1800 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

1Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that 

manufacturers, including importers, and private 

labelers issue certificates for all consumer products 

subject to a consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

under any other law enforced by the Commission, 

that are imported for consumption or warehousing 

or distributed in commerce. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11)– 

(12); 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). In this Final Rule, all 

consumer products and substances subject to a 

CPSC rule, ban, standard, or regulation required to 

be certified under section 14(a) of the CPSA are 

referred to as ‘‘consumer products’’ or ‘‘products.’’ 

2CBP regulations define ‘‘entry’’ as the 

documentation or data required to secure the 

release of imported merchandise from CBP custody, 

or the act of filing that documentation. See 19 CFR 

141.0a(a). CBP regulations define an ‘‘entry 

summary’’ as any other documentation or data 

necessary for CBP to assess duties, collect statistics 

on imported merchandise, and determine whether 

other requirements of law or regulation have been 

met. See 19 CFR 141.0a(b). An entry can be made 

as either a 2-Step or 1-Step process. As a 2-Step 

process, an entry is filed initially and an entry 

summary is filed within 10 days of entry filing. As 

a 1-Step process, an entry summary is filed which 

serves as both the entry and entry summary filing. 

See e.g., 19 CFR 141.68(b). Consequently, using the 

term ‘‘entry’’ encompasses both processes, 

irrespective of whether the entry/CBP Form 3461 is 

filed for a 2-Step or a 1-Step entry process where 

the entry summary/CBP Form 7501 serves as the 

entry. 

3The 2020 staff briefing package to implement an 

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

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-aneFiling-Program-for-Imported-ConsumerProducts.pdf. The record of commission action is 

available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCACPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-forImported-Consumer-Products.pdf. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1110 

[CPSC Docket No. 2013–0017] 

Certificates of Compliance 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In consultation with U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 

the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) 

issues this final rule (the Final Rule) to 

revise the agency’s regulation for 

Certificates of Compliance (certificates). 

The Final Rule aligns CPSC’s current 

certificates rule with other CPSC rules 

on testing and certification, and 

implements, for importation of products 

and substances regulated by CPSC, 

electronic filing of certificates (eFiling) 

with CBP. 

DATES: For all CPSC regulated consumer 

products and substances subject to the 

Final Rule and required to be certified, 

except for products and substances 

imported into a foreign trade zone (FTZ) 

and subsequently entered for 

consumption or warehousing, the Final 

Rule is effective on July 8, 2026. For 

CPSC regulated products and substances 

entered from an FTZ for consumption or 

warehousing, the Final Rule is effective 

on January 8, 2027. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kat 

Rickerson, eFiling Program Specialist, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone 240– 

429–4257; email: eFilingsupport@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission is issuing a final rule to 

revise the requirements for certificates 

of compliance (certificates) (the Final 

Rule) in 16 CFR part 1110 (part 1110 or 

the 1110 rule). The Final Rule applies 

to importers, domestic manufacturers, 

and private labelers who are required to 

issue certificates for consumer products 

and substances 1 regulated by CPSC that 

are imported for consumption or 

warehousing into the United States or 

are distributed in commerce in the 

United States. The Commission 

promulgated the existing part 1110 for 

certificates in 2008. The existing rule 

tracks the statutory requirements for 

certificates in section 14 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 

designates importers as the certifier for 

imported products and manufacturers as 

the certifier for domestically 

manufactured products, and allows for 

‘‘electronic’’ certificates to satisfy the 

requirement that a certificate 

‘‘accompany’’ the product or shipment 

of products, meaning a URL to access 

the certificate or a PDF file. 73 FR 68328 

(Nov. 18, 2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063(a), (g). 

In 2013, the Commission issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to 

revise part 1110 to align with rules for 

testing children’s products under 16 

CFR part 1107 (part 1107 or the 1107 

rule) and component part testing under 

16 CFR part 1109 (part 1109 or the 1109 

rule). 78 FR 28080 (May 13, 2013) (2013 

NPR). Consistent with section 222 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which requires the 

Commission develop a Risk Assessment 

Methodology (RAM) to identify 

imported products likely to include 

consumer products in violation of 

section 17(a) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2066(a)) or other 

import provisions enforced by the 

Commission, for imported consumer 

products, the 2013 NPR also proposed 

to require eFiling of certificates with 

CBP at the time of filing the CBP entry, 

or the time of filing the entry and entry 

summary, if both are filed together.2 15 

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

Currently, CPSC collects certificates 

only after staff identifies a shipment for 

examination; certificate data are not 

generally collected and therefore cannot 

be used effectively to target shipments 

for examination. The purpose of eFiling 

is to allow CPSC to use data from a 

certificate to assess the health and safety 

risk of consumer products when they 

are being imported into the United 

States, and to better focus CPSC’s 

resources for examinations and holds at 

the ports on products that are more 

likely to be non-complaint, while 

reducing inspection delays for 

compliant products. The RAM processes 

data, including entry data and soon 

certificate data as well, using algorithms 

to increase or decrease RAM risk scores 

for each product shipment. Risk scores 

assist port staff in their assessment of 

incoming shipments and in interdicting 

non-compliant consumer products. 

Using certificate data for more precise 

targeting will maximize examination 

efficiency for stakeholders and staff; 

help CPSC to keep hazardous, violative 

products out of consumer’s hands; and 

reduce burden on industry by reducing 

inspection delays for compliant 

products. 

Since 2013, the Commission has 

undertaken a series of projects to 

advance implementation of an eFiling 

requirement, including conducting an 

eFiling Alpha Pilot, a Certificate Study, 

and an eFiling Beta Pilot. In December 

2020, the Commission approved a 

multi-year plan to implement an eFiling 

program at CPSC.3 Moreover, since 

2013, CBP has completed development 

and implementation of the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE), which 

is the system through which the U.S. 

government has implemented the 

‘‘single window,’’ the primary system 

for processing trade-related import and 

export data required by government 

agencies. The transition away from 

paper-based procedures results in faster, 

more streamlined processes for both 

government and industry. Specifically, 

CBP developed the Partner Government 

Agency (PGA) Message Set as a way for 

U.S. government agencies to 

electronically collect additional importrelated data. The eFiling Alpha and Beta 

Pilots were conducted in conjunction 

with CBP and tested use of CPSC’s PGA 

Message Sets. 

On December 8, 2023, the 

Commission published a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) 

proposing to revise part 1110 to, among 

other things: revise terminology to 

incorporate concepts that had been 

introduced in the 1107 and 1109 rules 

but not yet included in part 1110; 

broaden the definition of ‘‘importer’’ in 

part 1110 to address commenters’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1801 

4On December 18, 2024, the Commission voted 

(3–0–2) to publish the Final Rule, with all five 

Commissioners voting to approve the rule; and a 

majority voting to approve the rule with an 

amendment extending the general implementation 

date from 12 months to 18 months. All 

Commissioners issued a statement in connection 

with their vote. The Record of Commission Action 

and Commissioner statements are available at: 

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-Final-Ruleto-Implement-eFiling-for-Certificates-ofCompliance.pdf?VersionId=

JN7iuAdHGzooHBnXpuU7xZB4aX4Dkada. 

5The information in this Final Rule is also based 

on Staff’s November 15, 2024 Memorandum: Draft 

Final Rule to Revise 16 CFR part 1110 for 

Certificates of Compliance and to Implement 

eFiling of Certificates for Regulated, Imported 

Consumer Products (Staff’s Final Rule Memo). 

concerns about the product certifier 

having control over and knowledge of 

the goods; allow private labelers to test 

and certify products; and implement 

eFiling for imported consumer products 

regulated by CPSC. 88 FR 85760 (SNPR). 

The Commission received 47 

comments on the SNPR, addressed in 

section IV of this preamble, and is now 

finalizing the rule to revise part 1110, 

with clarifications and modifications in 

response to commenters’ concerns.4 5

The Final Rule specifies the entities that 

must issue certificates for finished 

products, including domestically 

manufactured and imported products, 

in accordance with section 14(a) of the 

CPSA, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a); 

specifies certificate content, form, and 

availability requirements in section 14 

of the CPSA; requires importers to eFile 

certificate data with CBP for imported 

finished products that must be certified; 

and clarifies which provisions of part 

1110 apply to voluntary component part 

certificates. 

I. Statutory Authority 

Section 102 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) 

amended section 14(a) of the CPSA to 

expand requirements for certificates of 

compliance. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). As 

amended, section 14(a) of the CPSA 

requires that manufacturers and private 

labelers issue certificates for all 

consumer products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or a similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation under any other law 

enforced by the Commission, that are 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing or distributed in 

commerce. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11)–(12); 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). The CPSA defines 

the term ‘‘manufacturer’’ as ‘‘any person 

who manufactures or imports a 

consumer product.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(11). Thus, certificates must be 

issued by a manufacturer, importer, or 

private labeler. When a product has 

more than one manufacturer, including 

an importer, or private labeler, the 

Commission may by rule designate one 

or more of such entities as the certifier 

and exempt the others. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(4). 

Certificates for children’s products 

(Children’s Product Certificates or CPCs) 

must be based on testing performed by 

a third party conformity assessment 

body whose accreditation to perform 

such testing has been accepted by the 

Commission. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2); 16 

CFR part 1107. Certificates for nonchildren’s products (General Certificates 

of Conformity or GCCs) must be based 

on a test of each product or a reasonable 

testing program. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(A). 

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

that certificates specify each rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation applicable to the 

product. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(B). 

Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains 

additional requirements for the form, 

content, and availability of certificates. 

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

requires that each certificate must 

identify the manufacturer (including 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate, as well as any third party 

conformity assessment body on whose 

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

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

must include the date and place of 

manufacture; the date and place where 

the product was tested; each party’s 

name, full mailing address, and 

telephone number; and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. Id. Section 14(g)(2) requires 

that every certificate be legible and that 

all contents be in English; contents can 

additionally be in another language. 15 

U.S.C. 2063(g)(2). 

Certificates must accompany the 

applicable product or shipment of 

products covered by the certificate, and 

a copy of the certificate must be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product. Upon request, the 

manufacturer (including importer) or 

private labeler issuing the certificate 

must provide a copy of the certificate to 

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

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

states that in consultation with the 

Commissioner of Customs, CPSC may, 

by rule, provide for the electronic filing 

of certificates up to 24 hours before 

arrival of an imported product. Upon 

request, the manufacturer (including 

importer) or private labeler issuing the 

certificate must provide a copy of such 

certificate to the Commission and to 

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

In addition to the statutory authority 

to require certificates for regulated 

products, as outlined in sections 14(a) 

and (g) of the CPSA, the Commission 

has general authority to implement 

testing and certification requirements 

pursuant to section 3 of the CPSIA, 

which provides that ‘‘the Commission 

may issue regulations, as necessary, to 

implement this Act and the 

amendments made by this Act.’’ Notes 

to 15 U.S.C. 2051 (citing Pub. L. 110– 

314, 3, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3017). 

II. Background on Certificates and 

eFiling 

Section II of the SNPR provided a 

detailed background on the existing 

1110 rule, the 2013 NPR to revise the 

1110 rule, CPSC’s risk assessment and 

targeting efforts for imported consumer 

products, and CPSC’s eFiling-related 

projects since the 2013 NPR. 88 FR 

85760, 85761–63. In this section of the 

preamble, we summarize the same 

information and additionally describe 

the 2023 SNPR. 

A. The 1110 Rule 

As stated in section I of this preamble, 

the CPSIA expanded section 14 of the 

CPSA to require testing and certification 

of consumer products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule, or to a 

similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

under any other act enforced by the 

Commission. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1). The 

existing 1110 rule tracks the statutory 

requirements in section 14, allows for 

certificates in paper, electronic (URL), 

and PDF formats, and states that this 

initial rule is ‘‘streamlined, at least in its 

initial phase.’’ 73 FR 68328 (Nov. 18, 

2008). The existing rule was not 

expected to be permanent. As the 

Commission explained when adopting 

the rule, ‘‘with time CPSIA’s expanded 

certification requirements will become 

more routine, and [CPSC] then would 

consider whether this rule needs to be 

revised based on actual experience.’’ 73 

FR 68328. The existing 1110 rule does 

not implement the authority in section 

14(g)(4) of the CPSA to require eFiling 

of certificates for imported products. 15 

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

B. The 2013 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In 2011, as required by section 222 of 

the CPSIA, CPSC launched a pilot 

targeting system to test the effectiveness 

of CPSC’s RAM. The purpose of the 

RAM is to support identification and 

interception of shipments containing 

potentially hazardous products. The 

pilot RAM system used a rules-based 

approach and aggregate-scoring models 

to highlight potential risks, patterns, 

and targets. 15 U.S.C. 2066 Note. By 

2012, staff had worked to refine the 

RAM and had begun to grapple with the 

rise of internet-based companies selling 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1802 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

6The 1107 rule sets forth requirements for 

children’s product testing and certification, 

including when and how products must be tested 

and certified, and recordkeeping requirements. The 

1109 rule sets forth conditions and requirements for 

component part testing and certification for both 

children’s and non-children’s products. Both rules 

introduced new concepts and terminology related 

to certificates that are not present in the existing 

part 1110 rule published in 2008. 

7Currently, CPSC’s RAM system is limited to data 

collected and provided by CBP and does not 

contain CPSC-specific information that would help 

enhance risk assessment. eFiling certificate data for 

imported consumer products will allow the RAM to 

use this data to further improve CPSC’s ability to 

target noncompliant consumer products for 

examination at the ports. 

8Merchandise for which a duty exemption is 

claimed under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) may be 

entered by presenting the bill of lading or a 

manifest listing each bill of lading. This type of 

informal entry is termed the ‘‘release from 

manifest’’ process. Generally, such shipments are 

released from CBP custody based on the 

information provided on the manifest or bill of 

lading. 89 FR 2630, 2631–2632 (Jan. 16, 2024). 

9CBP created the PGA Message Set to collect 

from importers additional agency-related import 

data for partner government agencies and to allow 

importers to transmit the data elements to ACE at 

time of entry or entry summary. CPSC created two 

PGA Message Sets: the Full Message Set and 

Reference Message Set. When using a Full Message 

Set, importers will provide all certificate data in the 

form of data elements. When using a Reference 

Message Set, importers will provide a reference ID 

to certificate data entered into CPSC’s Product 

Registry. The Product Registry is a certificate 

database created and maintained by CPSC. 

Importers can enter or upload certificate data for 

regulated consumer products that can be referenced 

in a short PGA Message Set each time the product 

is imported without having to re-enter the same 

certificate data elements. 

10Shipments that have PGA data reporting 

requirements, or require the payment of any duties, 

fees, or taxes may not use the ‘‘release from 

manifest’’ process. 89 FR 2630, 2632. 

11ACE is CBP’s system through which the U.S. 

government has implemented the ‘‘single window,’’ 

the primary system for processing all trade-related 

import and export data required by government 

agencies. The ‘‘single window’’ transitions away 

from paper-based procedures to provide 

government and industry faster, more streamlined 

processes. 

consumer products (eCommerce) and 

direct-to-consumer shipments, which 

made CPSC’s interdiction of noncompliant products more challenging. 

To address those concerns, and to be 

able to use certificate data for targeting 

and enforcement of CPSC’s rules at the 

ports, CPSC proposed in the 2013 NPR 

to implement eFiling of certificates with 

CBP for regulated, imported products, 

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

CPSA. The 2013 NPR also sought to 

revise part 1110 to integrate the rule 

into the testing and certification regime 

contemplated in then-new parts 1107 

and 1109.6 CPSC received over 500 

comments from more than 70 

commenters on the 2013 NPR. 

C. CPSC’s Risk Assessment and 

Targeting Efforts for Imported Consumer 

Products 

In 2017, CPSC transitioned to the 

RAM 2.0 system, which assesses more 

data within CPSC’s jurisdiction than the 

pilot RAM and uses analytic and 

performance reports to aid staff in 

modifying and fine-tuning risk 

assessment and targeting rules to select 

shipments for examination. CPSC’s 

RAM currently receives an electronic 

feed of import entry data collected by 

CBP.7 The RAM is optimized to ingest 

CBP’s data and uses algorithms to 

identify potentially noncompliant 

consumer product shipments for CPSC’s 

inspection. However, the data ingested 

by the RAM are collected by CBP for its 

enforcement and tariff purposes, which 

do not always align with CPSC’s risk 

assessment purposes. Moreover, CPSC’s 

current import enforcement 

methodology is labor-intensive and 

lacks an efficient means of using 

product-specific data to identify 

potentially non-compliant products. 

Currently, CPSC collects certificates 

only after staff identifies a shipment for 

examination; certificate data are not 

generally collected and therefore cannot 

be used to target shipments for 

examination. CPSC port staff identifies 

shipments for examination, requesting 

that CBP place a shipment on hold and 

transport the goods to an examination 

station for CPSC inspection. An 

examination hold creates a delay that 

costs CPSC and businesses time and 

money; thus, importers and CPSC have 

a common interest in reducing 

examinations of compliant products and 

focusing instead on examinations of 

products that are likely to be violative. 

Using certificate data for more precise 

targeting will maximize examination 

efficiency for stakeholders and staff; 

keep hazardous, violative products out 

of consumer’s hands; and reduce burden 

by not delaying compliant products and 

not holding up shipments at the port 

while waiting to receive a certificate. 

Using certificate data can also 

improve CPSC’s ability to target lowvalue shipments accorded a duty 

exemption under 19 U.S.C. 

1321(a)(2)(C), which are commonly 

referred to as de minimis shipments. 

CPSC’s port staff are currently unable to 

pinpoint with a high degree of certainty 

potentially non-compliant and 

hazardous products in such low-value 

shipments. De minimis shipments may 

currently be entered under either the 

‘‘release from manifest’’ process,8 or the 

ACE Entry Type 86 Test (ET86). Of 

these, only the latter is capable of 

transmitting the PGA Message Set 9 data 

required to effect release of CPSC 

regulated merchandise.10 The Final 

Rule requires de minimis shipments 

containing finished products regulated 

by CPSC to file CPSC’s PGA Message Set 

via an entry type capable of transmitting 

this message set, which is currently 

limited to ET86. Accordingly, importers 

may now use ET86 for de minimis 

shipments to append the required CPSC 

PGA Message Set. Once the Final Rule 

is effective, CPSC’s RAM can receive 

CBP’s entry data and CPSC’s PGA 

Message Set containing certificate data 

elements for risk scoring. Using 

product-specific certificate information 

will provide CPSC with greater insights 

into all imported products, including de 

minimis shipments. Millions of de 

minimis shipments enter the United 

States daily; although not all of these 

shipments contain CPSC regulated 

finished products, the ability to use 

algorithms to assess certificate data and 

identify higher-risk shipments, even 

those of low value that occur frequently, 

would enhance CPSC’s ability to focus 

limited resources to identify and 

interdict higher risk shipments. 

