 

Bicycles are subject to the 

requirements of the safety standard for 

bicycles, which is codified at 16 CFR 

part 1512. Part 1512 sets forth test 

requirements for bicycles and requires 

certain instructions and an on-product 

label, but the rule does not provide for 

specific recordkeeping requirements or 

a record-retention period. Therefore, no 

estimate of the recordkeeping burden 

has been submitted to OMB previously. 

When considering children’s bicycles 

previously for part 1107, we estimated 

that there were approximately 400 

models of children’s bicycles. Assuming 

that children’s bicycles account for 17.5 

percent of bicycle models, based on the 

percentage of the population that is 12 

years of age or younger, there are 

approximately 1,900 14 models of nonchildren’s bicycles. Based on a review of 

a database of bicycle manufacturers, 

there may be 150 to 200 bicycle 

manufacturers whose products are sold 

in the United States. Testing a bicycle 

to part 1512 takes about 1 day. However, 

the time to record test results and to 

create a compliant GCC is likely about 

1.5 hours. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

150 1,900 1.5 2,850 

16. Clothing and Apparel (16 CFR parts 

1610 and 1611) 

Two standards apply to clothing and 

apparel that are intended to classify 

fabrics according to their burning rate 

and prohibit the introduction of 

dangerously flammable goods into 

commerce: (1) Standard for the 

flammability of clothing textiles (16 CFR 

part 1610), and (2) standard for the 

flammability of vinyl plastic film (16 

CFR part 1611). Parts 1610 and 1611 set 

forth test requirements and 

recordkeeping requirements for issuing 

guaranties, not certificates. Both rules 

contain a 3-year record retention period. 

We previously estimated the 

recordkeeping burden for parts 1610 

and 1611 to OMB. Although the 

certificate requirement in section 14 

may be based on the testing required in 

the rules, creating a GCC is an 

additional recordkeeping burden. Here, 

we estimate the time required to create 

the required GCC. 

Certain hats, gloves, footwear, and 

interlining fabrics are excluded from the 

scope of part 1610, as set forth in 

§ 1610.1(c). No certificate is required for 

apparel that is not subject to part 1610. 

Many fabrics are within the scope of 

part 1610, but are exempt from testing 

because they meet the standard based 

on construction and fabric weight, or 

fiber content, regardless of construction 

or fabric weight, as set forth in 

§ 1610.1(d). A GCC is required for all 

apparel within the scope of the rule, 

regardless of whether the fabric is 

exempt from testing. Accordingly, many 

certificates might state that the fabric is 

in compliance with part 1610 because 

the fabric meets one of the testing 

exemptions specified in § 1610.1(d). 

The American Apparel and Footwear 

Association (AAFA) estimates that there 

are 20 billion units of clothing sold 

annually. A representative of AAFA 

estimated that on average each SKU of 

clothing has only about 100 units. On 

the assumption that one SKU is a size 

and color combination of a particular 

item, and further based on a review of 

several catalogs, we estimate an average 

of about 30 SKUs per clothing item. 

Based on this assumption, we estimate 

that approximately 6.7 million apparel 

items must be certified annually. We 

further assume that 17.5 percent of the 

6.7 million apparel items are intended 

for people 12 years of age or younger 

(based on their percentage of the general 

population). Thus, we estimate that 

about 5.5 million apparel items require 

GCCs. 

Given that many clothing items are 

likely produced seasonally, and the total 

number of units of some apparel items 

is fairly low, we assume that only a few 

batches of many items will be certified 

each year. Many apparel items will be 

exempt from testing under part 1610 

based on the exemptions in § 1610.1(d), 

and other apparel items will be certified 

based on testing, guaranties, or 

certificates from fabric suppliers. 

Therefore, we assume that the 

recordkeeping burden per apparel item 

might be as little as 15 minutes. If 

multiple certificates must be issued for 

some apparel items or models, perhaps 

because different colors or sizes are 

produced on different dates or at 

different locations, the estimate could 

be low. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

(thousands) 5.5 million 0.25 1,375,000 

17. Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR parts 1630 

and 1631) 

Carpets and rugs are subject to 

flammability requirements codified at 

16 CFR parts 1630 and 1631. Parts 1630 

and 1631 set forth testing and 

recordkeeping requirements, including a 

3-year record retention period. 

However, the recordkeeping 

requirements apply to persons 

furnishing guaranties, not necessarily to 

manufacturers and private labelers. 

Although the existing OMB submission 

on these rules discusses the requirement 

to issue certificates, the burden estimate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28100 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15This estimate could be low because the 

cigarette lighter standard does not include an adult 

use effectiveness protocol. The total time to conduct 

the tests would exceed 90 hours per package type. 

includes the burden associated with 

third party testing and certification of 

children’s products only, and does not 

consider certification of general use 

carpets and rugs. Accordingly, here we 

provide an estimate for documenting a 

reasonable testing program and for 

creating the required GCC for nonchildren’s carpets and rugs. 

The existing PRA submission to OMB 

on carpets and rugs estimates that there 

are 120 firms subject to the information 

collection requirements, and that each 

of these firms is required to conduct 

between 0 and 200 tests per year. We 

use the midpoint of 100 tests per year 

per firm for the current burden estimate. 

The 2010 County Business Patterns 

report from the Census Bureau shows 

that there are close to 240 carpet and rug 

mills. The lower estimate in the PRA 

submission is based on an assumption 

that only half of the firms would either 

issue guaranties or certify children’s 

products. We estimate that the time to 

create the certificate and the records of 

the tests on which it is based is about 

1.5 hours per style. The time to conduct 

the tests is not included in this estimate. 

On the assumption that GCCs for nonchildren’s products could simply 

replace guaranties, one could use most 

of the assumption in the existing PRA 

submission, but assume that all firms 

will have to conduct testing and issue 

GCCs. Thus, there would be 

approximately 240 firms conducting 

about 100 tests annually. However, 

these estimates are only for domestic 

manufacturers. If there are a significant 

number of carpets and rugs that are 

imported, these estimates are low. 

Firms Total styles Hours/Style Total hours 

240 24,000 1.5 36,000 

18. Mattresses (16 CFR parts 1632 and 

1633) 

Mattresses are subject to two 

flammability standards: (1) a smoldering 

ignition resistance standard codified at 

16 CFR part 1632, and (2) an open-flame 

ignition resistance standard codified at 

16 CFR part 1633. Parts 1632 and 1633 

have comprehensive testing and 

recordkeeping requirements, including a 

3 year minimum record retention 

requirement. Part 1633 has an onproduct certificate requirement. The 

Commission previously provided a 

burden estimate for the recordkeeping 

requirements in parts 1632 and 1633 to 

OMB. Accordingly, here we only 

estimate the burden of creating the GCC 

required by section 14(g) of the CPSA 

and the 1110 rule. 

The burden for all recordkeeping in 

these two rules except the generation of 

a GCC has already been included in the 

previous PRA submission to OMB. 

Because the only additional burden is to 

generate a GCC, we estimate this task to 

take 15 minutes per mattress. Estimates 

of the number of manufacturers and 

models are taken from the existing PRA 

submission for parts 1632 and 1633. 

Firms Total models Hours/Model Total hours 

671 13,420 0.25 3,355 

19. Poison Prevention Packaging Act (16 

CFR part 1700) 

The Commission enforces the Poison 

Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA), 

which requires special packaging for 

some hazardous products to reduce the 

risk of children under 5 years of age 

from accidently coming into contact 

with, or ingesting the product, but still 

allows seniors the ability to access their 

medication. The Commission has 

promulgated 32 regulations that require 

a wide variety of products to be in 

special packaging. Products requiring 

special packaging include: All oral 

prescription drugs, oral prescription 

drugs that have been switched from 

requiring a prescription to being 

available for sale over-the-counter 

(OTC), many types of OTC drug 

products and preparations, some 

personal care products (including baby 

oil and many mouthwashes), and some 

hazardous household products 

(including many drain openers, 

furniture polishes, kindling and 

illuminating preparations, methanol, 

and kerosene). The full list of 

substances that require special 

packaging is codified at 16 CFR 1700.14. 

The finished product certifier that 

must issue a GCC is the importer or the 

domestic party that packages a PPPA 

regulated substance in special 

packaging. Each distinct product subject 

to the PPPA must be covered by a GCC. 

For example, if a company sells a 

regulated OTC drug in four different 

types of special packaging, the company 

might require four different GCCs to 

cover each package type. A GCC is 

required for each type of child-resistant 

packaging. 

We do not have a comprehensive 

database of all products, by all 

manufacturers (including but not 

limited to product manufacturers, 

packagers, package manufactures, and 

contract repackagers), that require 

special packaging. However, based on 

knowledge we have gained through 

various actions over the years 

concerning affected markets, we believe 

there could be more than 1,000 

companies that might be responsible for 

issuing a GCC for covered products. The 

number of products that require GCCs 

may be between 100,000 and 200,000. 

This includes different packages of the 

same brand of a product packaged by 

one company. 

The child resistance and senior use 

effectiveness of each special package 

type must be established by testing with 

panels of children and adults according 

to the protocols codified at 16 CFR 

§ 1700.20. We estimate that the record 

keeping burden associated with the 

testing is about 20 hours per package 

type based on the burden estimate used 

for the cigarette lighter standard.15

One package might be used for many 

different products. Therefore, the 

recordkeeping burden could be spread 

over many different final products. A 

regulatory summary of the PPPA on the 

CPSC’s Web site that was prepared by 

Commission staff states: 

The importer or the domestic party that 

packages a PPPA regulated substance in 

special packaging must issue the general 

conformity certificate. The child resistance 

and senior friendly testing data (also known 

as protocol data) obtained in accordance with 

the procedures described under 16 CFR 

1700.20 may be used by the importer or 

domestic packager to support its certification. 

The packager can rely upon this data as the 

basis for the reasonable testing program. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28101 

There is no expiration date on these tests and 

no requirement to retest so long as the tests 

adequately reflect the current packaging 

used. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/RegulationsLaws—Standards/Statutes/PoisonPrevention-Packaging-Act/. This means 

that a manufacturer of a PPPA-regulated 

product can rely on test data provided 

by the package manufacturer. Finished 

product certifiers that rely on another 

party’s testing or certification to issue a 

finished product certificate must follow 

the Component Part Rule, 16 CFR part 

1109. 

Furthermore, each package does not 

have to be retested at regular intervals. 

Testing will generally occur only when 

a change is made to an existing package 

that could affect its compliance or a new 

package is introduced. Sometimes the 

manufacturer or packager of the final 

product (i.e., the drug or household 

substance) will conduct its own 

compliance testing to ensure that its 

products meet the requirements of the 

PPPA. Likewise, the GCCs might not 

need to be revised or reissued at regular 

intervals. Manufacturers of a product 

regulated under the PPPA may be able 

to rely upon the same GCC for a product 

until it changes the package or the 

certification or testing of the package 

changes. 

We do not have concrete data 

regarding the average number of 

products for which a typical package is 

used; nor do we have concrete data on 

how frequently packages are retested, or 

how often manufacturers, importers, or 

private labelers of the final products 

will issue new GCCs. For purposes of 

this analysis, however, we are assuming 

that, on average, each different package 

is used for 100 different products. We 

are also assuming that, on average, each 

package is used for 4 years before it is 

retested because of a material change, 

the manufacturer has substituted a new 

package, or for any other reason. We 

assume further that the manufacturers, 

importers, or private labelers of the final 

products, on average, only issue new 

GCCs for a product once every 4 years. 

As noted above, the recordkeeping 

burden associated with the protocol 

testing of a package is about 20 hours. 

If each package is used for 100 different 

products, and the testing is conducted, 

on average, every 4 years, then the 

average recordkeeping burden of the 

testing is about 3 minutes annually, per 

final regulated consumer product (e.g., 

drug or household product). We believe 

that it might take about 15 minutes to 

create and maintain the GCC for each 

consumer product regulated under the 

PPPA. If the GCC is created only once 

every 4 years for the average regulated 

product, then the annual recordkeeping 

burden for creating and maintaining the 

GCC will be about 4 minutes. Therefore, 

on average, the total recordkeeping 

burden per product regulated under the 

PPPA will be about 7 minutes. This 

includes the time required to create and 

maintain the records of the protocol 

testing of the packages and the time to 

create and maintain the GCC. 

Firms Total products Minutes/product Total hours 

1,000 150,000 7 17,500 

These estimates above are probably 

low, especially if the month and date of 

production must be included on the 

certificates. If so, at least one new 

certificate would have to be created 

each year that a product is in 

production, more if the product is in 

production more than 1 month per year. 

If so, the estimate above would be low, 

by at least a factor of 4. 

20. Refrigerators (16 CFR part 1750) 

Refrigerators are subject to the 

Refrigerator Safety Act. A standard to 

permit the opening of household 

refrigerator doors from the inside is 

codified at 16 CFR part 1750. Part 1750 

contains a test procedure but does not 

contain specific recordkeeping or 

retention requirements. Regardless of 

the lack of specific recordkeeping 

requirements, it is likely that most 

manufacturers keep records 

demonstrating compliance with part 

1750. Because of the lack of 

recordkeeping requirements in part 

1750, we estimate the burden to record 

results of a reasonable testing program 

and to create a GCC. 