Additionally, CBP does not collect 

entry data for products imported into 

the United States via international mail; 

thus, these shipments cannot relay the 

PGA Message Set required for products 

regulated by CPSC. However, CPSC staff 

inspect mail shipments; lack of productrelated data can lead to CPSC 

inspections of compliant products that 

delay their release. Although CBP is 

unable to process any certificate data 

collected for international mail 

shipments via ACE,11 the Final Rule 

requires a modified eFiling requirement 

for international mail. Importers using 

international mail to import consumer 

products regulated by CPSC must enter 

certificate data into the Product Registry 

before arrival of the shipment in the 

United States, so that staff can analyze 

this data and work with CBP to target 

mail shipments for examination. 

D. CPSC eFiling Related Projects Since 

the 2013 NPR 

Since publication of the 2013 NPR, 

CPSC has implemented RAM 2.0 and 

CBP has implemented ACE and 

developed the PGA Message Set. In 

2016 and 2017, CPSC conducted an 

eFiling Alpha Pilot, in coordination 

with CBP, involving eight volunteer 

participants who successfully eFiled a 

limited set of targeting/enforcement data 

for regulated products. Also in 2017, 

CPSC conducted a Certificate Study to 

assess CPSC’s ability to use certificates 

and the information on them for risk 

assessment and targeting of regulated, 

imported consumer products. In 

December 2020, the Commission 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1803 

12The 2020 staff briefing package to implement 

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

cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-aneFiling-Program-for-Imported-ConsumerProducts.pdf?BYXOLX2gJmF4NaAN1LCMmqiXRI

SuaRkr=. The record of commission action is 

available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCACPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-forImported-Consumer-Products.pdf. 

13 87 FR 35513 (June 10, 2022). 

14 89 FR 47922 (June 4, 2024). 

15The eFiling system collectively refers to the 

PGA Message Set and Product Registry and process 

of filing certificate data. Finished product certifiers 

(meaning importers, manufacturers, or private 

labelers) are responsible for the certificate data 

submitted, but brokers or other designated parties 

can upload data and certify products on behalf of 

a finished product certifier. See 16 CFR part 1109 

and § 1110.15 of this Final Rule. 

16Other trade parties, such as brokers and 

laboratories, may enter certificate data into the 

Product Registry on behalf of a finished product 

certifier, if given permission to do so in the Product 

Registry. 

approved a multi-year plan to 

implement an eFiling program at 

CPSC.12 Following this eFiling plan, 

CPSC began an eFiling Beta Pilot in the 

fall of 2023 with 37 participants.13

Section II of the SNPR contains a 

detailed description of each of these 

initiatives. 88 FR 85760, 85762–63. 

Most recently, on June 4, 2024, CPSC 

announced an expansion of the Beta 

Pilot to include up to an additional 

2,000 participants, to further test the 

eFiling IT infrastructure and to allow 

more importers to prepare for full 

implementation of an eFiling 

requirement.14

To minimize burden on industry, 

CPSC developed an eFiling System 

through the Alpha and Beta Pilots that 

allows importers to enter certificate data 

through two means: Full PGA Message 

Set or Reference PGA Message Set using 

the Product Registry.15 When using the 

Full PGA Message Set, the importer 

submits all certificate data elements via 

ACE. When using the Reference PGA 

Message Set, the importer enters all 

certificate data elements into CPSC’s 

Product Registry prior to filing entry 

with CBP, and then submits a unique 

reference identifier (ID) via ACE as part 

of their entry filing.16 The CBP and 

Trade Automated Interface Requirement 

(CATAIR), which details the technical 

requirements to file each of CPSC’s PGA 

Message Sets in ACE, is available in the 

eFiling document library maintained on 

CPSC’s website at https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

eFiling-Document-Library. 

The Product Registry allows 

importers, or their designees, to enter 

the certificate data elements via a user 

interface, batch upload, and/or 

Application Programing Interface (API) 

upload. The user interface is a step-bystep process in which the importer 

submits one certificate at a time. The 

batch upload feature allows importers to 

submit multiple certificates using a 

Comma-Separated Value (CSV) 

template. The API upload feature allows 

importers to build an API connection 

via the Product Registry and their data 

systems to directly enter certificates. 

Additionally, the Product Registry 

provides multiple features to optimize 

the importer’s interaction. Each 

importer has a Business Account in the 

Product Registry through which 

individual users representing the 

importer can view all certificates 

submitted into the Product Registry 

associated with the importer. An 

importer can also provide other third 

parties, such as a broker or testing 

laboratory, with different levels of 

permission to submit certificate data 

into the Product Registry on their 

behalf. The most recent user guide for 

the Product Registry is attached as Tab 

A to Staff’s Final Rule Memo and is also 

available in the eFiling document 

library maintained on CPSC’s website at 

https://www.cpsc.gov/eFilingDocument-Library. Updates to the 

Product Registry user guide and other 

eFiling-related guidance documents will 

continue to be placed in this document 

library. 

E. Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On December 8, 2023, CPSC 

published an SNPR that modified the 

2013 NPR based on comments on the 

2013 NPR, lessons learned, and 

participant feedback from the Alpha 

Pilot and the Certificate Study, as well 

as feedback during preparation of the 

Beta Pilot. 88 FR 85760. The SNPR 

proposed to revise the 1110 rule to 

clarify certificate requirements for all 

regulated products. Among other 

changes, the SNPR added 13 new 

definitions to incorporate concepts used 

in the 1107 and 1109 rules and to clarify 

the requirements of part 1110; 

broadened the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

in part 1110 to include any entity CBP 

allows to be an importer under the 

Tariff Act; addressed which party is 

responsible for certifying imported and 

domestically manufactured products; 

clarified the certificate format; provided 

additional detail to the required data 

elements; required that each certificate 

describe a single product; specified that 

the 1110 rule applies to de minimis 

shipments, international mail 

shipments, and to products entered for 

consumption or warehousing from an 

FTZ; clarified the legal responsibility for 

certificate information; and expanded 

the record retention period for GCCs to 

five years. 

III. Overview of the Final Rule 

The Commission is finalizing the rule 

largely as proposed in the SNPR. For 

clarity, the Final Rule contains minor 

grammar and syntax revisions that do 

not change the substance of the rule. 

Based on the comments, one of the 

biggest changes to the Final Rule is the 

effective date, extended from the 

proposed 120 days after publication in 

the Federal Register, to 18 months for 

all imported and domestically 

manufactured products (other than 

those imported into an FTZ and 

subsequently entered for consumption 

or warehousing, for which the effective 

date will be 24 months after 

publication). Additionally, throughout 

the Final Rule, we use the term 

‘‘finished product certificate’’ or 

‘‘finished product certifier’’ to clarify 

that the requirement to certify regulated 

products attaches to finished products 

and not to component parts, and the 

obligation to certify regulated finished 

products rests with a finished product 

certifier, as set forth in the rule. Using 

these terms consistently throughout the 

regulation text addresses several 

comments received on the SNPR 

demonstrating confusion regarding 

which party has the obligation to certify 

and which products must be 

accompanied by a certificate. The Final 

Rule also modifies the definition of 

‘‘importer’’ to address commenters’ 

concerns, and to ensure that a party 

eligible to make entry for imported, 

regulated consumer products is legally 

responsible for CPSC’s certificate 

requirements. Finally, the Final Rule 

clarifies the party that is legally 

responsible for information on a 

finished product certificate and the 

requirements for component part 

certificates. 

In this section of the preamble, we 

briefly describe the primary 

modifications and clarifications made in 

the Final Rule based on comments 

received on the SNPR and experience 

and feedback on the eFiling Beta Pilot. 

Section V of this preamble contains a 

more detailed explanation of the 

requirements in the Final Rule. 

A. Effective Date 

As explained in section VI of this 

preamble, the effective date is extended 

from the proposed 120 days. For all 

consumer products regulated by CPSC 

subject to the Final Rule and required to 

be certified, except for products 

imported into an FTZ and subsequently 

entered for consumption or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1804 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

17Entry type 06 is used to enter for consumption 

consumer products withdrawn from an FTZ for 

entry for consumption. 

18We note that the party that CPSC holds legally 

responsible for certificate data does not signify that 

this party is responsible for submitting such data 

into ACE, given that this party is not necessarily an 

IOR or other party eligible to make entry under CBP 

statutes and regulations. 

19 Id. 

20Pursuant to § 1110.15, a finished product 

certifier can rely on other parties to maintain 

records, test, certify products, or enter data into the 

Product Registry, but remains legally responsible 

for the validity, accuracy, completeness, and 

availability of finished product certificates. 

warehousing,17 the Final Rule is 

effective 18 months after publication of 

the Final Rule in the Federal Register. 

The 18-month effective date applies to 

regulated consumer products subject to 

the Final Rule that are imported, as well 

as to those that are domestically 

manufactured. For CPSC regulated 

products imported into an FTZ and 

subsequently entered for consumption 

or warehousing, the Final Rule is 

effective 24 months after publication of 

the Final Rule in the Federal Register. 

B. Definitions (§ 1110.3) 

Definitions in the Final Rule contain 

the following changes from the SNPR: 

Component part certificate—Clarifies 

that component part certificates are 

voluntary. 

Consignee—Clarifies that this 

definition is only for the purposes of 

this rule and simplifies the definition to 

mean a party who takes custody or 

delivery of imported finished products 

for which CPSC certificate data are 

required. The definition informs that a 

consignee may be held legally 

responsible by CPSC for the required 

certificate data as set forth in § 1110.15. 

Although a consignee will not 

necessarily be eligible to enter 

certificate data into ACE, CPSC may 

hold the consignee legally responsible 

for CPSC’s certificate data as the 

importer. 

eFile—Modifies the defined term from 

‘‘eFiled certificate’’ to ‘‘eFile’’ because 

the term ‘‘eFiled certificate’’ is not used 

in the rule, but the term ‘‘eFile’’ or 

‘‘eFiled’’ is used nine times throughout 

the regulation. The definition of ‘‘eFile’’ 

is consistent with the SNPR definition 

of ‘‘eFiled certificate.’’ 

Finished product—Removes the 

phrase ‘‘replacement parts’’ and clarifies 

the three requirements that define a 

‘‘finished product’’: (1) the product is 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing, or distributed in 

commerce; (2) the product is subject to 

a consumer product safety rule under 

the CPSA, or similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation under any other law 

enforced by the Commission; and (3) the 

product is packaged, sold, or held for 

sale to, or use by, consumers. 

Finished product certifier—For 

clarity, adds the statutory requirement 

that a finished product certifier must be 

a manufacturer, importer, or private 

labeler. 

Importer—Clarifies that for purposes 

of this rule, the importer is the Importer 

of Record (IOR) eligible to make entry 

for imported finished products under 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)), who may be an 

owner, purchaser, or authorized 

customs broker. This modification is 

consistent with the 2013 NPR and 

comments stating that the SNPR 

proposal to broaden the importer 

definition was too broad and created 

confusion about which party is required 

to certify imported products. Pursuant 

to CBP’s statute, entry documentation 

must be transmitted by 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 

license under 19 U.S.C. 1641. The IOR 

must be a party eligible to file such 

entry documentation. 19 U.S.C. 

1484(a)(2)(B). A valid license under 19 

U.S.C. 1641 means a customs broker 

licensed to conduct customs business. 

19 U.S.C. 1641(a). Accordingly, the 

Final Rule places responsibility to issue 

a finished product certificate for 

imported products on the IOR, and the 

definition tracks the parties eligible to 

be an IOR in the Tariff Act, as amended. 

However, to address additional 

comments stating that an IOR 

authorized to make entry for a 

shipment, such as a broker, may not 

have sufficient knowledge of the 

consumer products to be held 

responsible for testing and certification, 

the definition of ‘‘importer’’ in the Final 

Rule provides that an authorized broker 

may identify the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee of the finished products who 

authorized the customs broker to make 

entry, as the party responsible for 

compliance with CPSC certificate 

requirements, as part of the certificate 

data filed in CPSC’s PGA Message Set. 

Accordingly, a broker may identify the 

party responsible for certification by 

filing CPSC’s required PGA Message Set 

in ACE, and the Message Set should 

identify the finished product certifier as 

part of the certificate data required in 

§ 1110.11(a)(3) of this Final Rule. This 

owner, purchaser, or consignee that 

authorized a broker to file entry is the 

party that CPSC would expect to have 

sufficient knowledge of the products 

being imported and understand that 

such finished products must now 

comply with U.S. laws and regulations, 

including compliance with CPSC’s 

testing and certification requirements.18

Additionally, the Final Rule clarifies 

that for finished products imported by 

mail, or for which a de minimis duty 

exemption under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) 

is claimed, the importer for purposes of 

CPSC’s certificate requirements is a 

party eligible to make entry for the 

finished products pursuant to CBP 

statutes and regulations, who may be an 

owner, purchaser, consignee, or 

authorized customs broker.19 Because a 

consumer could fall within the 

definition of a purchaser or consignee, 

the definition of ‘‘importer’’ continues 

to state, as proposed, that for purposes 

of this rule, CPSC will not typically 

consider a consumer purchasing or 

receiving products for personal use or 

enjoyment to be the importer 

responsible for certification. 

Manufacturer—For clarity, restates 

the statutory definition of 

‘‘manufacturer’’ in the regulatory text. 

Owner or purchaser—Clarifies that 

this definition is only for the purposes 

of this rule and simplifies the definition 

to mean a party who has a financial 

interest in imported finished products 

for which CPSC certificate data are 

required, including the actual owner of 

the merchandise. The definition informs 

that an owner or purchaser of the 

imported finished products may be held 

legally responsible by CPSC for the 

required certificate data as set forth in 

§ 1110.15. This definition does not 

signify which party is eligible to enter 

certificate data into ACE but informs the 

owner or purchaser that CPSC may hold 

them legally responsible for CPSC’s 

certificate data as the importer. 

Private labeler—For clarity, restates 

the statutory definition of ‘‘private 

labeler’’ in the regulatory text. 

Product Registry—Places the 

responsibility to submit data into the 

Product Registry on the finished 

product certifier, meaning the importer 

that is required to issue the finished 

product certificate, as specified in 

§ 1110.7(a), and who is also required to 

eFile the certificate data as set forth in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1).20

C. Certificate Content (§ 1110.11) 

Requirements for certificate content in 

the Final Rule contain the following 

changes from the SNPR proposal: 

Individual maintaining records 

§ 1110.11(a)(4)—Moves the bulleted list 

summarizing required testing and 

certification records to the 

recordkeeping requirement in § 1110.17, 

because the data element in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1805 

21The commenter key is based on the document 

ID that was assigned to the comment upon 

submission to the Federal Register docket of the 

SNPR. Several commenters submitted comments in 

separate submissions and were assigned multiple 

IDs. Acronyms and abbreviations for easier 

reference of each commenter are in parentheses. 

Comments on the SNPR begin with comment 

number 84. 

§ 1110.11(a)(4) requires a name and 

contact information for the 

recordkeeper; thus, the list of potential 

records is more appropriately defined in 

the Final Rule’s recordkeeping 

requirement. 

Attestations § 1110.11(a)(7)—Clarifies 

that although all certificates require an 

attestation, the written attestation only 

applies to certificates provided in hard 

copy or electronic formats, because 

eFiled certificates already address the 

attestation requirement through the 

Product Registry (Reference Message 

Set) and a data element in the Full 

Message Set. 

Duplicative testing not required 

§ 1110.11(d)—Clarifies that the rule’s 

provision on duplicative testing is 

intended to prevent test laboratories 

from conducting the same third party 

test multiple times on the same sample 

when the same test is required by 

overlapping rules. 

D. Legal Responsibility of Finished 

Product Certifiers (§ 1110.15) 

This provision modifies the heading 

proposed in the SNPR, changing the 

description from ‘‘Legal responsibility 

for certificate information’’ to ‘‘Legal 

responsibility of finished product 

certifiers.’’ This modification better 

reflects the content of § 1110.15, which 

is broader than just the information on 

a certificate and includes requirements 

for finished product certifiers when they 

rely on other parties to maintain 

records, or to submit data into the 

Product Registry, test, or certify. 

E. Recordkeeping Requirements 

(§ 1110.17) 

The Final Rule simplifies the 

presentation of the recordkeeping 

requirements for all finished product 

certificates by stating that required 

records must be maintained for five 

years from the date of creation, as 

proposed, and moves the bulleted 

recordkeeping requirements previously 

contained in § 1110.11(a)(4) to this 

section of the rule. 

F. Disclaimer Message Sets 

The SNPR proposed to require 

Disclaimer Message Sets in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1) by referencing CPSC’s 

PGA Message Set requirements in 

CPSC’s CATAIR. As explained in 

section IV.F of this preamble, as a 

matter of policy and to reduce burden, 

CPSC will not require importers to file 

a Disclaimer Message Set with CBP for 

products that do not require a 

certificate. Accordingly, a Disclaimer 

Message Set is not required when: (1) 

the imported product is not within 

CPSC’s jurisdiction; (2) the imported 

product is within CPSC’s jurisdiction, 

but no rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

requiring a certificate applies; (3) the 

imported product is a component of a 

consumer product that is not packaged, 

sold, or held for sale to, or for use by, 

consumers, but rather the part will be 

used in further assembly or 

manufacturing in the United States; or 

(4) the imported product is subject to an 

enforcement discretion and no 

certificate is required. Commission staff 

have updated the CPSC’s CATAIR 

accordingly. 

IV. Response to Comments 

This section of the preamble 

summarizes and responds to the 47 

comments received on the SNPR by 

topic. Table 1 contains a key to the 

acronyms used to describe each 

commenter. 

TABLE 1—COMMENTER KEY 21

84 ..... Comverex, LLC (Comverex) 108 ... National Foreign Trade Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce (NFTC & USCC) 

85 ..... Tractor Supply Company (TSC) 109 ... The Boppy Company, LLC (Boppy) 

86 ..... Tractor Supply Company (TSC) 110 ... Newell Brands Inc. (Newell) 

87 ..... Tractor Supply Company (TSC) 111 ... American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) 

88 ..... Comverex, LLC (Comverex) 112 ... PeopleForBikes Coalition (PeopleForBikes) 

89 ..... Comverex, LLC (Comverex) 113 ... The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 

90 ..... Galaxy Fireworks, Inc. (Galaxy) 114 ... Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) 

91 ..... Comverex, LLC (Comverex) 115 ... Law Offices of Steven W Hansen (Hansen) 

92 ..... Bureau Veritas (BV) 116 ... Lighter Association (LA) 

93 ..... Alta Cycling Group, LLC (Alta) 117 ... Comverex, LLC (Comverex) 

94 ..... American Fireworks Standards Laboratory (AFSL) 118 ... Writing Instrument Manufacturer’s Association (WIMA) 

95 ..... National Fireworks Association (NFA) 119 ... Promotional Products Association International (PPAI) 

96 ..... National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 121 ... National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 

97 ..... Toy Association (TA) 122 ... National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of 

America, Inc. (NCBFAA) 

98 ..... Informational Technology Industry Council (ITI) 123 ... IKEA 

99 ..... Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA) 124 ... IKEA 

100 ... Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc. (OPEI) 125 ... Informational Technology Industry Council (ITI) 

101 ... American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) 126 ... Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) 

102, ..

120 ...

Ingram Enterprises, Inc. DBA Fireworks 

Over America and Affiliated 

Companies (FOA) (Comment 120 identical) 

127 ... National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 

103 ... Consumer Technology Association (CTA) 128 ... National Association of Foreign-Trade Zones (NAFTZ) 

104 ... UL Solutions (ULS) 129 ... National Fireworks Association (NFA) 

105 ... American Promotional Events, Inc. d/b/a TNT Fireworks (APE) 130 ... IKEA 

106 ... Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA) 131 ... Express Association of America (EAA) 

107 ... Winco Fireworks International LLC (WFI) 

A. Procedural Comments 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

(Galaxy (90), JPMA (99), NAM (113), 

RILA (114), and NCBFAA (122)) argue 

that the SNPR was proposed 

prematurely, because CPSC assertedly 

did not benefit from outcomes and 

feedback from Beta Pilot participants; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1806 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

22Record of Commission Action available at: 

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Planto-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-ImportedConsumer-Products.pdf. 

23Section XI of the October 30, 2024: Staff 

Briefing Memorandum: Draft Final Rule to Revise 

16 CFR part 1110 for Certificates of Compliance and 

to Implement eFiling (Final Rule SBP), contains a 

list of staff outreach and engagement efforts since 

2013 regarding CPSC’s eFiling initiative. This list 

demonstrates at least 121 staff engagements on 

eFiling in the last 3 years. 24 During the Beta Pilot, between October 16, 

2023 and June 30, 2024, the eFiling support team 

provided real-time support using the Beta Pilot 

Support Mailbox. The support team responded to 

287 Tier 1 (basic troubleshooting, policy, and 

process) incidents and 153 Tier 2 (advanced 

technical issues) incidents with an average 

resolution time of 21 hours. CPSC expects to have 

a fully staffed service desk to assist with the 

expanded Beta Pilot. Additionally, during the Beta 

Pilot CPSC reviewed and assessed participant 

feedback, analyzed their needs to adjust the eFiling 

program, and implemented changes where needed. 

CPSC will continue to incorporate participant 

feedback throughout the eFiling voluntary stage. 

these commenters noted general 

concern about the impact of eFiling. 

Response 1: When drafting the SNPR, 

CPSC benefited from the outcomes and 

feedback from comments to the 2013 

NPR, the Alpha Pilot conducted in 

2016, the Certificate Study conducted in 

2017, preparation and development for 

the Beta Pilot in 2023, and the initial 

months of the Beta Pilot. Furthermore, 

CPSC is drawing upon outcomes and 

feedback from the Beta Pilot 

participants in the Final Rule, 

specifically with respect to 

consideration of the effective date of the 

Final Rule and finalizing the eFiling 

burden analysis in sections VII and VIII 

of this preamble. Finally, while the Beta 

Pilot tests the mechanics of eFiling and 

practical considerations, it does not 

impact the Final Rule’s basic 

requirement to eFile certificates. 

Comment 2: Hansen (115) states that 

the bicycle industry has not received 

sufficient information about the eFiling 

proposal, and that the SNPR was 

sudden, considering the 10-year lapse 

between the NPR and the SNPR. Hansen 

complains that no company from the 

bicycle industry is participating in the 

Beta Pilot and that it will take many 

months to set up testing laboratories 

around the world and hire people to 

manage the new data requirements. 

Response 2: Because more than 10 

years have passed since the NPR was 

published in 2013, the Commission 

issued the SNPR to provide additional 

opportunity for notice and comment 

and to describe proposed requirements 

for the revisions to part 1110 based on 

the Commission’s efforts since 2013 to 

advance eFiling. The SNPR recounts 

such efforts, including the Alpha Pilot 

in 2016 and a Certificate Study in 2017. 

88 FR 85760, 85762–62. The 

Commission voted in December 2020 to 

approve staff’s recommended fourphased approach to create an eFiling 

program at CPSC22 and began recruiting 

for the Beta Pilot on June 10, 2022 (87 

FR 35513). CPSC conducted the Beta 

Pilot with 37 participants from October 

2023 to June 2024. Most recently, CPSC 

announced expansion of the Beta Pilot 

test on June 4, 2024 (89 FR 47922). 

CPSC has also conducted extensive 

outreach via public events, such as a 

workshop held on October 13, 2022 (87 

FR 48162 (Aug. 8, 2022)), and 

communication with a variety of trade 

organizations.23 CPSC provided 

industry with a wealth of information 

about the Beta Pilot and eFiling and 

provided numerous notices and 

opportunities for bicycle importers to 

participate; bicycle importers can still 

participate in the expanded Beta Pilot. 

Lastly, the Final Rule requires eFiling of 

certificates that bicycle importers are 

already responsible for creating and 

maintaining; the Final Rule does not 

add new testing-related data 

requirements for certificates and does 

not require the bicycle industry to set 

up additional testing laboratories or 

change their testing processes. 

B. Effective Date 

Comment 3: Many commenters (TSC 

(87), BV (92), Alta (93), TA (97), ITI (98), 

JPMA (99), OPEI (100), WCMA (106), 

NFTC & USCC (108), Newell (110), 

AAFA (111), NAM (113), RILA (114, 

126), Hansen (115), LA (116), Comverex 

(117), NAFTZ (127), EAA (131), and 

IKEA (123, 130)) argue that an effective 

date of 120 days after publication of the 

Final Rule, as proposed, is inadequate 

and recommend a longer 

implementation period, ranging from six 

to 24 months. The NCBFAA (122) 

expresses concern about slow 

participation by importers and potential 

system bugs in development.24 The TA 

(97) specifically recommends a 

staggered phase-in period once the 

effective date has elapsed. Commenters 

argue that an extended implementation 

period would allow industry to 

implement the new changes, including 

organizing resources, hiring data 

personnel, integrating internal 

technological systems, onboarding to 

the eFiling system, reviewing existing 

compliance programs, developing 

internal procedures, and completing 

additional legal agreements between 

parties to assign certification 

responsibilities. 

The AAFA (111) states that an interim 

manual entry process, which CPSC did 

not propose, is not feasible for most 

importers, because it would require 

significant staff time. Commenters 

recommend that CPSC host additional 

workshops and training. IKEA (123, 

130) claims that to secure a stable and 

resilient supply chain, message sets 

need to be ready at least three months 

prior to import, suppliers require four 

months to update their systems, each 

new product requires at least 6 months 

to mitigate any deviations from eFiling 

requirements, and one month to correct 

errors in the data flow. IKEA (130) 

asserts that eFiling requires many 

months of preparation with suppliers, 

vendors, and brokers, recommending a 

24-month effective date and a phased 

approach to implementation. NAFTZ 

(127) and EAA (131) recommend an 

effective date of at least one year or 

longer. 

Response 3: Based on CPSC’s 

experience with Beta Pilot, the 

Commission agrees with the 

commenters that additional time is 

warranted for importers and their trade 

partners to prepare for full 

implementation of eFiling. Accordingly, 

the Final Rule provides an effective date 

of 18 months after publication of the 

Final Rule, as described in section VI of 

the preamble, to implement eFiling for 

all entry types except products entered 

for consumption or warehousing from 

an FTZ, which will have a 24-month 

effective date. This timeline is based on 

comments received on the SNPR and 

feedback from Beta Pilot participants 

and their trade partners. CPSC will also 

consider hosting additional workshops 

and trainings before and during 

implementation of the eFiling 

requirement and will update guidance 

materials as needed on CPSC’s eFiling 

document library, available at https://

cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library. 

Finally, to allow importers and the 

Commission time to test and plan for 

full implementation of eFiling, the 

Commission is expanding the Beta Pilot 

test to include up to 2,000 additional 

participants, as described in a June 4, 

2024, Federal Register notice. 89 FR 

47922. Importers can apply to 

participate in the expanded Beta Pilot as 

stated in this notice. Id. 

Comment 4: WCMA (106) alleges that 

the 120-day implementation period in 

the SNPR conflicts with the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ 

WCMA 2022 custom window covering 

safety standard (effective June 1, 2024) 

and the approaching conclusion of the 

Reese’s Law discretionary enforcement 

period (on March 19, 2024). WCMA 

(106) states that the window covering 

industry will have to adapt to new 

compliance requirements, while being 

unfamiliar with the eFiling system. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1807 

Response 4: The Commission 

published 16 CFR part 1263 on 

September 21, 2023 (88 FR 65274; 88 FR 

65296) to implement Reese’s Law, 15 

U.S.C. 2056e, which required the 

Commission to issue a rule providing 

performance and labeling requirements 

for consumer products that contain 

button cell or coin batteries, to eliminate 

or adequately reduce the risk of injury 

associated with children 6 years old and 

younger ingesting these batteries. 15 

U.S.C. 2056e(a)(1). Some motorized 

window coverings contain button cell or 

coin batteries. 

The effective date of this Final Rule, 

as revised, will occur about one and a 

half years after the effective date of 

Reese’s Law requirements for consumer 

products containing button or coin cell 

batteries. As of September 2024, testing 

and certification of consumer products 

containing button cell or coin batteries 

has been in effect for six months. 

Accordingly, the 18-month effective 

date of the Final Rule will provide 

window covering manufacturers and 

importers with sufficient time to comply 

with testing, certification, and eFiling 

requirements. 

Comment 5: Comverex (84) expresses 

concern about the proposed 120-day 

effective date, believing that test data 

that is typically valid for 365 days 

would need to be reconducted in 245 

days (365 days¥120 days = 245 days) 

to allow test laboratories to automate 

test data submission into the Product 

Registry. Comverex states that a 120-day 

effective date would require testing to 

be obtained up to 245 days in advance 

of publication of the Final Rule, 

potentially requiring importers to 

reconduct testing or to coordinate 

obtaining the necessary data from 

previously issued test reports. 

Response 5: Certificate data entered 

into the Product Registry are the 

responsibility of the importer, who can 

allow a testing laboratory to submit test 

data into the Product Registry on their 

behalf. The decision to rely on a testing 

laboratory for data entry is at the 

discretion of the importer. The premise 

of Comverex’s concern, that test data 

must be entered at the time of testing, 

is incorrect; in fact, importers or their 

trade partners can enter test data into 

the Product Registry at any time before 

importation of the product, including 

testing conducted before the effective 

date of the Final Rule. Based on 

comments and the experience of Beta 

Pilot participants, the Final Rule now 

has a 18-month effective date, which 

also obviates Comverex’s concern. Note 

that if an importer participates in the 

expanded Beta Pilot, the importer can 

begin submitting certificate data into the 

Product Registry before the effective 

date of the Final Rule. 

C. Section 1110.3 Definitions 

Comment 6: Several commenters (Alta 

(93), TA (97), Newell (110), 

PeopleForBikes (112), and Hansen 

(115)) oppose expanding the definition 

of a ‘‘finished product’’ in § 1110.3 to 

include replacement parts. These 

commenters argue that replacement 

parts are effectively covered by 

certification for the full finished product 

and are not tracked independently, so it 

would be burdensome to create and 

track certificates for replacement parts. 

Furthermore, a change to any 

replacement part would be considered a 

‘‘material change’’ and trigger retesting 

under an existing regulation. Lastly, 

commenters state that component parts 

are imported in bulk and the importer 

has no way of knowing whether the 

parts are intended for domestic 

assembly, repair shops, or retail 

customers. Commenters state that this 

differs from parts sold with the intent 

that they may be assembled to create 

some larger item or ensemble, like doll 

accessories for toys. 

Additionally, PeopleForBikes (112) 

and Hansen (115) write that CPSC’s 

example that a handlebar sold as a 

replacement part requires a certificate is 

incorrect, because 16 CFR part 1512 

(part 1512) is a complete product 

standard and the handlebar must meet 

the requirements in part 1512 after 

assembly into complete bicycles. 

PeopleForBikes (112) notes that in 

response to comment 63 on the 2013 

NPR, CPSC indicated that parts of a 

bicycle could be tested and certified. 

The commenter states that CPSC 

provided as an example replacement 

handbrakes, which the commenter 

asserts cannot be tested individually, 

but are covered under 16 CFR 1512.5. 

Hansen (115) states that importers will 

not know whether a part, such as 

handlebars, will be used on a child’s 

bike or not, and requests documentation 

that CPSC has previously stated that 

replacement bicycle parts must be tested 

to part 1512. 

JPMA (99) and NAM (113) claim the 

proposed rule does not clearly define 

‘‘component parts’’ and ‘‘component 

part certificates.’’ These commenters 

state that CPSC should clarify that 

certification is only required for 

component or replacement parts if they 

are sold as fully independent, finished, 

packaged consumer products subject to 

a specific applicable regulation. The 

OPEI (100) seeks clarity as to whether 

replacement shields for power mowers 

(as defined in 16 CFR part 1205.3) 

require separate testing and certificates 

if sold to consumers as replacement 

parts. 

Response 6: In the Final Rule, CPSC 

amends the definition of ‘‘finished 

product’’ and adds guidance in sections 

V.B and V.C of this preamble to clarify 

when a part of a consumer product is 

considered a finished product. As 

defined in 16 CFR part 1109 and this 

revised part 1110, a ‘‘component part’’ 

is not, by definition, a finished product 

that requires certification. A component 

of a consumer product only requires 

testing and certification if the part itself 

is: (1) packaged, sold, or held for sale to, 

or use by, consumers (in which case it 

is a finished product); (2) regulated by 

the Commission, meaning the part is 

specifically regulated and not regulated 

as a subsection of a final product 

standard; and (3) imported for 

consumption or warehousing or 

distributed into commerce. To be a 

finished product, components must be 

sold independently, packaged for a 

consumer, or intended for use by a 

consumer. 

CPSC incorrectly stated in the SNPR 

that bicycle handbrakes sold separately 

would require a certificate. The 

commenter is correct that 16 CFR part 

1512, as applied to non-children’s 

products, is a finished product standard 

and the individual components are 

tested as part of the finished product. 

Imported replacement parts for bicycles, 

power mowers, or any non-children’s 

product covered by a finished product 

regulation are not subject to the eFiling 

requirement unless a regulation applies 

to the part, as sold. However, a part of 

a children’s product that is sold 

separately to consumers may be subject 

to third party testing for CPSC rules 

such as lead content, lead in paint, or 

small parts. Lastly, per 16 CFR part 

1109, a certifier can use component part 

testing and certification to certify a 

finished product, where applicable. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

(JPMA (99), NFTC & USCC (108), AAFA 

(111), NAM (113), and RILA (114)) 

disagree with the proposed expanded 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ and urge using 

‘‘importer of record (IOR),’’ as proposed 

in the 2013 NPR. Commenters claim 

that the industry is already familiar with 

the definition of IOR and the expanded 

definition will add complexity and 

ambiguity to who is responsible for 

eFiling certificate data. Commenters 

argue that multiple entities may be held 

responsible, or that retailers may be 

improperly authorized to certify 

products. JPMA (99) and NAM (113) 

assert that the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

cannot be changed, because it is already 

legislatively defined, and the SNPR is 

contrary to the plain language of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1808 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

25Section 1110.11(a)(3) of the Final Rule requires 

that the certificate identify the finished product 

certifier that is certifying compliance of the finished 

product(s), as set forth in § 1110.7, including the 

party’s name, street address, city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, electronic mail 

(email) address, and telephone number. 

26A licensed customs broker is required to 

exercise responsible supervision and control over 

the customs business that it conducts. 19 U.S.C. 

1641(b)(4). 

CPSA that specifies manufacturers as 

the required certifier. 

Response 7: The 2013 NPR proposed 

to define ‘‘importer’’ as the ‘‘importer of 

record as defined under the Tariff Act 

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B))’’ 78 FR 

28080, 28107. The 2023 SNPR proposed 

to broaden the definition to include the 

importer of record, consignee, or owner, 

purchaser, or party that has a financial 

interest in the product or substance 

being offered for import and effectively 

caused the product or substance to be 

imported into the United States. 88 FR 

85760, 85789. For the Final Rule, the 

Commission agrees with the 

commenters that identifying a specific 

party responsible for certifying 

imported, finished products helps to 

clarify the party responsible for 

complying with CPSC’s certificate 

requirements and ensures that 

certificate data is eFiled at entry. 

Accordingly, the Final Rule clarifies 

that, as proposed in the 2013 NPR and 

consistent with the SNPR and the 

comments received, for purposes of this 

rule, the ‘‘importer’’ means the importer 

of record (IOR) eligible to make entry for 

imported finished products under the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)), who may be an 

owner, purchaser, or authorized 

customs broker. 

The Final Rule also addresses the 

concerns of commenters stating that an 

IOR authorized to make entry for a 

shipment, such as a broker, may not 

have sufficient knowledge of the 

consumer products to be held 

responsible for testing and certification. 

Accordingly, the definition of 

‘‘importer’’ in the Final Rule provides 

that an authorized broker may identify 

the owner, purchaser, or consignee of 

the finished products who authorized 

the customs broker to make entry, as the 

party responsible for compliance with 

CPSC certificate requirements. A broker 

would identify such party by eFiling 

certificate data using CPSC’s PGA 

Message Set, which will identify the 

finished product certifier responsible for 

product certification, as required in 

§ 1110.11(a)(3). 

If identified as the finished product 

certifier in the PGA Message Set data, 

the owner, purchaser, or consignee that 

authorized the broker to file entry is the 

party that CPSC would expect to have 

sufficient knowledge of the finished 

products being imported and 

understand that such products must 

now comply with U.S. laws and 

regulations, including compliance with 

CPSC’s testing and certification 

requirements. We note that the party 

that CPSC holds legally responsible for 

certificate data does not mean that this 

party is responsible for submitting such 

data into ACE, because this party may 

not be the IOR for the shipment or be 

another party eligible to make entry 

under CBP statutes and regulations. 