According to the 2010 census, there 

are 19 manufacturers of household 

refrigerators and freezers. One major 

manufacturer had 120 different models 

of refrigerators listed on a major 

retailer’s Web site, including similar 

models in different capacities. 

Assuming that each model requires 

testing and certification, there could be 

as many as 2,280 different models of 

refrigerators that need certification to 

the Refrigerator Safety Act. If the 

recordkeeping burden is about 1.5 

hours, the total burden for the entire 

industry would be about 4,200 hours. 

The number of models estimated here 

could be high if some smaller 

manufacturers do not have as many 

individual models, or if the same 

component part is used on more than 

one model, and may be certified based 

on the same testing. The number of 

models estimated could be low if some 

refrigerator manufacturers are not 

domestic companies and are not listed 

as refrigerator manufacturers in the 2010 

census. 

Firms Total models Hours/model Total hours 

19 2,280 1.5 3,420 

21. Candles with Metal Core Wicks (16 

CFR 1500.17(a)(13)) 

Under the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA), candles with 

metal core wicks that contain lead 

content greater than 0.06 percent of the 

weight of the metal core are banned. (16 

CFR 1500.17(a)(13)). The outer package 

or wrapper of candles and candle wicks 

subject to the ban, meaning candles 

with metal core wicks and metal-cored 

wicks sold separately, and shipping 

cartons, must be labeled ‘‘Conforms to 

16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13).’’ When the 

regulation was initially proposed, the 

proposal contained requirements that 

would have obligated candle 

manufacturers and importers to test or 

maintain records of testing performed 

by the supplier of the metal cored wicks 

and to label each shipping container 

with a statement that the candles 

conformed to the regulation, including a 

means to identify the test results 

applicable to that shipment of candles. 

67 FR 20062, 20069 (Apr. 24, 2002). 

Certification and recordkeeping were 

dropped from the final rule. 68 FR 

19142 (Apr. 18, 2003). Accordingly, we 

have not submitted a burden analysis 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28102 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16One product was found that was obviously 

intended for children under the age of 13 years and 

is not included in these estimates. 

for § 1500.17(a)(13) previously to OMB 

for review. 

We estimate the recordkeeping 

burden associated with documenting 

test records and creating GCCs for 

metal-cored candle wicks to be 40 hours 

per firm, based on the analysis 

presented in the 2002 proposed rule on 

metal-cored candle wicks. The National 

Candle Association states that there are 

more than 400 commercial, religious, 

and institutional manufacturers of 

candles in the United States. The 

National Candle Association states that 

the major manufacturers have between 

1,000 and 2,000 varieties of candles, 

which implies that the number of 

varieties offered by the smaller 

manufacturers would be less. In 

comments submitted in response to the 

proposed rule on metal-cored candle 

wicks, the National Candle Association 

estimated that between 10 to 20 percent 

of the market used metal-core wicks. If 

we assume that the average candle 

manufacturer has about 1,000 varieties 

(to allow for the fact that the non-major 

manufacturers would be expected to 

have fewer varieties than the major 

manufacturers) and that 15 percent of 

those have metal cores, then the average 

manufacturer would have 

approximately 150 varieties that would 

be subject to the regulation. 

Firms Total lines Hours/firm Total hours 

400 60,000 40 16,000 

The estimates above assume that all 

manufacturers of candles use metal 

wicks in some of their products. To the 

extent that some manufacturers do not 

use metal core wicks at all, these 

estimates could be high. On the other 

hand, the estimates do not include any 

importers of candles. To the extent that 

importers of candles use metal-core 

wicks, the estimates above would be 

low. 

22. Ban of Unstable Refuse Bins (16 CFR 

part 1301) 

The rule banning unstable refuse bins 

(16 CFR part 1301) applies to metal 

refuse bins having an internal volume of 

one cubic yard or greater, which are 

produced or distributed for the personal 

use of consumers for in or around a 

residence, school, in recreation, or 

otherwise. If such a bin will tip when 

tested according to the method 

described in the rule, it is banned. If it 

does not tip, it must be so certified, 

based upon a reasonable test program, 

or a test of each product. Although part 

1301 contains test criteria, it does not 

contain specific recordkeeping 

provisions. Accordingly, CPSC has not 

previously submitted a burden estimate 

to OMB regarding part 1301. A very 

small subset of refuse bins are not 

subject to the rule. CPSC staff was 

unable to find any metal refuse bin that 

met the criteria for exclusion from part 

1301. 

In the course of an Internet search on 

February 8, 2013, we identified 19 

suppliers of refuse bins and a total of 

358 individual bin models that could be 

used for refuse collection or storage 

around a residence, such as an 

apartment building, or a school or 

recreation area. Refuse bins that 

appeared to be intended for industrial or 

nonresidential use, based on CPSC 

staff’s judgment, were not included. 

However, many refuse bins may have 

both consumer and industrial use. Thus, 

it is possible that some of the suppliers 

included within this count do not sell 

refuse bins for consumer use. Moreover, 

we may not have discovered all 

suppliers during the Internet search. 

The test method in part 1301 is fairly 

straightforward. We estimate that the 

recordkeeping for documenting test 

results and creating a GCC will take an 

average of 30 minutes per model refuse 

bin. 

Firms Total models Hours/model Total hours 

19 358 0.5 179 

23. Ban of Lawn Darts (16 CFR part 

1306) 

Here, we estimate the burden to 

document testing and to create a GCC 

for the ban on general use lawn darts in 

16 CFR part 1306. We do not estimate 

the burden for lawn darts intended for 

children, which are banned by 16 CFR 

1500.18. Recordkeeping related to the 

creation of certificates for children’s 

products is covered in the Testing Rule. 

The purpose of part 1306 is to 

prohibit the sale of lawn darts that have 

been found to present an unreasonable 

risk of skull puncture injuries to 

children. The rule also states that ‘‘any 

lawn dart is a banned hazardous 

product.’’ For purposes of these 

estimates, we have counted as lawn 

darts, products that appear to be 

intended to be used in a similar manner 

as the banned lawn darts in that they 

consist of an elongated projectile that 

can be thrown toward a target on the 

ground and that contact the ground tip 

first. We have attempted to eliminate 

any product that appears to be primarily 

intended for children. Moreover, we 

have not included games such as horse 

shoes and ring toss. We estimate that the 

recordkeeping burden for recording test 

results and creating a GCC is about 1.5 

hours per product. 