Thus, the Final Rule definition of 

‘‘importer’’ is consistent with the parties 

identified in the NPR and the SNPR and 

addresses commenters concerns by 

requiring the IOR to comply with 

CPSC’s certificate requirements, but 

allowing an IOR who is an authorized 

broker to identify the owner, purchaser, 

or consignee of the finished products 

who authorized the customs broker to 

make entry, as the party responsible for 

compliance with CPSC certificate 

requirements. However, for finished 

products regulated by CPSC that are 

required to be accompanied by a 

certificate, if an authorized customs 

broker fails to submit a PGA Message 

Set containing CPSC’s certificate data 

elements to identify the owner, 

purchaser, or consignee responsible for 

product certification,25 CPSC can hold 

such a broker legally responsible for 

certificate data as set forth in 

§ 1110.15.26 Practically speaking, a 

broker will receive from the owner, 

purchaser, or consignee authorizing 

entry, either the Unique ID for the 

Reference PGA Message Set, linking 

certificate data in the Product Registry 

with the shipment, or all certificate data 

elements for submitting the Full PGA 

Message Set at entry. 

The Final Rule also clarifies, for 

purposes of this rule, the importer who 

is legally responsible for CPSC’s 

certificate data for finished products 

that must be accompanied by a 

certificate that are imported by mail, or 

for which a de minimis duty exemption 

under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is 

claimed. These shipments do not have 

an IOR. The ‘‘importer’’ definition in the 

Final Rule specifies that for finished 

products imported by mail, or for which 

a de minimis duty exemption under 19 

U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is claimed, the 

importer for purposes of CPSC’s 

certificate requirement is a party eligible 

to make entry for the merchandise 

pursuant to CBP statutes and 

regulations, who may be an owner, 

purchaser, consignee, or authorized 

customs broker. The Final Rule defines 

‘‘owner or purchaser’’ and ‘‘consignee’’ 

consistent with the SNPR but 

simplified. An authorized broker may 

identify the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee that authorized entry as the 

finished product certifier in a PGA 

Message Set for a de minimis shipment 

as well. Because a consumer could fall 

within the definition of a purchaser or 

consignee, the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

continues to state, as proposed, that for 

purposes of this rule, CPSC will not 

typically consider a consumer 

purchasing or receiving products for 

personal use or enjoyment to be the 

importer responsible for certification. 

The assertion by JPMA (99) and NAM 

(113) that the plain language of the 

CPSA specifies a manufacturer as the 

required certifier is incorrect and comes 

16 years after the CPSC first required 

importers to certify imported consumer 

products in the existing 1110 rule, 

effective November 18, 2008. 73 FR 

68328. Section 3(a)(11) of CPSA defines 

a manufacturer as ‘‘any person who 

manufactures or imports a consumer 

product.’’ The CPSA does not define 

‘‘importer,’’ and, pursuant to the 

implementing authority in section 3 of 

the CPSIA, CPSC has the authority to 

define ‘‘importer’’ for the purposes of 

this rule, and to effectuate the statutory 

authority to require electronic filing of 

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

CPSA. Moreover, CPSC has the 

authority to designate the certifier 

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

CPSA, which states that when a product 

has more than one manufacturer or 

private labeler, the Commission may by 

rule designate one or more of such 

entities as the certifier and exempt the 

others. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(4). 

Accordingly, the Commission’s 1107 

and 1109 rules both rely on the 

requirement for importers to certify 

imported consumer products, and these 

rules have been effective since 2013 and 

2011, respectively. 76 FR 69482 

(November 8, 2011) (finalizing part 

1107); 76 FR 69546 (November 8, 2011) 

(finalizing part 1109). To address 

importer concerns, for more than 13 

years part 1109 has allowed importers, 

or any finished product certifier, to rely 

on another party’s testing or 

certification, such as a manufacturer’s, 

to issue their own finished product 

certificate, provided the finished 

product certifier meets the requirements 

in part 1109. 

Comment 8: The NFTC and USCC 

(108) are concerned that the proposed 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ would result in 

a ‘‘diffusion of responsibility’’ across all 

parties in the transaction of the 

shipment, resulting in confusion. These 

commenters propose that the IOR must 

eFile the certificate, but another 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1809 

specified entity could prepare the 

certificate, which could either be (1) an 

entity that by mutual agreement is 

responsible for preparing the certificate, 

or (2) in the absence of agreement, a 

hierarchy of entities within the 

proposed definition of ‘‘importer.’’ 

Commenters state that in this case, if the 

IOR does not have the requisite 

knowledge to prepare the certificate, 

another specified entity with direct 

knowledge of the facts underlying the 

certificate could be responsible for its 

preparation. 

The NCBFAA (122) questions why the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ specifically 

highlights customs brokers, because 

they are already subsumed in the 

definition of IOR. They argue that this 

adds confusion, because the customs 

broker will rarely assume legal 

responsibility for certification. The 

NCBFAA (122) urges CPSC to make it 

clear that a customs broker or other nonbeneficial owner will never be the 

responsible importer by default merely 

due to their role in the import process, 

and to distinguish those roles. 

Response 8: As described in response 

to comment 7 and in section V.B of this 

preamble, the Final Rule revises the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ proposed in the 

SNPR, agreeing in part with the 

commenters. The NFTC and USCC (108) 

request that CPSC identify the IOR as 

the importer but allow for another 

specified party to be responsible in case 

the IOR does not have the requisite 

knowledge to prepare the certificate. As 

stated in response to comment 7, the 

Final Rule specifies that the IOR is the 

importer responsible for certification of 

a finished product. However, if the IOR 

is an authorized customs broker, the 

broker may identify the owner, 

purchaser, or consignee that authorized 

entry, as the party responsible for 

CPSC’s certificate requirements, as part 

of the eFiled certificate data. If the 

required certificate data is not eFiled, 

CPSC can hold the broker legally 

responsible as set forth in § 1110.15. 

The revised definition limits 

confusion by specifying the IOR as the 

importer, while also addressing broker 

concerns about not having sufficient 

detailed knowledge about the consumer 

products being imported to issue a 

certificate, by allowing the broker to 

specify the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee that authorized the broker to 

make entry. Use of the Product Registry 

will aid brokers in obtaining the 

requisite certificate information for 

eFiling. Practically speaking, a broker 

can identify the finished product 

certifier responsible for certification 

either by ensuring complete certificate 

data is filed in a Full Message Set, 

including the required ‘‘certifying 

entity’’ in § 1110.11(a)(3), or when 

stating the ‘‘certifier ID’’ for the 

Reference Message Set. 

Comment 9: The TA (97) claims that 

the proposed importer definition does 

not adequately fulfill CPSC’s stated 

intention to include products that are 

‘‘imported as a mail shipment.’’ 

Response 9: As proposed in the SNPR, 

§ 1110.13(a)(1) of the Final Rule requires 

that mail shipments containing finished 

products that are required to be 

accompanied by a certificate submit the 

finished product certificate data 

elements required in § 1110.11 into 

CPSC’s Product Registry before arrival 

of the shipment in the United States. 

Mail shipments do not have an IOR. 

Accordingly, in response to the TA (97), 

CPSC adds a clarifying sentence to the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ stating that for 

the purposes of this rule, the importer 

for purposes of CPSC’s certificate 

requirements is a party eligible to make 

entry for the finished products pursuant 

to CBP statutes and regulations, who 

may be an owner, purchaser, consignee, 

or authorized customs broker. 

Comment 10: The PPAI (119) 

disagrees with the proposed ‘‘importer’’ 

definition and claims that the proposed 

new definition will render distributors 

primarily responsible for certification, 

instead of the suppliers as it is today. 

The PPAI (119) states that the proposed 

rule would require distributors to retest 

the same product for individual orders, 

causing problems for companies with 

multiple ‘‘operating as’’ or ‘‘dba’’ 

designations, and uncertainty when a 

customs broker is involved. 

Response 10: The Final Rule does not 

disrupt CPSC’s current testing and 

certification requirements. As is 

currently the case, importers are the 

finished product certifiers that must 

certify imported finished products. 

However, since 2011, importers have 

been able to rely on a supplier’s testing 

or certification to issue their own 

finished product certificates, as allowed 

by 16 CFR part 1109. The Product 

Registry aids in this process by allowing 

an importer to give a supplier 

permission to upload certificate data 

into the Product Registry, and to certify 

such data, on their behalf. However, as 

set forth in § 1110.15, the importer, who 

is the defined finished product certifier 

in § 1110.7, remains legally responsible 

for the information in a finished product 

certificate, including its validity, 

accuracy, completeness, and 

availability. 

D. Section 1110.5 Products Required 

To Be Certified 

Comment 11: ULS (104) supports 

CPSC’s focus on products required to be 

certified and the content of the 

certificates to be eFiled. Specifically, 

ULS (104) agrees with the proposed 

language for § 1110.5 and CPSC’s efforts 

to make this process as efficient as 

possible for users by listing the 

applicable rules in the eFiling system. 

Response 11: CPSC retains the 

proposed § 1110.5 in the Final Rule. 

Comment 12: JPMA (99) agrees with 

the proposed § 1110.5 clarification that 

certificates are only required for 

finished products. However, JPMA (99) 

also writes that proposed § 1110.5 

requires greater definition to reflect that 

the manufacturing of finished products 

may involve multiple productions of 

identical products or variations unique 

to different customers that rely upon 

baseline certificates. 

Response 12: Finished product 

certifiers may rely on applicable 

component part test reports, 

certification of component parts of 

consumer products, or finished product 

testing or certification procured or 

issued by another party, per 16 CFR part 

1109. However, the finished product 

certifier must still issue its own 

certificate, either based on their own 

testing, or by relying on the underlying 

test reports and certificates from other 

parties, such as a manufacturer. As 

described in response to comment 11, 

the Product Registry aids in this process 

by allowing an importer to give their 

trade partners the ability to upload and 

certify data on their behalf. 

E. Section 1110.7 Who Must Certify 

Products 

Comment 13: Two commenters 

(AAFA (111) and RILA (114)) prefer the 

language in § 1110.7 of the existing 1110 

rule, which requires importers and 

domestic manufacturers to issue 

certificates for imported and 

domestically manufactured products, 

respectively. The commenters argue that 

these entities are better suited for 

compliance than a private labeler, 

because importers and domestic 

manufacturers are most knowledgeable 

of the product design and 

manufacturing process, including 

sourcing of materials, rather than the 

private labeler, even if the private 

labeler has influence on the product. 

Commenters further claim that CPSC 

provided no indication that the existing 

certification process is not effectively 

protecting consumers and that the 

proposed change would improve safety. 

RILA (114) raises concerns regarding the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1810 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

statement in the SNPR that ‘‘CPSC can 

enforce the certificate requirement 

against an importer or a private labeler, 

even if neither firm is the entity 

submitting the required certificate data’’ 

(88 FR 85790), because the current 

allocation of responsibility amongst 

domestic manufacturers and importers 

appropriately ensures the products are 

certified prior to entering commerce. 

Three commenters (TA (97), JPMA 

(99), and NAM (113)) do not support the 

requirement that each importer is 

responsible for submitting certificate 

information for imported products. 

Instead, these commenters assert that 

responsibility should fall on the product 

manufacturer or private labeler, unless 

unavailable, in which case the importer 

of record would be reasonably expected 

to certify. The TA (97) asserts that CPSC 

is not recognizing the real-world supply 

chain, where multiple importers may 

source from the same independent 

manufacturer, who would ultimately be 

responsible for product compliance. 

JPMA (99) cites the CPSA that ‘‘every 

manufacturer [. . .] shall issue a 

certificate.’’ JPMA (99) and NAM (113) 

further request that the rule clearly state 

that downstream customers of 

manufacturers and private labelers may 

rely on such certificates without having 

to independently file duplicative 

certificates. JPMA (99) believes that 

certification should be permitted from a 

corporate representative. 

Response 13: Pursuant to section 

3(a)(11) of the CPSA, the term 

‘‘manufacturer’’ means ‘‘any person who 

manufactures or imports a consumer 

product.’’ To address commenter 

confusion, the Final Rule restates this 

statutory definition in § 1110.3. Based 

on this definition, importers have been 

responsible for certifying imported 

products since promulgation of the 

original part 1110 rule in 2008. 73 FR 

68328, 68331 (Nov. 18, 2008). CPSC 

understands that manufacturers supply 

products to different importers. 

Accordingly, since 2011, under 16 CFR 

part 1109, importers have been able to 

rely upon testing and certification 

conducted by another party, including a 

manufacturer or private labeler, to issue 

their own product certificates. 76 FR 

69546, 69580 (Nov. 8, 2011). Therefore, 

as explained in section V.D of this 

preamble, CPSC maintains the existing 

requirements, and as re-proposed in the 

SNPR, that the importer be responsible 

for certifying imported products. 

Importers are in the best position to 

certify imported consumer products 

because importers know when a 

consumer product is imported into the 

United States and must comply with 

U.S. laws and regulations, and 

importers are responsible for ensuring 

that imported products comply with all 

applicable requirements. We note that 

CPSC generally holds responsible for 

certification the party responsible for 

importation, and not an individual 

representing a certifying party. 

For imported privately labeled 

products, a private labeler can certify a 

product if the private labeler falls 

within the definition of ‘‘importer,’’ as 

defined in § 1110.3. For privately 

labeled domestically manufactured 

products, the private labeler either must 

certify the products, or ensure that the 

manufacturer has certified the products. 

Based on commenters’ apparent 

confusion regarding when a product is 

privately labeled, § 1110.3 of the Final 

Rule restates the statutory definition of 

‘‘private labeler,’’ to reiterate that a 

privately labeled product has no 

manufacturer information on the 

product or packaging. In that case, 

neither consumers nor CPSC know 

whether any other party, besides the 

private labeler, is responsible for 

manufacturing or distributing the 

product. CPSC appropriately places 

testing and certifying requirements on 

the private labeler in this scenario. 

However, when a manufacturer’s name 

is on the product or packaging, the 

product is not privately labeled, and the 

manufacturer is responsible for 

certifying. 

Lastly, we reiterate that pursuant to 

16 CFR part 1109, any party responsible 

for testing and certification can rely on 

component part test reports, finished 

product test reports, certification of 

component parts of consumer products, 

or finished product certifications that 

are procured or issued by another party, 

such as a manufacturer or private 

labeler. However, the finished product 

certifier, such as an importer, must still 

issue their own certificate. As described 

in response to comment 11, for 

importers, the Product Registry aids in 

this process by allowing an importer to 

give their trade partners the ability to 

upload and certify data on their behalf. 

However, the importer remains legally 

responsible for the certificate as stated 

in § 1110.15. 

F. Section 1110.9 Certificate Language 

and Format 

Comment 14: JPMA (99) agrees with 

§ 1110.9 of the existing rule, which 

provides that certificates may be in hard 

copy or electronic form and must be 

provided in English, but may also be 

provided in any other language. JPMA 

(99) disagrees with proposed format 

requirements for electronic certificates 

in § 1110.9(c), stating that a unique 

identifier that can be accessed online 

via an URL or other electronic means be 

identified prominently because the 

product packaging is already often 

cluttered. 

Response 14: Section 1110.9(c) 

regarding electronic certificates only 

applies to domestically manufactured 

products, not to imported products 

where eFiling is required. The SNPR did 

not propose to require that the unique 

identifier be provided only on consumer 

packaging. Rather, the SNPR proposed 

that a unique identifier be identified 

prominently on the finished product, 

shipping carton, or invoice. The 

requirement for a unique identifier that 

is available via a URL or other electronic 

means is not a new concept; this option 

has been in the existing part 1110 since 

2008. The Commission maintains 

§ 1110.9(c) of the SNPR in the Final 

Rule, because the proposal provides 

three options for certifiers, stating that 

‘‘an electronic certificate meets the 

[availability] requirements of 

§ 1110.13(b) and (c) if it is identified 

prominently on the finished product, 

shipping carton, or invoice by a unique 

identifier. . . .’’ Hard copy certificates, 

such as PDF and paper certificates, 

remain an option for domestically 

manufactured products pursuant to 

§ 1110.9(b). 

Comment 15: JPMA (99) requests that 

CPSC affirmatively allow for password 

protection in § 1110.9 to maintain the 

confidentiality of proprietary 

competitively sensitive information. 

Response 15: The SNPR proposed to 

allow for password protection of 

certificates in § 1110.9(c), which 

primarily applies to electronic 

certificates for domestically 

manufactured products. CPSC maintains 

this allowance in the Final Rule, stating 

‘‘[i]f the electronic certificate is 

password protected, the password must 

be provided at the same time as the 

certificate when requested by CPSC or 

CBP.’’ 

G. Section 1110.11 Certificate Content 

Comment 16: JPMA (99) argues that 

the unique ID and description required 

in the SNPR should be permissible and 

not mandatory, because eFiling should 

be optional. 

Response 16: The Final Rule requires 

eFiling for imported products that are 

regulated by CPSC. This is necessary to 

achieve the objectives of eFiling, 

including enabling more effective 

targeting of violative imported products. 

The Final Rule also maintains the 

proposal in § 1110.11(a)(1) for the 

unique ID and product description for 

all certificates, for domestic and 

imported products, so that CPSC can 

better track certificates and match them 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1811 

27See 15 U.S.C. 2055(a) (describing procedures 

for potential disclosure of confidential information). 

to consumer products, including 

certificates received in person, through 

email, through the Product Registry, and 

through the RAM (Full PGA Message 

Set). 

Comment 17: The AAFA (111) states 

that the product descriptions on 

customs documents, which are for 

clarity of Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS) codes, may not match the 

descriptions on certificates. 

Response 17: CPSC recognizes that 

the product descriptions on customs 

documents and certificates may not 

match. HTS codes can be very broad 

and capture many different products 

under one code. For this reason, the 

SNPR proposed that certificates contain 

‘‘a sufficient description to match the 

finished product to the certificate.’’ This 

requirement, as finalized in this rule, 

allows staff to determine whether the 

attached certificate describes the 

product being examined. 

Comment 18: The WCMA (106) writes 

that custom cordless window coverings 

historically have not been subject to 

CPSC rules that require testing and 

certification, and therefore have not 

been assigned unique identification 

codes. To comply with this SNPR and 

the Reese’s Law Direct Final Rule (88 FR 

65274 (Sept. 21, 2023)), WCMA states, 

the window covering industry will need 

to invest significant resources in 

upgrading software systems and 

manufacturing processes to permanently 

affix or imprint a new unique product 

identifier. 