A search of several large Internet 

retailers on February 13, 2013, turned 

up six products by six different 

manufacturers that could be considered 

to be lawn darts; although none of the 

products appeared to have sharp tips 

designed to stick into the ground. Other 

similar products may be available that 

were not discovered during this Internet 

search. The actual number of lawn dart 

products available could be higher if 

some of the available products were not 

found during the Internet search. The 

number of products could be lower if 

some products that were found are 

intended for children 12 years of age 

and younger.16


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28103 

Firms Total models Hours/model Total hours 

6 6 1.5 9 

24. Ban of Artificial Emberizing 

Materials Containing Asbestos (16 CFR 

part 1305) 

Artificial emberizing materials are 

used in decorative gas fireplace systems 

to simulate the ashes and embers in 

wood-burning fireplaces. The use of 

respirable, free-form asbestos in these 

products is banned by 16 CFR part 1305. 

Not banned are emberizing materials 

that consist of other materials, such as 

vermiculite, rock wool, mica, or 

synthetic fibers. The emberizing 

materials that are not banned must be 

certified as not containing respirable, 

free-form asbestos, based on a test of 

each product or on a reasonable testing 

program. We estimate that the 

recordkeeping burden for recording test 

results and creating GCCs is about 1.5 

hours per product per year. 

Included in these estimates are any 

materials that are intended for use with 

fireplace logs to simulate ashes or 

embers. An Internet search on 

November 14, 2013, identified a total of 

56 different products, by 14 different 

suppliers, that could be used to simulate 

ashes or embers in non-working 

fireplaces. Because there are likely 

many products that were not identified 

during this search, this is probably a 

low estimate. 

Firms Total models Hours/model Total hours 

14 56 1.5 84 

25. Ban of Patching Compounds 

Containing Respirable Free-Form 

Asbestos (16 CFR part 1304) 

Part 1304 bans any patching 

compounds to which asbestos has been 

added deliberately as an ingredient or 

contained in the final product as the 

result of knowingly using a raw material 

containing asbestos. ‘‘Patching 

compounds’’ are described as being 

mixtures of talc, pigments, clays, casein, 

ground marble, mica, or other similar 

materials, and a binding material. 

Patching compounds are used to cover, 

seal, or mask cracks, joints, holes, and 

similar openings in the trim, walls, and 

ceilings of building interiors. They are 

applied in a wet form, and after drying, 

are sanded to a smooth finish. They are 

commonly referred to as ‘‘spackling,’’ 

‘‘joint compounds,’’ and ‘‘mud.’’ In the 

past, asbestos was sometimes used as 

the binding material. 

Part 1304 does not contain a test 

method. However, all certifiers of 

patching compounds intended for 

consumer use must certify that asbestos 

has not been added intentionally as an 

ingredient, and that the final product 

does not contain asbestos as the result 

of knowingly using a raw material 

containing asbestos. We estimate that 

the recordkeeping burden to create 

GCCs will be at least 15 minutes per 

product annually. 

A total of 148 patching compounds by 

about 35 different manufacturers were 

found during an Internet search on 

February 21, 2013. If we failed to 

identify all patching compounds 

available, 148 products would be a low 

estimate of the total number of patching 

compounds available. Assuming that 

the time required preparing a GCC for 

each product averaged 15 minutes per 

year, the total recordkeeping burden 

would be about 37 hours. 

Firms Total models Hours/model Total hours 

35 148 0.25 37 

B. Furnishing Certificates to Third 

Parties 

Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA, as 

amended by the CPSIA, requires that 

every certificate required in section 

14(a) of the CPSA ‘‘accompany the 

applicable product or shipment of 

products covered by the same 

certificate’’ and that ‘‘a copy of the 

certificate . . . be furnished to each 

distributor or retailer of the product.’’ 

Moreover, manufacturers and private 

labelers must furnish a copy of the 

certificate to the Commission upon 

request. 

The draft proposed rule continues to 

allow manufacturers, importers, and 

private labelers flexibility in how to 

provide certificates to retailers or 

distributors, and to the CPSC. Section 

1110.9 provides that, except for the 

certificate that is required to be filed 

with CBP for imported products in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1), certificates may be 

provided in hard copy or electronically. 

Electronic certificates are acceptable if 

they are identified ‘‘prominently on the 

finished product, shipping carton, or 

invoice by a unique identifier, and they 

can be accessed via’’ the Internet or 

other electronic means. The draft 

proposed rule further states that an 

electronic certificate must be available, 

without password protection, on or 

before the date the finished product is 

distributed in commerce. In practice, 

‘‘hard copy’’ certificates are usually in 

the form of a paper certificate that 

physically accompanies each shipment 

by being placed in a shipping container. 

Certifiers using electronic certificates 

often place a Web address to access the 

certificate on the product, shipping 

carton, or invoice. 

We do not have a strong basis for 

estimating the average third party 

reporting burden per product because 

the requirement to disclose certificates 

applies to a very diverse group of 

consumer products and manufacturers. 

Moreover, the reporting burden is most 

likely related to the number of 

shipments of the product from the 

manufacturers, importers, or private 

labelers to the distributors or retailers, 

which is information that is not 

available. For purposes of preparing this 

initial estimate of the third party 

reporting burden, we are estimating that 

the burden is 15 minutes per product, 

per year to place a paper copy of the 

certificate in the shipping carton, or 

provide a Web address for certificates 

on the product, carton, or invoice, and 

to maintain the Web site. We welcome 

comments on the accuracy of this 

estimate. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28104 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

17This estimate is rounded. 18The hourly compensation rate used is based on 

the hourly compensation rate used for estimating 

the recordkeeping burden in the 1107 and 1109 

rules, which relate to the testing and certification 

of children’s products and component part testing. 

In order to recognize that both clerical and 

professional staff could be involved in 

recordkeeping, we assumed that personnel in 

‘‘management, professional, and related 

occupations’’ would be responsible for half of the 

activities involving the recordkeeping and that 

personnel in ‘‘office and administrative support’’ 

occupations would be responsible for the other half. 

We assume that the same occupational mix of 

employees will also be involved in performing the 

tasks necessary to file certificates electronically 

with CBP (as required by the proposed amendments 

to part 1110). As of June 2012 total compensation 

(i.e. wages and benefits) for these occupational 

categories averaged $37.34 per hour. 

19Blachere, John, International Trade Specialist, 

Office of Import Surveillance, CPSC. December 8, 

2010, email to Charles Smith, Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, CPSC. 

20A large percentage of these firms (such as 

importers of adult clothing) also would be included 

in the estimate of importers of products requiring 

CPCs. 

21 In the paperwork burden analysis for 16 CFR 

Part 1110, we found that there are about 3.75 

products requiring GCCs for every product 

requiring a CPC. The estimate of 20 shipments per 

importer was used to generally maintain this 

relationship between GCCs and CPCs. See Robert 

Franklin, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC. 

Recordkeeping Burden Associated with Direct Final 

Rule for 16 CFR Part 1110 Issued in November 2008 

(March 14, 2013). 

22 In the paperwork burden analysis for 16 CFR 

Part 1110, third party disclosure was estimated to 

require about 15 minutes per product. In this case, 

it is reasonable for this estimate to reflect efficiency 

in filing multiple electronic certificates 

simultaneously and with other paperwork required 

for entry. For this reason, we use an estimate of 10 

minutes per product rather than 15 minutes per 

product. Id. 

23 Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection, Importer Security 

Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements, Interim 

final rule. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 228, 

November 25, 2008, p. 11765. Retrieved from http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2008–11–25/pdf/E8– 

27048.pdf. 

1. Non-children’s Products 

As summarized in Table B–1, we 

estimate that there are about 6 million 17

non-children’s products for which GCCs 

are required. Thus, we estimate the total 

burden hours for third party disclosure 

of GCCs to be 1.5 million hours 

(6,000,000 models × .25 hours = 1.5 

million burden hours). We are 

estimating that the cost per hour of the 

recordkeeping and reporting burden is 

$37.34 18 an hour, which represents a 

mixture of professional and 

administrative staff labor. Accordingly, 

the estimated cost of third party 

disclosures for GCCs is $56,010,000 

(1,500,000 burden hours × $37.34 per 

hour = $56,010,000). 

2. Children’s Products 

The collection of information on 

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products currently does not include an 

estimate for third party disclosure of 

CPCs to retailers, distributors, or the 

CPSC. In that collection, we estimated 

that there were a total of 1.6 million 

children’s products for which CPCs 

would be required. The number of 

children’s products includes 1.3 million 

apparel and footwear products and 0.3 

million non-apparel products. If the 

burden of providing a CPC to retailers, 

distributors, and the CPSC is an 

estimated 15 minutes per product, per 

year, then the total burden would be 

approximately 400,000 hours (1.6 

million models × 0.25 hours = 400,000). 

We propose to amend the collection of 

information on Third Party Testing of 

Children’s Products to increase the 

burden hours by 400,000 to account for 

third party disclosures of CPCs. The 

estimated cost of third party disclosure 

of CPCs is $14,936,000 (400,000 burden 

hours × $37.34 per hour = $14,936,000). 

C. Filing Certificates for Imported 

Products With CBP 

Section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA provides 

that the Commission, by rule, in 

consultation with CBP, may provide for 

electronic filing of certificates for 

imported products up to 24 hours before 

arrival of the imported product. The 

draft proposed rule would require that 

importers of regulated finished products 

file the required GCC or CPC 

electronically with CBP at the time of 

filing the CBP entry or the time of filing 

the entry and the entry summary, if both 

are filed together. The rule does not 

specify the electronic format for 

certificates filed with CBP, but we 

anticipate that importers will be able to 

file the certificate information in the 

form of data elements or by filing the 

certificate in a PDF format through 

CBP’s system of records. The increased 

time required to file certificates 

electronically with CBP would be 

attributable to associating the proper 

certificates to individual shipments for 

import, converting certificates to an 

electronic format, and transmitting the 

certificates to CBP (or to a customs 

broker, if the importer does not self-file). 

1. Non-children’s Products 

The initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this draft proposed rule 

cites research of CBP data by CPSC staff, 

which found that during 2009, there 

were 231,094 distinct importers of 

products categorized in import codes 

likely to include products under the 

CPSC’s jurisdiction.19 Data on the 

number of importers of children’s 

versus non-children’s products is not 

publicly available. However, based on 

inspection of product trade codes, we 

know that the number of distinct 

products or models requiring GCCs 

exceeds the number of children’s 

product models requiring CPCs.20 Thus, 

there might be on the order of 100,000 

importers of children’s products and 

150,000 importers of non-children’s 

products. 

If 150,000 firms import products 

subject to electronic filing of GCCs, and 

these firms average 20 shipments with 

products requiring certificates, the 

annual number of electronic filings of 

GCCs with CBP could total 3 million.21

According to a customs broker 

contacted by the Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, all importers might 

average about three product lines per 

Customs entry. If electronic filing 

requires an average of 30 minutes per 

shipment, the estimated annual 

incremental burden would be about $56 

million, using an estimated average 

employee compensation cost of $37.34 

per hour (3 million electronic filings × 

0.5 hours per filing × $37.34 per hour).22

2. Children’s Products 

Research of CBP data by CPSC staff 

found that during 2009, there were 

231,094 distinct importers of products 

categorized in import codes likely to 

include products under the CPSC’s 

jurisdiction. Data on the number of 

importers of children’s versus nonchildren’s products is not publicly 

available. However, as stated above for 

non-children’s products, we know that 

the number of children’s products 

requiring certificates of conformance is 

substantially lower than the number of 

non-children’s products requiring 

general certificates of conformance. 

Thus, we assume 100,000 importers of 

children’s products in this analysis. 

CBP estimated that ‘‘in 2005 more 

than 70 to 85 percent of all importers 

imported fewer than 12 shipments.’’ 23

Based on this information, if 100,000 

firms import children’s products 

annually that are subject to electronic 

filing of certificates, and these firms 

average 10 shipments a year, the annual 

number of electronic filings of CPCs 

with CBP could total 1 million. 

According to a customs broker 

contacted by the Directorate for 

Economic Analysis, all importers might 

average about three product lines per 

Customs entry. If electronic filing 

requires an average of 30 minutes per 

shipment, total incremental costs of 

recordkeeping for the Testing Rule 

would be about $18.7 million (1 million 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28105 

24As with non-children’s products, it is 

reasonable for this estimate to reflect efficiency in 

filing multiple electronic certificates 

simultaneously and with other paperwork required 

for entry. For this reason, we use an estimate of 10 

minutes per product rather than 15 minutes per 

product. 

25Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation, Table 9’’ (March 2013). 

Available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs. 

electronic filings × 0.5 hours per filing 

× $37.34 per hour).24

These costs would be in addition to 

the estimated recordkeeping costs 

already described in the collection of 

information on Third Party Testing of 

Children’s Products as well as the 

increased burden described for third 

party disclosures to retailers, 

distributors, and the CPSC. Total 

estimated incremental costs for 

disclosing CPCs to third parties is 

summarized in Table C–1. 