Response 18: Window covering 

requirements in 16 CFR part 1120 do 

not require testing and certification, 

however, window coverings that 

contain a button cell or coin battery are 

required to meet 16 CFR part 1263, 

which requires testing and certification 

of the battery compartment. Nothing in 

the SNPR or this Final Rule requires a 

product identifier that distinguishes 

between products that contain a button 

battery and those that do not, or that 

products permanently affix or imprint 

such a product identifier on the 

product. Existing model numbers that 

are placed on the certificate and found 

somewhere on the product, shipping 

carton, or invoice, that assist CPSC to 

match certificates with a product, are 

sufficient. Note that eFiled certificates 

for imported window coverings will 

already be matched to the shipment 

using CPSC’s PGA Message Set. Only 

electronic certificates for domestically 

manufactured products need to meet 

§ 1110.9(c). 

Comment 19: Several commenters 

(Boppy (109), Newell (110), LA (116), 

WIMA (118)) disagree with the 

requirement of providing the 

manufacturer’s name, street address, 

and contact information, because this 

information is highly confidential and 

public disclosure could severely impact 

business operations. Boppy (109) is 

further concerned whether eFiled 

certificates will be placed in a publicly 

searchable database or available through 

a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

request. A commenter states that in the 

event CPSC requires the name of the 

foreign manufacturer, then the 

Commission could always request that 

the information be provided with a 

CPSA section 6(a) submission. 

Several commenters (AFSL (94), NFA 

(95), APA (101), FOA (102), APE (105)) 

argue that the manufacturer email 

address and phone number should not 

be provided, because in the fireworks 

industry, this information is protected 

by a ‘‘middleman’’ to prevent customers 

from purchasing directly from the 

source. By requiring this information, 

importers risk losing their current 

relationship. 

The AAFA (111) states that the 

expansion to the full mailing address is 

unnecessary and duplicative, because 

the customs documentation already 

contains the country of origin and 

foreign manufacturer information on 

entry documents and the certificate has 

contact information. 

Two commenters (TSC (85 and RILA 

(114)) argue against including the 

manufacturer email address and phone 

number, because those contacts could 

be unreliable, including potential 

language barriers, and the contact may 

change frequently. RILA (114) 

recommends CPSC first contact the IOR 

or the Product Registry Business 

Account Administrator before 

contacting the manufacturer. 

Response 19: As explained in section 

V.F of this preamble, CPSC maintains 

the requirement for certifiers to provide 

the manufacturer’s name, street address, 

email address, and phone number, 

because this is consistent with section 

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

that each certificate contain ‘‘each 

party’s name, full mailing address, [and] 

telephone number.’’ We also note that 

section 16(c)(1) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 

2065(c)(1)), requires that when 

requested by a ‘‘duly designated’’ CPSC 

employee, every importer, retailer, or 

distributor of a consumer product must 

identify the manufacturer of that 

product by name, address, or such other 

identifying information as the officer or 

employee may request, to the extent that 

such information is known or can be 

readily determined by the importer, 

retailer, or distributor. In this case, the 

Commission is requesting the 

manufacturer’s name, address, and 

contact information by rule. 

Accordingly, the Final Rule requires 

certifiers to provide the manufacturer 

name, full mailing address, phone 

number, and email to CPSC on the 

certificate. CPSC should not have to 

request the information via a section 

6(a) submission,27 because these data 

elements are statutorily required and 

necessary for CPSC’s risk assessment 

and targeting. CPSC cannot conduct 

effective risk assessments at the ports 

without all relevant data points. The 

country of origin and foreign 

manufacturer information on entry 

documents is not sufficient, because 

CPSC has a different definition for 

‘‘manufacturer’’ than CBP. CBP’s 

required ‘‘Manufacturer Identification 

Code’’ or ‘‘MID’’ is a code, not a name, 

and is not necessarily linked to the 

name of the foreign manufacturer. For 

example, a MID can identify a foreign 

supplier. Compare 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11) 

(CPSC’s definition of ‘‘manufacturer’’) 

with 19 CFR part 102 (explaining how 

to construct a MID code for entry 

documents). 

The certificate data provided is 

secured by CPSC and neither the 

Product Registry nor RAM are publicly 

searchable databases. The Product 

Registry has industry-standard security 

features like encryption and token 

authorization, as further explained in 

the response to comment 49. When a 

FOIA request is filed, importers, 

domestic manufacturers, and private 

labelers who are required to issue 

certificates are first given the 

opportunity to assert confidentiality 

before such information is released. 

Manufacturer information on a 

certificate would not be released 

pursuant to a FOIA request as long as 

the certifier makes out that the 

information is confidential under 

section 6(a) of the CPSA. 

Certificates must be furnished to 

retailers and distributors in accordance 

with section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA (15 

U.S.C. 2063(g)(3)). Section 1110.13(b) of 

the SNPR, which is maintained in the 

Final Rule, simply restates this statutory 

requirement. However, the Final Rule 

does not dictate how a finished product 

certifier must furnish a certificate to 

retailers and distributors. Certifiers, 

retailers, and distributors may decide, 

based on business relationships and 

needs, how to proceed. For example, 

CPSC is aware that some certifiers 

redact manufacturer information from 

certificates before providing them to 

retailers and distributors. As long as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1812 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

certificates provided to CPSC are 

complete and contain all required 

information, CPSC takes no position at 

this time on whether manufacturer 

information must be provided to third 

parties, unless safety or the testing and 

certification regime is compromised in 

some way. 

Contact information for test data in 

§ 1110.11(a)(4) may be a generic email 

address and telephone number, as long 

as it is actively monitored by a 

knowledgeable person and the certifying 

firm is responsive within 24 hours of 

CPSC’s initial contact. Furthermore, 

staff will primarily contact the finished 

product certifier (who should be the 

Business Account Administrator in the 

Product Registry) first, but may need to 

contact the manufacturer if the certifier 

is non-responsive or if staff uncover a 

greater product issue with the 

manufacturer. Manufacturers often 

supply consumer products to more than 

one importer, retailer, or distributor. 

Comment 20: The ASFL (94) states 

that the ‘‘initial date of manufacture’’ in 

§ 1110.11(a)(5) is unattainable and 

recommends that the manufacturing 

date listed on the receipt or similar 

document should be the date provided. 

Response 20: The ‘‘initial date of 

manufacture’’ means the month and 

year, at a minimum, for products 

manufactured over a series of days. 

Testing is typically conducted for a 

batch or production lot of products; 

therefore, the certifier should know 

which production lot the testing covers 

when the certifier creates a certificate 

based off that testing. Accordingly, for 

the Final Rule, CPSC maintains the 

requirement in § 1110.11(a)(5) for the 

‘‘initial date of manufacture’’ when 

describing production lots. 

Comment 21: The AAFA (111) and 

RILA (114) recommend eliminating, in 

§ 1110.11(b), the optional data field of a 

URL or other electronic means to access 

supporting records, such as test records, 

because the Product Registry will have 

all the necessary information to confirm 

the certificate and many test reports 

contain out-of-scope and confidential 

business information. Commenters state 

that CPSC should instead communicate 

directly with the importer. 

Response 21: Part 1110 applies to 

certificates for all consumer products, 

including those that are domestically 

manufactured. However, only 

certificates for imported consumer 

products must be eFiled. Moreover, the 

information specified in § 1110.11(b) is 

optional for all certificates. CPSC staff 

advises that regardless of whether the 

certificate is hard copy, electronic, or 

eFiled, having immediate access to test 

data is more efficient for the agency 

than having to contact the importer, 

manufacturer, or broker with additional 

questions or to request test 

documentation. Because this 

information is optional on a certificate, 

CPSC maintains the test report URL 

field in the Final Rule. 

Comment 22: JPMA (99) supports 

maintaining the requirement in 

§ 1109.11(a)(6) to provide the date when 

the finished product was tested for 

compliance. 

Response 22: CPSC agrees and 

maintains this requirement in the Final 

Rule. 

Comment 23: The AAFA (111) and 

JPMA (99) agree that generic contact 

information proposed in the SNPR 

should be acceptable. 

Response 23: CPSC agrees and 

maintains this concept as proposed in 

§ 1110.11(a)(4) of the Final Rule. 

Comment 24: The AAFA (111) asks 

CPSC to provide clarity as to how 

eFiling would work in the case of 

multiple production lots, produced in 

different months, where the product is 

being imported at different times with 

no material change. 

Response 24: One certificate can cover 

multiple production lots subject to the 

same test results, as long as there is no 

material change, as defined in guidance 

found on CPSC’s website. Therefore, 

one certificate can cover many identical 

products manufactured over an 

extended period. For that reason, CPSC 

clarified in the SNPR that the certificate 

must contain the month and year of the 

start date of the series of manufacturing. 

Comment 25: PPAI (119) asks for 

clarity regarding the duplicative testing 

statement in proposed § 1110.11(d). 

PPAI asks how this requirement applies 

to separate rules, standards, bans, or 

regulations and generating certificates 

for different orders involving identical 

products. 

Response 25: The Final Rule 

maintains the proposal in § 1110.11(d) 

regarding duplicative testing, but 

clarifies that the rule for ‘‘duplicative 

testing’’ means that the same third party 

test does not need to be conducted more 

than once on each sample, when the 

same test is required by another 

applicable rule. CPSC included 

§ 1110.11(d) in the NPR and the SNPR 

because some test laboratories were 

charging manufacturers to conduct the 

same test twice, when the test was 

required by two separate rules 

applicable to a children’s product. To 

reduce burden, CPSC clarifies in 

§ 1110.11(d) that this type of duplicative 

testing is unnecessary; one test to the 

same requirement in overlapping 

regulations is sufficient. Thus, certifiers 

are not required to conduct duplicative 

testing for any rule that refers to, or 

incorporates fully, another applicable 

consumer product safety rule or similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any other law enforced by the 

Commission. 

The potential for duplicate testing 

applies primarily to children’s products, 

where CPSC has long-standing 

requirements, such as lead, phthalate, 

and small part requirements, but has 

also established rules for specific 

products that also may require a 

chemical or small parts test, such as the 

rule applicable to toys in 16 CFR part 

1250. For example, if a toy is already 

tested to section 4.6 of the ASTM 

International (ASTM) F963 Toy 

Standard for small objects, codified in 

16 CFR part 1250, duplicative testing for 

small parts does not need to be 

conducted again to meet 16 CFR part 

1501. A certificate should list both 

citations for part 1250 and part 1501, 

although only one test must be 

conducted. 

The duplicate test clarification in 

§ 1110.11(d) has no bearing on 

certificates for different orders for the 

same product. Each product certificate 

must list all applicable rules, but the 

same certificate may be used for 

repeated shipments of the same product, 

so long as there is no material change to 

the product. A material change is a 

change that could affect compliance, 

such as a different manufacturing 

facility or source of raw materials. Most 

certifiers test continually manufactured 

products at least once a year. CPSC 

purposely developed the Product 

Registry to allow a single certificate to 

be used more than once, every time the 

same product is imported. Thus, when 

a product has been tested and certified, 

and has not undergone a material 

change, importers eFiling the certificate 

data can reference the same certificate 

in the PGA Reference Message Set for 

the same product, regardless of the 

shipment’s recipient or purchaser. 

Comment 26: The TA (97) and JPMA 

(99) disagree with the requirement for 

certifiers to specify each applicable 

section of ASTM F963, which they 

allege is beyond what is required by the 

CPSA and 16 CFR part 1110 and further 

complicates the data set for 

manufacturers. The TA (97) also states 

that the ‘‘sectional applicability’’ is 

specifically directed to toys subject to 

ASTM F963, but not to any other rule. 

IKEA (123) supports identifying 

individual sections of ASTM F963, 

because this requirement improves 

controls on U.S.-bound shipments. 

However, IKEA (123) requests that the 

year of adoption be included in the 

citation code that incorporates an ASTM 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1813 

28 IKEA (130) defines ‘‘reporting logic’’ as ‘‘the 

methodology for resolving reporting uncertainties, 

often related to products for which CPSC exercises 

enforcement, but permits exemptions or exclusions 

from regulation.’’ 

29Available at: https://cpsc.gov/eFilingDocument-Library. 

standard by reference (e.g. ASTM F963– 

17 or ASTM F963–23), because if 

revisions occur to the standard, then it 

would be impossible to determine if the 

linked test report is issued for the right 

standard. 

Response 26: Through the Product 

Registry and CPSC’s CATAIR and 

guidance documents, the Final Rule 

maintains the requirement for finished 

product certifiers to list on a certificate 

the citation for each individual section 

of ASTM F963 to which a toy is tested 

and certified. This is not a change to the 

existing procedure; CPSC has long 

required that certificates identify which 

sections of ASTM F963 apply to each 

toy on a certificate, because staff need 

to know what has been tested to 

determine product compliance. 

Certifiers are, and have always been, 

responsible for knowing which tests for 

compliance apply to their products and 

for listing them on their test reports and 

on their certificates. ASTM F963, as 

incorporated into part 1250, is broader 

than other voluntary standards 

incorporated into CPSC rules, in that the 

standard and mandatory rule apply to 

many different types of toys with 

different associated hazards. Other 

CPSC regulations generally apply to one 

product type with characteristic 

hazards, such as the rules for full-size 

cribs or strollers. CPSC has addressed 

the fact that ASTM F963 contains 

requirements for many types of toys 

since 2008 when the CPSIA mandated 

F963 as the mandatory toy standard. 

Citing only ASTM F963 on a certificate 

does not provide sufficient information 

to CPSC about the product or its 

compliance with the rule, because toys 

are tested to individual subsections of 

ASTM F963 and not to the entire 

standard. 

Moreover, toys are required to be 

third party tested by an International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO)- 

accredited laboratory whose 

accreditation has been accepted by 

CPSC. These testing laboratories do not 

conduct every test in ASTM F963 on 

every toy; manufacturers and testing 

laboratories must know which tests in 

ASTM F963 apply to each toy, and such 

tests are listed on the test reports. Thus, 

the Final Rule is consistent with current 

CPSC practice and will allow CPSC to 

more easily enforce the existing 

requirement to list all applicable ASTM 

provisions. 

Importantly, the benefits of eFiling for 

CPSC would be diminished without 

knowing which tests within ASTM F963 

apply to each toy. CPSC will be able to 

target and assess risk based on the 

regulatory citations. Also, test 

laboratories are CPSC-accepted based on 

the particular provision of ASTM F963 

to which they are ISO-accredited, and 

not generally for all tests within ASTM 

F963. Therefore, the certificate must 

identify the relevant ASTM subsection 

in order for the RAM to audit that 

citation against CPSC’s testing 

laboratory credentialing information. 

Regarding periodic updates to the 

ASTM standard, CPSC requires 

compliance with a revised ASTM 

standard upon the effective date of a 

rule incorporating the standard, for all 

products manufactured after the 

effective date (or as otherwise stated in 

a rule), unless the revision’s effective 

date occurs by statute. See, e.g. 15 

U.S.C. 2056b(g). Other regulations will 

also change over time and incorporate 

new versions of a voluntary standard as 

such standards are revised. Any product 

manufactured after the effective date of 

a revised rule incorporating a voluntary 

standard must comply with the updated 

rule. Therefore, CPSC would expect that 

a certificate with a product manufacture 

date on or after the effective date of a 

rule to comply with the revised 

mandatory standard, which can be 

confirmed by reviewing the test date 

and/or the associated test report. For 

administrative efficiency and burden 

reduction, however, CPSC is not 

mandating addition of the year to the 

ASTM citations at this time, and will 

rely on the data points on a certificate 

for targeting. 

Comment 27: Two commenters (TA 

(97) and JPMA (99)) claim that 

exemptions and exclusions do not need 

to be cited on a certificate of 

compliance, because they are assumed if 

a citation is not listed on the certificate. 

Thus, CPSC should not require the 

citations of exemptions or exclusions. 

IKEA (124) claims that this requirement 

of citing exemptions and exclusions 

increases reporting burdens. 

Response 27: The Final Rule retains 

the proposal that certificates include 

citations for testing exemptions or 

exclusions. Section 14(a)(1)(B) of the 

CPSA states that the certificate ‘‘shall 

specify each rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation applicable to the product.’’ 

Accordingly, certificates must list each 

rule to which the product is subject. For 

each rule listed on the certificate, the 

certifier should list the firm or testing 

laboratory that conducted such test. 

However, some rules contain testing 

exceptions for certain products or 

product characteristics, and no testing is 

required. Thus, for completeness and to 

avoid unnecessary investigations of 

shipments that are in fact compliant due 

to an exemption or exclusion, the 

certificate should either provide the 

name of the testing laboratory that 

conducted testing, or state why the 

product was not tested. All possible 

testing exemptions and exclusions are 

codified in a statute or within the 

applicable regulation. This provision 

aids CPSC in targeting and enforcing 

test requirements. CPSC’s eFiling 

Document Library contains a detailed 

list of CPSC’s rules and all associated 

codes for testing exclusions within each 

rule that CPSC expects to appear, as 

applicable, on a certificate. 

Comment 28: RILA (114) recommends 

that CPSC create a list of products 

subject to exemptions, which importers 

could reference when determining if 

they need to create a certificate. IKEA 

(123, 130) and RILA (126) additionally 

request that CPSC address the certificate 

requirements, which they term 

‘‘reporting logic,’’ 28 on all products in 

its jurisdiction and publish a clear and 

publicly available list of flagged HTS 

codes. IKEA (123) additionally provided 

several products for which they request 

clarification of the certificate 

requirements, and also recommend that 

CPSC establish a working group with 

industry to establish clear guidance for 

eFiling reporting logic. IKEA (130) also 

recommends that CPSC provide 

immediate notice of all HTS Codes that 

CPSC will flag in CBP’s Automated 

Broker Interface (ABI) as part of the 

eFiling initiative to provide time for 

industry to design their eFiling systems. 

IKEA (130) recommends that CPSC 

finalize the CATAIR guidance on or 

before finalizing a rule and provide a 6- 

month implementation period for any 

subsequent changes to this guidance. ITI 

(125) states that CPSC has not addressed 

how eFiling will work with respect to 

the business relationships involved for 

products containing button cell or coin 

batteries. 

Response 28: Before the SNPR 

published, CPSC created and posted on 

its website a list of HTS codes, citations, 

testing exclusions, and CPSC’s CATAIR 

guidance.29 CPSC will continue to 

update citations and testing exclusions 

when promulgating new regulations or 

adding or changing HTS codes based on 

updates from the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC). 