D. Maintaining GCCs and Test Records 

Proposed § 1110.17 would require 

that GCCs for non-children’s products 

and supporting test records be 

maintained for at least 5 years. Certifiers 

may maintain the required records on 

paper or electronically, because the 

proposed rule would not require any 

particular medium for records. Storing 

records electronically is the less 

expensive option and consequently, we 

assume for purposes of this analysis that 

certifiers will choose this option most 

frequently. However, some certifiers 

may choose to store paper records, so 

we also include an estimate of the 

burden for storing paper records. For 

purposes of this analysis, we will 

assume that 90 percent of the required 

records will be maintained 

electronically, and 10 percent will be 

stored as paper records. 

1. Estimated Cost of Storing Required 

Records on Paper 

Once a paper record is created and is 

no longer required for ongoing reporting 

or disclosure purposes, the record will 

be likely archived in a warehouse. We 

reviewed rental prices for a 5′ × 5′ 

warehouse space in two parts of the 

country. We chose the 5′ × 5′ warehouse 

space because it was generally the 

smallest unit available and could be 

appropriate for a small to medium size 

company. A large company might 

require more space but probably could 

obtain a larger warehouse space at a 

lower cost per square foot. The low 

price was $41/month and the high price 

was $80/month, for an estimated 

average cost to rent a warehouse of 

about $60.50 per month. Therefore, the 

estimated average price of warehouse 

space for 1 year would be $726 ($60.50 

× 12 months). 

Records are often stored in standard 

10′′ × 12′′ × 15′′ archive boxes, which can 

be obtained for about $3.00 each. Our 

calculations show that it would be 

possible to get about 80 of these boxes 

into a 5′ × 5′ warehouse space and leave 

sufficient aisles so that each box could 

be easily accessed if needed. Therefore, 

the estimated cost of storing one box in 

a warehouse for 1 year would be $12.08 

($726 divided by 80 boxes = 9.08, plus 

$3 for the cost of the box). 

We assume for this analysis that a 

GCC for a product and supporting test 

records require an average of 10 pages. 

Accordingly, each archive box should 

be able to hold required records for 

about 375 products. We estimate that 

there are 6 million distinct nonchildren’s product varieties that require 

certification annually (see Table B–1). If 

all GCCs were stored on paper, 

assuming 6 million GCCs and 

supporting test records would need be 

to be stored annually, a total of about 

16,000 archive boxes would be needed 

each year (6 million products divided 

by 375 records per box). For purposes of 

this analysis, however, we assume that 

only 10 percent of the 6 million distinct 

non-children’s product varieties will 

maintain records on paper, or an 

estimated 600,000 products, requiring 

1,600 archive boxes (600,000 products 

divided by 375 product records per 

box). The estimated cost of storing one 

archive box for a year is $12.08, which 

includes the cost of the warehouse 

space ($9.08) and the cost of the box 

($3.00). Accordingly, the estimated cost 

of storing 1,600 boxes of records for a 

year is $19,320 (1,600 boxes × $12.08 

per box). On the assumption that at any 

one time, the records associated with 5 

years of production or shipments must 

be maintained, the estimated annual 

cost of storage for 5 years’ worth of 

records per product is $96,640 (1,600 

boxes × 5 years × $12.08 per box). 

In addition to the cost of storing 

records, labor or other personnel costs 

would be incurred to manage the 

required records stored on paper. 

Managing records would include the 

labor time required to box up the 

records for the current year’s production 

or shipments, label the boxes, move the 

boxes to the warehouse, and dispose of 

records that are more than 5 years old. 

We estimate that about 20 minutes will 

be required to box, label, and place into 

storage the estimated 1,600 boxes 

containing records for the current year’s 

production or shipments, and about 10 

minutes per box to dispose of the 

estimated 1,600 boxes containing 

records more than 5 years old, or 800 

hours per year in total. We assume that 

this work will be done mostly by office 

or administrative workers. In December 

2012, the total compensation for sales 

and office workers in private industry 

was $27.12 per hour.25 Therefore, the 

estimated total labor cost per year 

involved in managing required records 

that are stored on paper would be about 

$21,696 (800 hours × $27.12). 

Based on the above analysis, 

assuming that 10 percent of the 

estimated 6 million distinct nonchildren’s product varieties that require 

certification annually are stored in 

paper format, the estimated total cost 

would be $118,336. This estimate 

includes the cost of warehouse space 

and the archive boxes ($96,640), and the 

labor required to manage and transport 

the records ($21,696). 

2. Estimated Cost of Storing Required 

Records Electronically 

Storing records electronically is much 

less expensive than storing records in 

paper format. A 1 terabyte (i.e. 1 million 

megabytes) hard drive can be purchased 

for about $100, so the cost per megabyte 

for electronic storage is about $0.0001 or 

about one-hundredth of one cent. If the 

required records (GCC and supporting 

test records) for each product was about 

1 megabyte, then the estimated total cost 

of electronically storing the records for 

90 percent of the estimated 6 million 

distinct non-children’s product varieties 

that require certification annually, or 

5,400,000 products, would be $540 

annually ($0.0001 × 5,400,000 

products). Little, if any, additional labor 

would be required to manage required 

records stored in an electronic format. 

Therefore, the total cost of storing the 

required records electronically is $540, 

which is essentially limited to the cost 

of the space on a hard drive. 

The estimated total cost of retaining 

GCCs and supporting test reports for the 

estimated 6 million distinct nonchildren’s product varieties that require 

certification for 5 years, assuming that 

90 percent of the records are stored 

electronically and 10 percent of the 

records are stored on paper, is $18,876 

annually. Of this, $118,336 is associated 

with storing 10 percent of the records on 

paper and $540 is associated with 

storing 90 percent of the records 

electronically. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28106 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE B–1—SUMMARY OF PRA BURDEN ESTIMATES BY RULE FOR NON-CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS THAT REQUIRE A GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATE (GCC) ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXISTING 16 CFR 1110 (NOVEMBER 2008) REQUIREMENTS

Product categories Number of Mfrs. Number of 

models* Hours per model Total estimated burden hours 

Architectural Glazing Materials ........................................................ 400 2,400 1 .5 3,600 

Matchbooks ...................................................................................... 4 12 1 .5 18 

Bicycle Helmets ............................................................................... 30 165 0 .5 83 

CB Band Base Station Antennas .................................................... 5 15 0 .5 8 

Walk Behind Power Mowers ........................................................... 20 — 130 2,600 

Swimming Pool Slides ..................................................................... — 120 1 .5 180 

Cellulose Insulation .......................................................................... 44 — 60 2,640 

Cigarette and Multipurpose Lighters ............................................... 145 6,667 0 .25 1,667 

Garage Door Openers ..................................................................... 21 84 0 .5 42 

Furniture (paint) ............................................................................... — 125,000 0 .5 62,500 

Furniture (bunk beds) ...................................................................... — 600 1 .5 900 

Paints and Coatings ........................................................................ 501 41,082 0 .5 20,541 

ATVs ................................................................................................ 32 132 1 .5 198 

Pools and Spas (VGB Act) .............................................................. 12 136 1 .5 204 

Fireworks Devices ........................................................................... 44 115,000 1 .0 115,000 

Bicycles ............................................................................................ 150 1,900 1 .5 2,850 

Clothing and Apparel ....................................................................... 1,000s 5,500,000 0 .25 1,375,000 

Carpets and Rugs ............................................................................ 240 24,000 1 .5 36,000 

Mattresses ....................................................................................... 671 13,420 0 .25 3,355 

PPPA ............................................................................................... 1,000 150,000 0 .12 17,500 

Refrigerators .................................................................................... 19 2,800 1 .5 3,420 

Candles w/Metal Core Wicks .......................................................... 400 60,000 40 16,000 

Refuse Bins ..................................................................................... 19 358 0 .50 179 

Lawn Darts ....................................................................................... 6 6 1 .5 9 

Artificial Emberizing Materials ......................................................... 14 56 1 .5 84 

Patching Compounds ...................................................................... 35 148 0 .25 37 

Burden Hours to Document Test Results and Create GCCs ......... ............................ ............................ ............................ 1,664,615 

Burden Hours for Third Party Disclosure of GCCs ......................... ............................ 6,000,000 0 .25 1,500,000 

Subtotal Burden Hours for GCCs .................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ 3,164,615 

Estimated Cost: 3,164,615 Burden Hours × $37.34 per Burden Hour ........................................................................................... $118,166,724 

* Estimated number of distinct product varieties that require certification. 

TABLE B–2—SUMMARY OF PRA BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR NON-CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS THAT REQUIRE A GENERAL CONFORMITY CERTIFICATE (GCC) ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING 16 CFR 1110 (MARCH

2013) REQUIREMENTS

Estimated Cost of Retaining GCCs and Supporting Test Records ................................................................................................ $118,876 

Estimated Average Cost of Filing GCCs for Imports with CBP ...................................................................................................... 56,000,000 

GCC Costs Attributable to the Proposed Amendments .................................................................................................................. 56,118,876 

TABLE C–1—SUMMARY OF PRA BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR THIRD PARTY DISCLOSURE OF CHILDREN’S PRODUCT

CERTIFICATES (CPCS) ATTRIBUTABLE TO EXISTING 16 CFR 1107 (NOVEMBER 2011) REQUIREMENTS

Estimated Average Cost of Third Party Disclosure of CPCs .......................................................................................................... $14,936,000 

TABLE C–2—PRA BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR CHILDREN’S PRODUCTS THAT REQUIRE A CPC TO BE FILED WITH CBP FOR

IMPORT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EXISTING 16 CFR 1110 (MARCH 2013) REQUIREMENTS

Estimated Average Cost of Filing CPCs for Imports with CBP ...................................................................................................... $18,700,000 

VIII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

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

proposes that any final rule based on 

this proposal would become effective 90 

days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register. Certifiers should 

not require a lengthy period of time to 

come into compliance with a final rule 

because certificates are already required 

to be issued, and changes to the existing 

regulation are not extensive but merely 

clarifying expectations in light of new 

testing regulations. The most 

substantive amendment to the existing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28107 

part 1110 would require that in the case 

of finished products that are 

manufactured outside the United States 

and that are imported for consumption 

or warehousing, the importer must file 

the required GCC or CPC electronically 

with the CBP. Stakeholders should 

provide information and evidence if 

they believe that implementing such a 

requirement would require longer than 

90 days from the issuance of a final rule. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1110 

Business and industry, Certificate, 

Certification, Children, Component part 

certificate, Consumer protection, 

Imports, Labeling, Product testing and 

certification, Records, Record retention, 

Regulated products. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

revise16 CFR part 1110 to read as 

follows: 

PART 1110—CERTIFICATES OF 

COMPLIANCE 

Sec. 

1110.1 What is the purpose and scope of 

this part? 

1110.3 What definitions apply to this part? 

1110.5 When are certificates required? 

1110.7 Who must certify finished products? 

1110.9 What form(s) may the certificate 

take? 

1110.11 What must the certificate contain? 

1110.13 When must certificates be made 

available? 

1110.15 Who is responsible for the 

information in a certificate? 

1110.17 What recordkeeping requirements 

apply to certificates? 

1110.19 What requirements apply to 

component part certificates? 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063, Sec. 3, 102 Pub. 

L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008), Pub. 

L. 112–28 (2011). 

§ 1110.1 What is the purpose and scope of 

this part? 

(a) This part: 

(1) 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); 

(2) Clarifies which provisions of this 

part apply to component part 

certificates; 

(3) Specifies certificate content, form, 

and availability requirements that must 

be met to satisfy the requirements of 

section 14 of the CPSA; and 

(4) Requires importers to file 

certificates electronically with CBP for 

imported finished products that are 

required to be certified. 

(b) This part does not address issues 

related to type or frequency of testing 

necessary to support a certificate. 

§ 1110.3 What definitions apply to this 

part? 

(a) The definitions of section 3 of the 

CPSA and additional definitions in the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), Pub. L. 110–314, 

apply to this part. 

(b) Additionally, the following 

definitions apply for purposes of this 

part: 

(1) CBP or Customs means United 

States Customs and Border Protection; 

(2) 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 

Conformity Certificates, Children’s 

Product Certificates, and component 

part certificates; 

(3) Certifier means the party who 

issues a certificate of compliance; 

(4) Children’s Product Certificate 

(CPC) means a certificate of compliance 

for a finished product issued pursuant 

to section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA and part 

1107 of this chapter; 

(5) Commission or CPSC means the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission; 

(6) 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; 

(7) Component part certificate means 

a certificate of compliance for a 

component part of a consumer product, 

as defined in paragraph (b)(6) of this 

section; 

(8) Electronic certificate means a set 

of information available in, and 

accessible by, electronic means that sets 

forth the information required by 

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

§ 1110.11, and that meets all other 

certificate requirements set forth in this 

part; 

(9) 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 consumer products, 

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; 

(10) Finished product certificate 

means a certificate of compliance for a 

finished product, as defined in 

paragraph (b)(9) of this section. There 

are two types of finished product 

certificates: Children’s Product 

Certificates and General Conformity 

Certificates; 

(11) Finished product certifier means 

a party who is required to issue a 

finished product certificate pursuant to 

§ 1110.7; 

(12) General Conformity Certificate 

(GCC) means a certificate of compliance 

for a finished product issued pursuant 

to section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA; and 

(13) Importer means importer of 

record as defined under the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)); 

(14) 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 When are certificates required? 