Certifiers who believe the lists are 

missing any HTS code, citation, or 

testing exclusions should inform CPSC. 

CPSC will flag HTS codes once the 

eFiling requirement becomes effective. 

CPSC’s CATAIR contains a ‘‘Change 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1814 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

Log’’ to identify updates and will 

include an ‘‘effective date’’ in the 

Change Log. Stakeholders can submit 

questions or comments on specific 

products or testing and certification to 

CPSC’s eFiling support email inbox: 

eFilingSupport@cpsc.gov. 

Comment 29: Several commenters (BV 

(92), TA (97), AAFA (111), RILA (114, 

126), and EAA (131)) state that the 

requirement to utilize CBP’s Disclaimer 

Message Set for non-regulated products 

within CPSC’s jurisdiction and for 

products that are regulated, but do not 

require certification results in ‘‘proving 

a negative.’’ Commenters claim that this 

adds workload to industry, because 

industry does not track when a product 

does not need a certificate. AAFA (111) 

claims that this requirement reverses 

CPSC’s 2016 enforcement discretion for 

adult wearing apparel. NCBFAA (122) 

disagrees with the requirement of 

Intended Use Codes for Disclaimer 

Message Sets, because this differs from 

other PGAs and brokers would need to 

track down these codes for shipments 

not subject to CPSC, which would be 

time-consuming and costly. EAA (131) 

states that the disclaim process would 

negative impact operators that clear de 

minimis shipments off the manifest and 

add unnecessary costs in the supply 

chain. 

Response 29: As explained in section 

V.F of this preamble, as a matter of 

policy and to reduce burden, CPSC will 

not require a Disclaimer Message Set for 

products that do not require a 

certificate. This includes cases where (1) 

the product is not within CPSC’s 

jurisdiction; (2) the product or 

substance is within CPSC’s jurisdiction, 

but no rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

requiring a certificate applies; (3) the 

product is a component of a consumer 

product or substance that is not 

intended for sale to consumers, but 

rather for further assembly or 

manufacturing in the United States; and 

(4) the product is subject to enforcement 

discretion and no certificate is required. 

While importers do not need to submit 

a Disclaimer Message Set in these 

situations, they are encouraged to do so 

because the additional information 

provided to CPSC will inform the staff 

as to why a certificate does not 

accompany the product. Likewise, 

Intended Use Codes are also optional, 

but encouraged. Additional guidance on 

Disclaimer Message Sets and Intended 

Use Codes is available at https://

cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library. 

Comment 30: The CTA (103) and the 

ITI (98) urge CPSC to exclude products 

covered by 16 CFR part 1263 (Reese’s 

Law) from the proposed eFiling 

requirements. They state that the 

requirement to file a Disclaimer Message 

Set, coupled with CPSC’s new 

regulations for button cell and coin 

batteries, would place an unnecessary 

burden on manufacturers, importers, 

and CBP. The CTA (103) and ITI (98) 

express concern that the number of 

electronic products that do not contain 

button cell or coin batteries, such as 

desktop and laptop computers, printers, 

watches, wireless headphones, 

calculators, games, and lights, would be 

captured by broad HTS codes and then 

require a Disclaimer Message Set. The 

CTA (103) states that this will result in 

unnecessary shipment holds and delays, 

increasing costs for consumers, which 

would work against the country’s efforts 

to fight inflation. The ITI (98) states that 

any HTS code changes requested by 

CPSC should have a 12-months’ 

advance notice. 

Comverex (117), however, does not 

support an exclusion and argues that 

while the number of associated 

Disclaimer Message Sets for products 

with button cell and coin batteries could 

be large, the Citation Code and Intended 

Use Code data set is small. Comverex 

states that, in particular, Reese’s Law 

would include some filers that have no 

product requiring certificates to 

disclaim. Comverex asserts that 

regardless of the software platform, 

importers can readily identify all 

products that contain these batteries, 

which they must now do by law, and as 

a result identify all products that do not. 

Comverex believes that for retailers, the 

ability to know may be a challenge; 

however, they can utilize their lab 

testing partners to identify products that 

contain button cell batteries, and by 

default which products do not, and 

update their internal product data 

accordingly. Comverex states that for 

large retailers, APIs could be readily 

developed to eliminate corresponding 

data entry. 

Response 30: As stated in response to 

comment 29, as a matter of policy and 

to reduce burden, the Final Rule does 

not require filing Disclaimer Message 

Sets not only for products outside of 

CPSC’s jurisdiction, but also for 

products within CPSC’s jurisdiction but 

not regulated, alleviating CTA (103) and 

ITI (98) concerns. Regarding products 

containing button cell or coin batteries 

subject to 16 CFR part 1263, at CPSC’s 

request, the ITC created additional HTS 

codes to address these products. Though 

not required, CPSC encourages 

importers to file a Disclaimer Message 

Set when appropriate, to better inform 

CPSC as to why the product is not 

accompanied by certificate data. 

Comment 31: BV (92) recommends 

adding a ‘‘disclaimer code’’ to the 

Product Registry, which will allow for 

the same information flow for all 

products, while reporting the needed 

details. 

Response 31: The Final Rule does not 

require a Disclaimer Message Set. 

Accordingly, CPSC does not intend to 

build a ‘‘disclaimer code’’ feature in the 

Product Registry. At this time, the 

Product Registry is intended to store 

certificate data for regulated products, 

and not to store data associated with 

products that do not require a 

certificate. 

Comment 32: Many commenters 

(RILA (114), AFSL (94), AAFA (111), 

TSC (86), NFA (95), APA (101), FOA 

(102), APE (105), and WFI (107)) state 

that the additional manual certification 

in the Product Registry is a redundant 

requirement and an unnecessary burden 

when using API or a CSV template to 

upload data in bulk. Commenters 

contend that manual certification 

requires an individual to go back into 

the Product Registry and manually 

certify each certificate with no 

additional consumer protection. 

RILA (114) recommends three 

alternatives to manual certification in 

the Product Registry: (1) requiring users 

to attest that the certificate data is true 

and correct upon initial access of the 

Product Registry; (2) requiring users to 

attest to the certificate data upon each 

instance of accessing the Product 

Registry; or (3) requiring importers to 

periodically (annually or biannually) 

attest to the certificate data upon login. 

The ASFL (94) similarly recommends 

requiring users to review and accept 

terms each time the company logs into 

the Product Registry. 

Comverex (88) recommends that the 

attestation requirement be satisfied 

when a user’s software enters certificate 

data into the Product Registry via an 

API, because their platform already 

confirms attestation by their clients 

regarding the data accuracy 

requirements of proposed 

§ 1110.11(a)(10). 

Finally, several commenters (AFSL 

(94), TA (97), JPMA (99)) state that 

additional manual certification is legally 

unnecessary, because § 1110.15 clearly 

states the legal responsibility of the 

certifier and § 1110.11 already requires 

identification of the certifier and 

attestation to the truth and accuracy of 

the information provided. Commenters 

argue that the Commission is amply 

protected and has more than adequate 

ability to enforce against a company 

with the authorities of 15 U.S.C. 

2068(a)(13), 19 U.S.C. 1592, and 18 

U.S.C. 1001. Lastly, the AFSL (94) 

writes that the Commission has not 

supported the need for additional 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1815 

manual certification by identifying an 

entity that purposely misstated 

information on a certificate and CPSC 

acknowledged multiple existing 

possible enforcement actions. 

Response 32: We agree with the 

commenters. As explained in section 

V.F of this preamble, CPSC will 

automate attestations for bulk certificate 

upload into the Product Registry via API 

or the CSV template and will not require 

individual attestation of certificates. 

Such attestation options will reduce the 

burden for industry, while also 

confirming for CPSC that importers are 

knowledgeable about the certificate 

information filed. Bulk attestation 

options will only apply to users with 

certification permissions. If certificate 

data is entered into the Product Registry 

by a user without certification 

permissions, such as by a third-party 

user, then a Business Account 

Administrator will have to manually 

certify the certificates, although groups 

of certificates can be certified at one 

time. Additionally, consistent with the 

SNPR, § 1110.15 of the Final Rule 

clarifies the legal responsibility for 

finished product certifiers, stating that 

finished product certifiers can rely on 

the testing or certification of other 

parties pursuant to part 1109, but 

remain legally responsible for the 

information on a finished product 

certificate, including its validity, 

accuracy, completeness, and 

availability. 

Comment 33: The PPAI (119) asks 

which entity is to attest to each 

certificate. 

Response 33: The attestation required 

in § 1110.11(a)(7) must be made by the 

entity responsible for product 

certification identified in § 1110.7, the 

defined ‘‘finished product certifier.’’ In 

the Product Registry, the finished 

product certifier is owner of the 

Business Account, meaning the 

importer, that must certify/attest that 

the information in the certificate is true 

and accurate. Trade partners entering 

data on behalf of an importer must also 

attest to the veracity of the information. 

Even when an importer allows another 

party to enter data, or to certify products 

in the Product Registry, the importer 

remains accountable for the information 

on a certificate. 

H. Section 1110.13 Certificate 

Availability 

Comment 34: Several commenters 

(Alta (93), JPMA (99), Boppy (109), 

Newell (110), and NAM (113)) oppose 

changes to § 1110.13 regarding the 

availability of certificates, arguing that 

the current ‘‘upon request’’ system is 

sufficient and that CPSC did not show 

that it is insufficient to justify the 

eFiling system. JPMA (99) argues that 

the current system reflects the 

legislative intent of Congress in enacting 

the CPSA. NAM (113) further argues 

that the ‘‘upon request’’ requirement in 

the CPSA is distinct from a ‘‘eFiling’’ 

requirement for certificates. 

Response 34: As explained in detail in 

the 2013 NPR, the SNPR, and in section 

V.G of this preamble, sections 14(g)(3) 

and 14(g)(4) of the CPSA provide CPSC 

the authority to require eFiling of 

certificates for imported consumer 

products. Certificates that are collected 

on an ad hoc basis, either as a hard-copy 

or a PDF copy via email or uploaded via 

the ACE Document Image System (DIS), 

are not in a data-usable format that can 

be processed into CPSC’s RAM and risk 

scored. To implement section 14(g)(4) of 

the CPSA, § 1110.13 of the Final Rule 

requires the eFiling of all certificates for 

regulated, imported finished products, 

including CPCs and GCCs, at the time of 

filing entry or entry summary, if both 

entry and entry summary are filed 

together. CPSC intends to use certificate 

data to risk score shipments and enforce 

its statutes and regulations. An eFiled 

certificate would meet the ‘‘accompany’’ 

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

CPSA and the requirement in 

§ 1110.13(a). 

Comment 35: The AAFA (111) 

disagrees with the SNPR’s proposal that 

each certificate must describe a single 

product, because in the apparel and 

footwear industry, one unique identifier 

is used for a single style that may have 

many variations that do not affect the 

overall certification. AAFA argues that 

no regulatory goal is served by requiring 

that each certificate describe a single 

product. 

Response 35: CPSC proposed in the 

SNPR that each certificate describe a 

single product to improve CPSC’s 

enforcement efforts. If a potential 

violation were found, then CPSC could 

take action against that one product. If 

multiple products appear on one 

certificate, this may disrupt importation 

of compliant products that appear on 

the same certificate as a potentially noncompliant product. 

However, regarding apparel and 

footwear, CPSC clarified in response to 

comment 53 in the SNPR that multiple 

models of apparel and footwear that 

were composite tested together are 

considered one product for certificate 

purposes. Therefore, apparel model 

variations that do not affect certification 

can appear on one certificate as long as 

there is no material change, which is 

defined in 16 CFR 1107.2 as ‘‘any 

change in the product’s design, 

manufacturing process, or sourcing of 

component parts that a manufacturer 

exercising due care knows, or should 

know, could affect the product’s ability 

to comply with the applicable rules, 

bans, standards, or regulations.’’ 

Comment 36: Two commenters (TA 

(97) and PPAI (119)) argue that CPSC is 

doubling the certificate burden by 

supposedly requiring certificate data to 

be entered in the Product Registry in 

one format while requiring certificates 

be provided to CPSC and furnished to 

distributors and retailers in another 

format such as PDF. This would require 

importers to maintain two parallel sets 

of effectively identical certificate data. 

And if manufacturers certify, instead of 

importers (as proposed by the TA (97)), 

then manufacturers would have to 

maintain a third set of certificate data 

containing the reference identifier to be 

submitted via ACE. 

Response 36: Importers using the 

Product Registry can download 

certificates in a PDF format, which can 

then be furnished to retailers and 

distributors. Users can also download 

certificate data in a CSV file, where each 

row of the spreadsheet is a certificate, 

which can be furnished to retailers and 

distributors. This functionality of the 

Product Registry will eliminate any 

alleged need for importers to maintain 

parallel sets of data. Moreover, while 

manufacturers can enter certificate data 

into the Product Registry and certify on 

behalf of an importer, the importer is 

legally responsible for the certificate 

data for products they import and must 

follow the requirements in part 1109, 

meaning they should exercise due care 

in reliance on a manufacturer’s testing 

and certification, as required in part 

1109. 

Comment 37: The PPAI (119) states 

the SNPR will create a troublesome 

administrative burden for firms, by 

increasing the number of certificates, 

housing the certificates in internal 

systems, and integrating the certificates 

with companies’ existing shipping 

software. Requirements of the SNPR 

will be especially challenging when 

‘‘kitting’’ or ‘‘bundling’’ multiple 

products into one product, such as a gift 

basket, because each product in the 

‘‘kitted’’ box would require a unique 

certificate. Comverex (89) states 

concerns about the potential for dozens 

of applicable test reports from various 

CPSC-accredited labs for ‘‘kitted’’ 

children’s products and requests 

confirmation from CPSC that the 

Product Registry, and the corresponding 

API, will support this type of data 

volume. 

Response 37: Like the SNPR, the Final 

Rule does not add any new certification 

requirements to products that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1816 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

previously did not require a certificate. 

Therefore, the number of certificates an 

importer must issue and associated 

records remain the same. And, as it is 

today, importers may provide one 

certificate for ‘‘kitted’’ or ‘‘bundled’’ 

products, covering all individual 

products, or provide multiple 

certificates for the product, where each 

certificate covers an individual product 

in the ‘‘kit’’ or ‘‘bundle.’’ Furthermore, 

CPSC is not dictating that importers 

integrate certificates with existing 

shipping software. CPSC is providing 

the Product Registry to make 

management of certificates and 

certificate data more efficient for any 

importer. Certificate data entered into 

the Product Registry can contain 

multiple citations and testing 

laboratories. Therefore, CPSC designed 

the Product Registry to accommodate 

the volume of data for ‘‘kitted’’ and 

‘‘bundled’’ products. 

Comment 38: RILA (114) asks for 

clarity regarding ‘‘up to 24 hours before 

arrival’’ and recommends that CPSC 

clarify that certificate information can 

be transmitted in a timeframe prior to 

arrival consistent with CBP’s regulations 

and as late as 24 hours prior to arrival. 

Response 38: CPSC interprets ‘‘up to 

24 hours before arrival’’ to mean as late 

as 24 hours prior to arrival, in 

agreement with the commenter. This 

means that the PGA Message Set must 

be filed with the entry or entry 

summary, if both are filed together, as 

late as 24 hours prior to arrival. 

Comment 39: RILA (114) and AAFA 

(111) recommend a 48-hour response 

time to provide additional 

documentation to align with existing 

programs using PGA Message Sets. 

Furthermore, RILA (114) and AAFA 

(111) question what additional 

information a paper or electronic 

certificate could provide, because all the 

information should be provided via 

eFiling. 

Response 39: CPSC retains a 24-hour 

response time for additional 

documentation. The Commission 

interprets the word ‘‘immediately’’ 

consistent with other CPSC rules, to 

mean ‘‘within 24 hours.’’ 78 FR 28080; 

28089; 88 FR 85760, 85782. Therefore, 

CPSC disagrees with extending the 

response time to 48 hours. Because 

eFiled certificates replace paper 

certificates for imported products, CPSC 

would typically only request supporting 

documents, such as test reports, from an 

importer to verify the data on an eFiled 

certificate. However, CPSC could ask for 

either a paper certificate or test reports 

to validate the information on the 

certificate, or when the required 

certificate is not eFiled. CPSC and CBP 

retain the right to request a certificate, 

but agree that if a certificate is eFiled, 

the need for an additional certificate is 

unlikely. 

I. Section 1110.15 Legal Responsibility 

for Certificate Information 

Comment 40: JPMA (99) supports the 

proposed § 1110.15 that another entity 

may maintain an electronic certificate 

platform on behalf of the certifier. 

Response 40: The Final Rule retains 

this provision. 

J. Section 1110.17 Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

Comment 41: The JPMA (99) writes 

that the proposed § 1110.17 maintains 

the recordkeeping requirement from the 

2013 NPR. CPCs already have a five-year 

record retention period. 

Response 41: Pursuant to 16 CFR part 

1107, CPCs and supporting records 

already have a five-year record retention 

period. The Final Rule retains the 

proposal that GCC’s and supporting 

records also be maintained for five 

years. We note that for imported 

products, a five-year record retention 

period is consistent with CBP’s 

recordkeeping requirement. 

K. Special Use Case: De Minimis and 

International Mail Shipments 

Comment 42: Two commenters (TA 

(97) and NAM (113)) request that CPSC 

revise the scope of the proposed rule to 

explicitly exclude any noncommercial 

consumer import of products into the 

United States, whether or not for 

personal use or enjoyment, and 

expressly state a lowered de minimis 

level. By not doing so, they assert that 

any gift sent as a mail shipment from 

outside the United States would require 

a certificate, imposing a burden on a 

consumer sending the product. 

Furthermore, the commenters claim that 

CPSC would have no way of 

determining non-conformance to the 

eFiling requirement for international 

mail shipments that may arrive before 

CPSC could review them, resulting in an 

increased burden to the United States 

Postal Service (USPS) and penalizing 

those entities who do comply. 

Furthermore, the NCBFAA (122) states 

that importers of de minimis shipments 

are unlikely to be able to manage the 

Product Registry process and will rely 

on the Full Message Set, which they 

assert will be a costly and unrealistic 

undertaking for low-valued shipments. 

NCBFAA encourages CPSC to work with 

the trade industry to overcome these 

challenges. 

Response 42: The CPSA does not 

provide a de minimis exemption for 

certificates. eFiling requirements apply 

to regulated finished products, 

regardless of value. Importers of 

regulated finished products requiring a 

certificate that are eligible for the de 

minimis duty exemption under 19 

U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) must use ET 86 to 

file CPSC’s Message Set at entry. 