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, 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. 

However, if a finished product 

manufactured outside the United States 

is delivered directly to a consumer in 

the United States, such as products 

purchased through an Internet Web site, 

the foreign manufacturer must issue a 

certificate that meets the requirements 

of this part, unless the product bears a 

private label. The private labeler must 

issue a certificate that meets the 

requirements of this part for such 

products that bear a private label and 

are delivered directly to a consumer in 

the United States, unless the foreign 

manufacturer issues the certificate. 

(b) Domestic products. Except as 

otherwise provided in a specific rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation, for a 

finished product manufactured in the 

United States that must be accompanied 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
28108 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 What form(s) may the certificate 

take? 

(a) Language. Certificates must be in 

the English language and may also 

contain the same content in any other 

language. 

(b) Format. Except as required in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1), certificates may be 

provided in hard copy or electronically. 

(c) Electronic certificates. An 

electronic certificate meets the 

requirements of §§ 1110.13(a)(2), 

1110.13(a)(3), 1110.13(b), and 

1110.13(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 accessible, along with 

access to the electronic certificate itself, 

without password protection, to the 

Commission, CBP, distributors, and 

retailers, on or before the date the 

finished product is distributed in 

commerce. 

§ 1110.11 What must the certificate 

contain? 

(a) Content requirements. Each 

certificate must: 

(1) Identify the component part(s) or 

finished product(s) covered by the 

certificate and state whether the 

certificate is for a finished product or a 

component part. A model, style, or other 

unique identifier of the product should 

be provided, if any, along with a 

description of the finished product or 

component part. Certifiers may also 

include an identifier, such as a 

universal product code (UPC), a global 

trade item number (GTIN), or other 

identifying code that may assist with 

product identification; 

(2) State the date of initial 

certification of the finished product(s) 

or component part(s) to which the 

certificate refers; 

(3) Identify the scope of finished 

product(s) or component part(s) for 

which the certificate applies, such as by 

a start date, start and end date, lot 

number, starting serial number or serial 

number range, or other means to 

identify the set of finished product(s) or 

component part(s) that are covered by 

the certificate; 

(4) 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) or 

component part(s) are being certified. 

Finished product certificates must 

identify separately all applicable rules, 

bans, standards, or regulations. 

Component part certificates must 

identify all rules, or parts of rules, bans, 

standards, or regulations for which the 

component part(s) are being certified; 

(5) Identify the party certifying 

compliance of the finished product(s) or 

component part(s), including the party’s 

name, electronic mail (email) address, 

full mailing address, including the street 

address, and telephone number; 

(6) Identify and provide contact 

information (consisting, at a minimum, 

of the individual’s name, email address, 

full mailing address, and telephone 

number) for the individual: 

(i) Maintaining records of test results 

on which a GCC is based, and records 

described in §§ 1109.5(g) and (j) of this 

chapter (where applicable); or 

(ii) Maintaining 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); or 

(iii) Maintaining 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; 

(7) Provide the date (month and year, 

at a minimum) and place (including a 

street address, city, state or province, 

and country or administrative region) 

where the finished product(s) or 

component part(s) were manufactured, 

produced, or assembled; 

(8) Provide the dates and places 

(including a street address, city, state or 

province, and country or administrative 

region) where the finished product(s) or 

component part(s) were tested for 

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

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

§ 1110.11(a)(4); 

(9) Identify all parties, including third 

party conformity assessment bodies, on 

whose testing the certificate depends, 

including name, email address, full 

mailing address, including the street 

address, and telephone number; and 

(10) Include the following attestation: 

I hereby certify that the finished product(s) 

or component part(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 

statements, representations, or omissions, 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 World Wide Web URL, or other 

electronic means, which provides 

electronic access to the required 

records. 

(c) Statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusions: 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, in addition to listing all 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations as required under 

§ 1110.11(a)(4), a certifier shall list all 

applicable testing exclusions and 

include on the certificate the basis for 

the statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusion to such regulation, instead of 

providing the date and place where 

testing was conducted for that 

regulation in § 1110.11(a)(8). 

(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 When must certificates be made 

available? 

(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 . 

(1) In the case of finished products 

that are manufactured outside the 

United States and are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, the 

importer must file the required GCC or 

CPC electronically with the CBP at the 

time of filing the CBP entry or the time 

of filing the entry and entry summary, 

if both are filed together. 

(2) In the case of finished products 

manufactured in the United States, 

certificates shall not be filed with CPSC. 

A finished product certifier, pursuant to 

§ 1110.7(b), must make the required 

GCC or CPC available for inspection by 

the CPSC on or before the date the 

finished product is distributed in 

commerce. 

(3) In the case of finished products 

that are manufactured outside the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 28109 

United States and are imported for 

consumption or warehousing, that are 

delivered directly to a consumer in the 

United States, the foreign manufacturer 

or the private labeler, as set forth in 

§ 1110.7(a), must either file the required 

GCC or CPC electronically with CBP as 

described in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, or make the certificate available 

for inspection by CPSC on or before the 

date the finished product is distributed 

in commerce, as described in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. 

(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 upon request by CPSC or 

CBP. 

§ 1110.15 Who is responsible for the 

information in a certificate? 

Certifiers may have any entity 

maintain an electronic certificate 

platform and enter the requisite data. 

However, the certifier is responsible for 

the information in a certificate, 

including its validity, accuracy, 

completeness, and availability, as 

applicable. 

§ 1110.17 What recordkeeping 

requirements apply to certificates? 

For CPCs and component part 

certificates, certifiers must follow the 

recordkeeping provisions contained in 

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

this chapter, as applicable. For GCCs, 

certifiers must maintain the certificate 

and supporting test records where 

required for at least 5 years. 

§ 1110.19 What requirements apply to 

component part certificates? 

Pursuant to part 1109 of this chapter, 

component part certificates are 

voluntary. Accordingly, component 

parts of consumer products, as defined 

in § 1110.3(b)(6), are not required to be 

accompanied by a certificate, and 

component part certificates are not 

required to be furnished to retailers and 

distributors, as described in 

§ 1110.13(b). Component part 

certificates shall not be filed with CBP 

upon importation of component parts. 

Instead, certifiers of component parts 

must meet the requirements in part 1109 

of this chapter, and component part 

certificates must also meet the form, 

content, and availability requirements 

described in §§ 1110.9, 1110.11, 

1110.13(c), 1110.15, and 1110.17 

Dated May 7, 2013. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11164 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2