However, the Final Rule does not 

require eFiling of a certificate for 

noncommercial products sent from one 

consumer overseas to another consumer 

in the United States, such as a gift. 

CPSC agrees that the consumer sending 

the shipment will not have the ability to 

obtain the certificate. Brokers or carriers 

facilitating these shipments may, but are 

not required to, file a Disclaimer 

Message Set, based on the guidance 

provided by CPSC, to inform CPSC that 

the shipment does not require a 

certificate. For non-gift shipments sent 

via international mail, the sender will 

need to file a certificate into the Product 

Registry before the shipment arrives in 

the United States. Lastly, CPSC is 

committed to working with the trade 

industry, including those who primarily 

import de minimis shipments. CPSC 

continues to develop improvements to 

the Product Registry to make entering 

data for mail shipments more efficient. 

Comment 43: PeopleForBikes (112) 

supports the expanded definition of 

‘‘importer’’ that clarifies that, in the case 

of a direct-to-consumer shipment, the 

importer is responsible for certification 

and not the end consumer. The 

commenter states that too many lowquality and inadequately tested 

products, such as lithium-ion batteries, 

are currently being imported into the 

United States under the de minimis 

exemption, creating unreasonable and 

unacceptable safety risks for consumers. 

Response 43: CPSC agrees with the 

commenter but notes that lithium-ion 

batteries used in micromobility 

products are not subject to a CPSC 

mandatory safety rule at this time. 

However, the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

in the Final Rule will impose the eFiling 

requirement for CPSC regulated finished 

products on the importer, as defined in 

the rule, even for de minimis shipments. 

For de minimis shipments, the importer 

for purposes of CPSC’s certificate 

requirements is a party eligible to make 

entry for the finished products pursuant 

to CBP statutes and regulations, who 

may be an owner, purchaser, consignee, 

or authorized customs broker. Also, 

because a consumer could fall within 

the definition of purchaser or consignee, 

the definition of ‘‘importer’’ continues 

to state that for the purposes of this rule, 

CPSC will not typically consider an end 

consumer purchasing or receiving 

products for personal use or enjoyment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1817 

30See, e.g., CBP’s website listing 13 other agency 

CATAIRs and discussing CPSC’s Beta Pilot, 

available at: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair. 

to be the importer responsible for 

certification. 

L. Special Use Case: Foreign Trade 

Zones (FTZs) 

Comment 44: Three commenters 

(RILA (114), NAFTZ (96, 121, 127), and 

IKEA (123, 130)) state importers who 

import products via an FTZ will need 

additional time to build out 

infrastructure and troubleshoot issues 

prior to implementation. RILA (114) 

states that the FTZs’ ‘‘first in first out’’ 

(FIFO) method can only attach the latest 

certificate that is associated with an 

article/supplier combination and not the 

specific certificate at an actual inventory 

layer level. The NAFTZ (96, 121, 127) 

and IKEA (123) state that the FIFO 

method (including the FTZ Inventory 

and Recordkeeping System) uses a 

Unique Identifier (UIN) for virtual 

inventory and has no relationship to the 

compliance data being reported. RILA 

(114) claims that CPSC conflates the use 

of FIFO as accounting methodology and 

virtual inventory practice. The 

commenters claim that FTZ importers 

will require significant changes to their 

current software to comply with the 

SNPR. 

IKEA (123) further states that the 

requirement to file certificates at entry 

summary is not compatible with FTZ 

procedures, because those goods would 

have already been shipped to stores and 

possibly sold, negating CPSC’s ability to 

place the goods on hold. IKEA (123) 

adds that the eFiling requirement 

undermines Congress’s intent of FTZs 

and many global companies may be 

forced to stop using FTZs for CPSC 

regulated products, resulting in millions 

of dollars of costs and increased prices 

for consumers. IKEA states that CPSC is 

preventing companies from storing noncompliant goods inside an FTZ in order 

to bring them into compliance. IKEA 

(123) encourages CPSC to work with the 

CBP Border Interagency Executive 

Council (BIEC) to build a single window 

concept inclusive of FTZs and provide 

a transition period of 24 months to 

implement eFiling for FTZ products. 

The NAFTZ (96 & 121) proposes three 

alternatives for goods imported via an 

FTZ: (1) CPSC accepts the data elements 

associated with the latest certificate of 

the UIN associated with the weekly 

entry summary Customs Form 7501; (2) 

specifically for manufacturing/ 

production in FTZs, allow the importer 

to register the certificate with a location 

for exam at the time of manufacture and 

use a Disclaimer Message Set on entry 

type 06; (3) delay eFiling requirement 

for FTZs until CBP has the capability to 

accept the certificate on the FTZ 

admission (CBP Form E214), which is 

the only opportunity to match a 

certificate with the physical items. 

Response 44: The Final Rule retains 

the proposal in the SNPR that FTZ 

importers must provide the actual 

certificate for the shipment but provides 

a 24-month effective date for entries for 

consumption or warehousing from an 

FTZ. Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA states 

that ‘‘every certificate required under 

this section shall accompany the 

applicable product or shipment of 

products covered by the same 

certificate.’’ Therefore, FTZ importers 

should already be tracking the actual 

certificate of the product and providing 

those certificates upon request to CPSC. 

For eFiling to fulfill its purpose, CPSC 

requires the actual certificate data so 

that the agency can effectively use such 

data for targeting in CPSC’s RAM. 

IKEA (123) is incorrect that the 

certificate must be filed with entry 

summary. The Final Rule requires 

eFiling certificates for imported 

consumer products with CBP at the time 

of filing the CBP entry, or the time of 

filing the entry and entry summary, if 

both are filed together. Moreover, 

nothing in the Final Rule prevents a 

company from admitting non-compliant 

goods into an FTZ for the purpose of 

bringing those goods into compliance. 

Finished product certificates are only 

required when entering goods for 

consumption or warehousing into 

United States customs territory from an 

FTZ. Moreover, regarding IKEA’s 

observation that products entered from 

an FTZ might already be sold, all 

entered merchandise that is released 

from CBP custody is released 

conditionally, meaning that CBP has 30 

days in which to demand redelivery if 

an applicable requirement, including a 

PGA Message Set requirement, has not 

been satisfied. 

Of the three options for FTZ imports 

suggested by the NAFTZ (96 & 121), the 

third option appears to present the best 

solution. The first option is not 

compliant with section 14(g)(3) of the 

CPSA, which requires the actual 

certificate to accompany the shipment. 

The second option does not allow for 

effective risk assessment and targeting. 

CPSC’s RAM needs the data input from 

the certificate for risk assessment of the 

entry. A Disclaimer Message Set for 

entry type 06 would inform CPSC that 

a certificate was entered in the Product 

Registry, but CPSC would not be able to 

match a certificate to the entry and 

could not use the data for automated 

risk assessment. 

The third option suggested by the 

NAFTZ, to delay eFiling for FTZ 

imports until CBP has the capability to 

accept certificates for FTZ admissions, 

may present a solution, because eFiling 

of certificates on the CBP Form 214 at 

the time of admission, which is before 

entry, meets the requirement of section 

14(g)(4), ‘‘the electronic filing of 

certificates [. . .] up to 24 hours before 

arrival of an imported product.’’ 

Accordingly, the Final Rule provides a 

24-month effective date for consumer 

products imported into an FTZ and 

subsequently entered for consumption 

or warehousing. CPSC understands that 

the primary delay for eFiling associated 

with entries from an FTZ is related to 

software solutions. Based on CPSC’s 

experience with eFiling for all other 

entry types, technical solutions 

involving software are feasible. 

Accordingly, this longer effective date 

provides a significant amount of time 

for CPSC, CBP, and industry to identify 

technical solutions and develop the 

necessary software to bring entries from 

an FTZ into compliance with the Final 

Rule, as further explained in section VI 

of this preamble. 

M. Technical, Information Security, 

Enforcement 

Comment 45: JPMA (99) claims that 

CPSC is creating its own unique ‘‘ACEindependent’’ system different from an 

integrated system with CBP and asserts 

that an ‘‘eFiled certificate’’ should align 

with an electronic certificate that is 

submitted via ACE. JPMA (99) argues 

that the Commission should not 

substitute its requirements for those of 

the Commissioner of Customs and 

nullify the requirement that certificates 

be available ‘‘upon request’’ by CPSC 

and CBP. 

Response 45: CPSC is not creating a 

unique ‘‘ACE-independent’’ system. 

CBP developed the PGA Message Set 

specifically to implement the ‘‘single 

window’’ for collecting all trade-related 

data required by partner government 

agencies. At least 13 other PGAs have 

already worked with CBP to implement 

their own Message Sets and CPSC 

continues to work with CBP to 

implement eFiling.30 CPSC has been 

developing its Message Set alongside 

CBP, during the Alpha Pilot, Beta Pilot, 

the expanded Beta Pilot, and in 

preparation for this Final Rule. 

CPSC also is not substituting its PGA 

requirements for those of the 

Commissioner of Customs. CPSC 

consulted CBP at every stage of 

rulemaking, as required by section 14, 

and conducted pilots in collaboration 

with CBP. The Product Registry is an 

optional database for managing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1818 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

certificate data that supplements the 

PGA Message Set. Stakeholders asked 

for a Product Registry in 2013 after 

publication of the NPR. CPSC has spent 

the last 11 years working with CBP and 

industry to develop an eFiling solution 

consistent with CBP systems and 

procedures and less burdensome for the 

trade. 

Comment 46: Galaxy (90) asks 

whether their company will be required 

to acquire new software to send the GCC 

information to their broker. 

Response 46: The Final Rule does not 

require businesses to change software. 

Some businesses will choose to use the 

Product Registry to enter certificate 

data, and then provide a certificate 

reference number to their broker upon 

importation of regulated consumer 

products, while larger companies with 

more complicated import procedures 

will likely choose to update their 

software to automate data transfer. 

Accordingly, each importer should 

decide with their broker whether to use 

the Full Message Set or the Reference 

Message Set when filing certificate data 

with an entry, and whether providing 

this information would be more efficient 

with new software to send certificate 

information to their broker. 

Comment 47: Hansen (115) states that 

most testing of bicycles takes place in 

Asia and asks whether foreign testing 

laboratories will be given access to the 

Product Registry or ACE to upload data. 

Response 47: The Product Registry is 

based on Business Accounts created by 

the importer, who may invite any third 

party (including foreign testing 

laboratories) to enter certificate data into 

the Product Registry on their behalf. 

Therefore, testing laboratories can have 

access to upload data into the Product 

Registry if invited by an importer. 

Testing laboratories will not enter data 

into ACE on behalf of importers. 

Comment 48: ITI (125) remarks that 

the import-centric registration 

methodology in the Product Registry 

will create a ‘‘logistics nightmare’’ for 

U.S. companies that use information 

and communications technology (ICT) 

equipment and finds the functioning of 

the tool unclear. ITI (125) asks whether 

a broker that is importing another 

manufacturer’s laptop for business use 

or independent sale would be able to 

freely search the Product Registry or 

would have to be granted viewing 

rights. 

Response 48: The Product Registry 

functions on Business Accounts created 

by the importer, who could invite other 

users from trade parties, such as 

brokers, to collaborate. The Product 

Registry is not publicly searchable; an 

importer would need to grant 

permission to other users to view a data 

collection. The importer is responsible 

for providing certificate identifiers to a 

broker for Reference Message Sets 

associated with every imported 

shipment. CPSC’s website contains a 

Product Registry Guide, along with 

other important background materials 

on eFiling, at https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

eFiling-Document-Library. 

Comment 49: The TA (97) asserts that 

CPSC should ensure that the Product 

Registry and all data systems used in 

support of the rule maintain an 

appropriate level of data security. The 

TA states that only a few entities have 

accessed the Product Registry and these 

programs do not reflect the complex 

scenarios that will occur when the 

program is fully rolled out. The TA (97) 

also states that CPSC did not adequately 

respond in the SNPR regarding the 

security of the Product Registry, when 

CPSC wrote that it does not prohibit 

‘‘password protection for certificates 

furnished to retailers and distributors.’’ 

Response 49: The Product Registry 

uses a range of data security techniques 

and best practices to protect user and 

business information. Some notable 

security features include: 

• All eFiled certificate data is 

encrypted at rest (encrypted storage) 

and in flight (Secure Sockets Layer and 

other secure protocols). 

• Authentication to the Product 

Registry is handled by a web access 

management platform that requires 

verified ownership of a valid email 

address, which includes standard 

intruder detection and account recovery 

protocols. 

• The Product Registry utilizes a 

token-based authorization scheme and 

access controls for accounts and roles. 

These determine level-of-access 

permissions for application components 

and for individual data requests. 

• Data is segregated by Business 

Account and by Product Collections. 

Only users authorized by the Business 

Account Administrators can access the 

collection-specific data. 

Comment 50: The TA (97) notes that 

CPSC does not address in the SNPR how 

the risk score is compiled, maintained, 

and notified, and requests more 

information on the framework to allow 

for review, understanding, and 

comment. The AFSL (94) writes that 

confidentiality about the factors that the 

CPSC uses to target shipments for 

examination is counterproductive. The 

ASFL argues that if CPSC publicizes and 

demonstrates that consistent 

compliance with certification and other 

requirements yields fewer examinations 

and detentions, this will better meet the 

Commission’s mission of a more 

compliant marketplace. Similarly, RILA 

(114) and NCBFAA (122) recommend 

CPSC develop a trusted trader program, 

such as the CBP/CPSC Importer SelfAssessment Product Safety Pilot (ISA– 

PS) program, so trusted partners are not 

unduly targeted and could be exempted 

from eFiling, and so that CPSC 

resources can be directed to higher risk 

shipments. 

Response 50: The RAM risk scores 

shipments using a logarithmic model 

based on data received from sources 

including the entry document and, once 

fully implemented, from the PGA 

Message Set. CPSC does not share how 

the risk score is calculated or the risk 

score itself. This information is for 

official use only, because it is directly 

related to CPSC’s targeting and 

enforcement. CPSC disagrees that 

confidential treatment of this 

information is counterproductive, 

because its publication could allow 

nefarious actors to avoid compliance 

with CPSC regulations. 

Importers should consistently file 

accurate certificate data to avoid 

unnecessary examination holds for 

compliant products. With use of the 

certificate data, CPSC can improve its 

targeting models to more effectively 

target shipments with potentially 

significant violations. CPSC will be able 

to review the certificate data prior to 

shipment arrival, instead of needing to 

place a shipment on hold to examine it 

for an administrative violation. 

Certificate data will be one aspect of risk 

scoring. Staff anticipate that importers 

who consistently provide compliant 

certificate data will see a reduction in 

their risk scores, which may result in 

fewer holds for exams, fewer warehouse 

charges, and a greater facilitation of 

trade. At the moment, CPSC is not 

developing a trusted-trader program, 

because compliant importers may 

experience benefits, such as lower risk 

scores, from filing compliant certificate 

data. 

Comment 51: The AFSL (94) states 

that the conclusion of the Certificate 

Study aligns with AFSL’s own research, 

conclusions, development of voluntary 

standards, and testing. The AFSL (94) 

strongly supports the eFiling program 

and the CPSC’s RAM program and 

strongly encourages CPSC to focus its 

enforcement activities more specifically 

and aggressively on those companies 

with a history of non-compliance or on 

those companies without an established 

history of providing a certificate within 

24 hours of a CPSC request. ASFL 

argues that established and proven 

testing and certification programs 

should be considered as a ‘‘mitigating 

factor’’ in a company’s RAM risk profile. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1819 

31This number of filings is broken down as 

follows: 2.3 million Product Registry filings, 1.7 

million Full Message Sets, 46.5 million Reference 

Message Sets, and 7.0 million Disclaimer Message 

Sets. 

32The values presented are rounded, so the 

results on each side of the equation may not exactly 

match. 

Response 51: CPSC will use results 

from the Certificate Study and Beta Pilot 

to improve its risk scoring in the RAM 

and to more effectively target noncompliant importers. Certificate data 

will be one aspect of risk scoring. Staff 

anticipate that companies and 

organizations with established and 

proven testing and certification 

programs will benefit from lowered risk 

scores by consistently providing 

compliant certificate data. 

Comment 52: The AAFA (114) and 

RILA (126) request that CPSC clarify 

whether eFiled certificate data will be a 

condition of admissibility or whether 

errors will cause shipment delays. The 

commenters state that if eFiling errors 

will cause delay, this could dramatically 

disrupt the free movement of trade and 

increase burden on importers. 

Response 52: The lack of a required 

eFiled certificate, or the presence of a 

false or misleading certificate, will affect 

a shipment’s risk score, resulting in a 

higher likelihood of the shipment being 

held for an exam. CPSC has the 

authority to refuse admission of 

products that are not accompanied by a 

certificate or are accompanied by a false 

or misleading certificate. 15 U.S.C. 

2066(a)(2). As a matter of enforcement 

discretion, at least in the initial stages 

of eFiling, CPSC in general does not 

intend to request that CBP deny entry of 

products into the United States solely 

based on a failure to provide eFiled 

certificate data; however, CPSC fully 

intends to enforce eFiling requirements 

by taking enforcement action, such as 

requesting that CBP initiate seizure of 

noncompliant products. 

N. Costs, Burdens, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) and Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) 

Comment 53: Commenters TA (97), 

JPMA (99), Boppy (109), and NAM (113) 

express concerns about the cost of 

technology needed to implement the 

Final Rule, including costs to update 

technology, programing to the PGA 

Message Sets, and setting up API 

connections. 

Response 53: Commenters are 

concerned about costs, but they do not 

offer estimates of what the technological 

costs would be. CPSC built the Product 

Registry to reduce costs for importers, 

who are not required to update software 

to eFile certificates. The SNPR 

estimated that a portion of mainly larger 

firms may opt to use API integration 

with the Product Registry for their data 

systems and the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) 

provided an estimate of building such a 

system as $9,750 plus $2,880 in annual 

maintenance. CPSC also queried 

software developers, who plan to 

develop an API integration with the 

Product Registry, which would be 

covered through broker fees. Larger 

importers may still choose to build and 

maintain an API integration to interface 

with the Product Registry. This is, 

however, not a requirement, as the 

Product Registry enables users to upload 

a single certificate at a time and 

multiple certificates via a bulk upload. 

Additionally, the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in section 

VII of this preamble presents an analysis 

of startup costs—the initial labor and 

technology investments small firms 

need to make to prepare for eFiling— 

that estimates an average cost per firm 

of $1,086 or an equivalent burden of 20 

hours, which CPSC deems as nonsignificant for the typical small firm. 

The Commission solicited comments on 

the number of firms that may choose to 

invest in new technology due to the 

SNPR and estimates of the size of those 

investments, but responses offered no 

specific data. As such, CPSC retains its 

estimates of technology investments per 

firm. 

Comment 54: Commenters Alta (93), 

AFSL (94), Boppy (109), and PPAI (119) 

allege increased costs associated with 

additional staff. Boppy (109) states an 

additional $150,000 in costs for 

technology, staff training, fees, and 

manually filing certificates, but offers no 

itemization of these costs. 

Response 54: Without a breakdown of 

the costs, CPSC cannot offer a more 

specific response. However, CPSC 

estimates that importers will bear the 

burden for the staff hours comprising 

certificate creation, disclosure, and 

recordkeeping, which are already 

required by statute and regulation. 

Importers would also bear the burden of 

staff time for entering and transmitting 

certificate data to their brokers. CPSC 

estimates that the average eFilingrelated activity, including entering 

every type of message set and the bulk 

upload of certificates to the Product 

Registry, will take 0.37 minutes (22 

seconds) per filing, on average. CPSC 

estimates that importers will conduct 

57.5 million total filings annually.31

We concur that the overall burden to 

importers can be considered significant 

if presented in the aggregate, for two 

main reasons: first, the large number of 

filings; and second, the potentially 

elevated one-time start up investments 

in technology, organizational changes, 

and staff training. However, individual 

importers will only bear the burden for 

the certificates they file. On average, an 

importer will conduct 217 certificate 

filings per year, which will take about 

1.34 hours to enter and transfer (217 × 

22 seconds/3,600 seconds = 1.34 

hours).32 At an hourly rate of $33.12 for 

office and admin wages, this represents 

a cost of $44.29 per year per importer 

in staff hourly burden. Additional 

startup investments are not an annual 

cost, but an investment that will last for 

many years. After annualizing this onetime investment, CPSC expects the 

average firm to incur out of pocket cost 

that represents a non-significant share of 

the annual revenue of a typical firm. 

Comment 55: Commenters Alta (93), 

JPMA (99), Boppy (109), and PPAI (119) 

state that the burden of additional staff, 

technology, and broker charges would 

impact small importers. JPMA (99) 

states that the number of responses in 

the IRFA would be many times greater, 

while Alta (93) states that increased cost 

from using customs brokers would 

cause undue financial hardship for 

small firms. 

Response 55: Since 2008, testing and 

certification of products regulated by 

CPSC has been required under section 

14 of the CPSA. The CPSA does not 

exclude small businesses from 

certification requirements. New 

requirements in the Final Rule include 

extended recordkeeping for GCCs and 

eFiling certificates for imported, 

regulated products, which CPSC 

estimated in the 2023 SNPR, and has 

updated in section VII of this Final Rule 

preamble. The Commission’s SNPR 

analysis provided an estimate of the 

number of responses that result from a 

detailed list of data-driven assumptions. 

Without additional information from the 

commenters showing the inaccuracy of 

the assumptions used, CPSC cannot 

produce a different estimate of the 

number of responses. 

The FRFA in section VII of this 

preamble shows that the impact on 

small firms may not be as large as 

indicated by the commenter; instead, 

the cost impact is not significant 

because it is well below one percent of 

the revenue of a typical small firm and 

represents a fraction of one percent of 

the average value of shipments imported 

that require eFiled certificates. 

Comment 56: The Commission 

requested in the SNPR that firms 

comment on filing fees that importers 

may bear from eFiling certificates with 

CBP using the Full or Reference PGA 

Message Set. JPMA (99), Boppy (109), 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

and NAM (113) express concern that 

eFiling certificates would require 

additional filing fees. Only JPMA (99) 

provides estimates of filing fees, 

asserting that a small manufacturer 

would have to pay $75,000 in filing fees, 

but did not indicate the number of 

message sets that the small business 

would file annually. JPMA (99) also 

wrote that CPSC did not adequately 

model the cost of using third-party 

service providers or customs brokers to 

comply with the rule. 

Response 56: CPSC does not expect to 

charge filing fees for use of the Product 

Registry. Brokers typically charge a fee 

per entry or per entry line that is filed, 

and each entry line may contain one or 

more product certificates. Staff 

contacted less than 10 brokers involved 

in the Beta Pilot and inquired about fees 

that brokers would charge for eFiling. 

Most brokers charge a maximum fee per 

entry which reduces the filing fees per 

certificate for firms that file multiple 

certificates per entry. We assume that 

most firms would choose to file as many 

product certificates as possible per 

entry, and this action will significantly 

lower the cost per individual product 

certificate filed. CSPC estimates that the 

average fee per filing under these 

conditions will be $0.77. 

CPSC does not know how many 

message sets the small manufacturer 

mentioned by JPMA (99) would file to 

reach the estimated filing fees, but on 

average, the filing volume of most small 

importers would comprise a relatively 

small number of Full and Reference 

Message Sets in total. CPSC’s analysis 

assumes that small importers would file 

10 percent of the responses (i.e. message 

set filings) the average importer files. 

Additionally, CPSC expects that the 

impact of filing fees as a percentage of 

the overall value of the shipment will be 

very small. Thus, CPSC expects that 

filing fees will not create a significant 

burden on the average small importer. 

Comment 57: Commenters TA (97) 

and Boppy (109) state that CPSC 

underestimates the burden of startup 

staff training required to implement the 

rule. For example, TA (97) urges that 

CPSC reassess the estimated cost burden 

for implementation of the eFiling 

Product Registry, to include an accurate 

representative set of values that 

properly reflects the cost to implement 

eFiling to manufacturers, retailers, 

distributors and other entities who fall 

within the scope of part 1110. 

Response 57: CPSC conducted a Beta 

Pilot between October 2023 and June 

2024. Staff observed startup hours for 

participation in the eFiling Beta Pilot 

and the initial organization required to 

eFile. Staff observed a median startup 

time of about 60 staff hours per 

importer. While observing variability in 

startup times across participants, CPSC 

expects that as more importers and 

third-party service providers become 

adept in the eFiling process, the startup 

hours for remaining importers will 

decrease over time. CPSC expects a 

similar experience for firms that did not 

participate in the pilot but are required 

to eFile. CPSC notes the startup burden 

is a one-time investment that would 

allow importers to conduct eFiling 

operations for many years. To produce 

a more accurate accounting of costs, 

CPSC annualizes the startup burden 

over the useful life of the investments. 

Additionally, the Final Rule has an 

effective date of 18 months for most 

imported products (and 24 months for 

products entered for consumption or 

warehousing from an FTZ), a period 

over which the burden will be 

effectively spread. CPSC also expects 

that improvements derived from process 

learning will reduce the cost per firm 

over this period. 

Comment 58: Two commenters, Alta 

(93) and NAM (113), suggest that CPSC 

underestimates the eFiling burden for 

each importation. NAM (113) states that 

a 20-second burden per Reference 

Message Set and a 1-minute burden per 

Full Message Set is not realistic given 

the large number of certifications for 

every product. 

Response 58: Staff revised eFiling 

burden estimates, in part based on 

information from Beta Pilot participants. 

The revised estimate is 15.3 seconds per 

Reference Message Set and 4.75 minutes 

per Full Reference Message Set. 

Reference Message Sets are simplified 

messages (primarily composed of a 

Unique ID) that link products being 

imported to certificate data already 

uploaded into CPSC’s Product Registry. 

The eFiling estimate is based on the 

time it takes to enter and transmit a 

Reference Message Set, applying a 

learning curve to data provided by Beta 

Pilot participants. This learning curve 

enables staff to assess the impact of 

learning efficiencies in processing 

times. Sections . and VIII of this 

preamble contain additional detail on 

the revised eFiling burden analysis for 

the Final Rule. Staff’s analysis applies a 

similar learning curve to Full Message 

Sets, which results in a higher 

processing time of 4.75 minutes per 

message (increased from one minute in 

the SNPR), which is consistent with 

NAM’s (113) assessment. 

Comment 59: Hansen (115) states that 

CPSC underestimated the burden of 

putting certificate data into the Product 

Registry using a CSV spreadsheet, citing 

an example of bike distributors that 

carry tens of thousands of bicycle parts. 

Response 59: As stated in response to 

comment 6, the bicycle standard is a 

finished product standard that does not 

regulate individual parts of bikes sold 

separately. However, other CPSC 

regulations, such as limits on lead 

content, lead in paint, and small parts, 

could apply to children’s bikes and 

parts of children’s bikes sold separately. 

Certificates can be entered in bulk into 

the Product Registry via a CSV 

spreadsheet. During the Beta Pilot, 

importers demonstrated that they could 

enter numerous certificates into the 

Product Registry using the CSV 

spreadsheet, resulting in uploads of a 

fraction of a second per certificate. Staff 

conservatively estimate that it takes 8.7 

seconds per certificate to upload multicertificate data into the Product 

Registry. 

Comment 60: JPMA (99) states that no 

statistically validated record exists to 

justify the burden assumptions for filing 

Message Sets. The commenter states that 

the assumptions are not realistic. JPMA 

(99) also writes that one small-business 

member advised that they would accrue 

an extra $30,000 for document 

preparation and $40,000 for document 

prep full headcount at factory. 

Response 60: The Commission’s 

economic analysis is based on available 

information and states the basis for each 

assumption. Most recordkeeping in this 

information collection is mandated by 

sections 14(a) and 16(b) of the CPSA 

and within CPSC’s regulations in part 

1107, 1109, and the existing part 1110 

rule. Typically, non-children’s product 

regulations contain a three-year 

recordkeeping requirement; children’s 

products require a 5-year record 

retention period pursuant to part 1107. 

The Final Rule increases record 

retention to five years for general use 

products, as proposed. Both the SNPR 

and the Final Rule address the 

additional two years of recordkeeping, 

as well as record keeping for additional 

data items. Note that for eFiled 

certificates, CBP already has a 5-year 

record retention requirement for import 

documentation. 

Comment 61: Alta (93) states that the 

manual nature of submitting data entry 

into ACE could lead to human errors 

and delays. The commenter alleges that 

repeated filings of certificates via ACE 

would be complex, expensive, and 

labor-intensive for a business such as 

theirs with a small staff. The commenter 

also states that expensive automation 

and time-consuming processes would 

cause undue hardship to small 

businesses such as theirs. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1821 

Response 61: The Final Rule does not 

require repeated filing of the same 

certificate data into ACE. CPSC built the 

Product Registry at the request of 

importers to reduce repetitive data 

entry. Thus, importers have the option 

of loading certificate data into CPSC’s 

Product Registry once before filing an 

entry, either manually or through batch 

uploads, and then filing a short PGA 

Reference Message Set that links to the 

certificate data in the Product Registry 

each time the product is imported 

thereafter. Using a Reference Message 

Set allows importers to reference the 

same certificate data multiple times, 

each time the product is imported. 

CPSC estimates that over 96 percent of 

importers will use the Product Registry 

and Reference Message Sets. 

Accordingly, using the Product Registry 

will simplify import filings, reduce 

costs, and reduce filing errors. In 

practice, most importers file entries and 

PGA Message Sets through a customs 

broker, who would only need to be 

supplied with the Unique ID for the 

Reference Message Set that links the 

imported product with certificate data 

in the Product Registry. Use of the 

Product Registry is free of charge. 

Importers may also use a Full Message 

Set that does require entering all 

certificate data for each regulated, 

imported consumer product. Importers 

that want to gain eFiling experience 

before the effective date of the Final 

Rule can participate in the expanded 

Beta Pilot, as discussed in section II of 

this preamble. 

Comment 621: JPMA (99) states that 

that no ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution 

should be proposed and that CPSC 

should create a less burdensome 

integrated system with CBP. 

Response 62: CPSC did not propose, 

nor is it testing, a one-size-fits-all 

approach. Importers have two options 

for eFiling certificates, a Full Message 

Set or a Reference PGA Message Set and 

use of the Product Registry. As 

described in the SNPR and in this Final 

Rule, CPSC has worked on eFiling 

solutions with CBP and with industry 

for over ten years. CPSC undertook 

creation of the Product Registry at the 

request of importers who specifically 

asked for an IT solution that would 

reduce burden, the need for duplicate 

data entry, and errors. The IT solutions 

for CPSC are now ready to be 

implemented. CPSC’s solutions are 

integrated with CBP systems, and CBP 

has participated in the Alpha and Beta 

Pilots, and has been specifically 

consulted regarding the NPR, SNPR, and 

the Final Rule. 

Comment 63: RILA (126) asserts that 

the burden estimate in the June 4, 2024, 

Federal Register notice (June 4 notice) 

regarding the expanded Beta Pilot test 

(89 FR 47922) does not account for the 

full time to support gathering and 

submitting data elements and only 

reflects the burden of gathering and 

submitting data for a limited quantity of 

products and their corresponding 

fillings. RILA states that their members’ 

approximations of the burden hours per 

importer are nearly double or more of 

the Commission’s estimates, depending 

on the overall size of the retailer and 

volume and variety of imported goods. 

RILA references two members that 

participated in the Beta Pilot; one 

estimated an annual burden of 

approximately 500 hours and another 

estimated an annual burden of 15,700 

hours. 

Response 63: One purpose of the 

eFiling Beta Pilot was to gain experience 

with the burden that importers may 

incur. CPSC gained useful information 

from the limited quantity of products 

and filings made during the Beta Pilot. 

Staff advise that the burden of gathering 

and submitting data elements during the 

Beta Pilot only reflects the burden for a 

limited quantity of products and 

corresponding filings; most participants 

did not choose to eFile certificates for 

all of their imported, regulated 

products. Additionally, staff observed 

significant variation in the burden 

expressed by Beta Pilot participants and 

in the number of certificates that 

participants filed. 

For the Final Rule, CPSC provides 

revised burden estimates in sections VII 

and VIII of this preamble, in part using 

information learned from the Beta Pilot. 

This revised analysis demonstrates that 

the burden of the Final Rule is not large 

on a per importer basis. However, even 

if the burden of the Final Rule was 

much greater than the inputs used in the 

revised analysis, burden estimates per 

firm would still be non-significant. 

O. Legal Comments 

Comment 64: Boppy (109) alleges that 

the SNPR is unconstitutional, asserting 

that the manner in which the rule is 

being promulgated violates the U.S 

Constitution’s Separation of Powers and 

Appointments Clause because the CPSC 

Commissioners’ for-cause removal 

protections are unconstitutional. Boppy 

states that the Supreme Court has 

recognized only two limited exceptions 

to the President’s otherwise 

‘‘unrestricted’’ removal power: (1) an 

exception for inferior officers with 

limited duties and no policymaking or 

administrative authority, Seila Law v. 

CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2199–2200 

(2020), and (2) an exception for 

principal officers who do not exercise 

executive power, id. 2198–99 

(discussing Humphrey’s Executor v. 

United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)). 

Boppy argues that neither the inferiorofficer exception nor the ‘‘Humphrey’s 

Executor exception’’ applies because 

CPSC’s Commissioners are principal 

(not inferior) officers who exercise 

substantial, ‘‘quintessentially executive 

power [that was] not considered in 

Humphrey’s Executor.’’ Seila Law, 140 

S. Ct. at 2200. 

Response 64: Federal Courts of 

Appeals have recently rejected the same 

Constitutional arguments made by 

Boppy. See Consumers’ Rsch. v. CPSC, 

91 F.4th 342 (5th Cir. 2024), petition for 

cert. filed, (Consumers’ Rsch. v. 

Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, No. 

23–1323 (petition for cert. denied Oct. 

21, 2024)), and Leachco, Inc. v. CPSC, 

103 F.4th 748 (10th Cir. 2024), petition 

for cert. filed, (Leachco, Inc. v. CPSC, 

No. 22–7060 (petition for cert. filed on 

Aug. 9, 2024)). Consistent with those 

decisions and the Supreme Court’s 

holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. 

United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), we 

reject Boppy’s constitutional arguments. 

Comment 65: The Toy Association 

(97) states that requiring each importer 

of a product, instead of the 

manufacturer, to submit a separate 

certificate, would be redundant and 

potentially a Technical Barrier to Trade 

(TBT) as defined by the World Trade 

Organization (WTO). The JPMA (99) 

argues that the eFiling requirement in 

the SNPR is arbitrary and needlessly 

burdensome, which may also be a TBT. 

Response 65: The Final Rule does not 

constitute a technical barrier to trade. 

The purpose of section 14 of the CPSA, 

and part 1110, is to protect the health 

and safety of U.S. consumers from 

noncompliant consumer products. 

Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement states 

that technical regulations ‘‘shall be no 

more trade-restrictive than necessary for 

the achievement of a legitimate 

objective, including . . . the protection 

of human health and safety.’’ 

Additionally, the preamble to the TBT 

Agreement recognizes that ‘‘no country 

should be prevented from taking 

measures necessary . . . for the 

protection of human, animal or plant 

life or health.’’ 

CPSC’s requirements are within the 

scope of the health and safety 

provisions of the TBT Agreement. The 

Toy Association and JPMA appear to 

ignore CPSC’s long-standing and 

statutorily required testing and 

certification regime. Since 2008, testing 

and certification requirements apply to 

all products subject to a CPSC rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation, regardless of the 

place of manufacture, if those products 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1822 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

are imported for consumption or 

warehousing or distributed in U.S. 

commerce. The purpose of section 14 of 

the CPSA, and part 1110, is to protect 

the health and safety of U.S. consumers 

from noncompliant consumer products. 

Commenters also ignore the lengths to 

which CPSC has gone since 2008 to 

streamline requirements for testing and 

certification. For example, 

manufacturers and importers may rely 

on any other party’s testing or 

certification pursuant to 16 CFR part 

1109. That rule has been in place for 

more than 10 years and allows 

importers that want to rely on a 

manufacturer’s testing and/or 

certification, the ability to do so. 

Moreover, as described in section II of 

this preamble, CPSC has spent the last 

10 years working with the industry on 

two pilots, a study, building an eFiling 

program, and developing the Product 

Registry, to address importers’ concerns 

about burden and cost. Sections VII and 

VIII of this preamble and the experience 

of Beta Pilot participants demonstrate 

that the Product Registry is easy to use 

and reduces burden. In fact, CPSC 

developed the Product Registry in 

response to industry’s 2013 request to 

reduce burden, data entry errors, and 

potential duplication of effort, for all 

importers of regulated products. 

It bears repeating that the eFiling 

requirement does not create new testing 

or certification requirements for 

importers. Since 2207, importers have 

been required to provide certificates and 

the test reports on which they are based 

to CPSC and CBP upon request. CPSC is 

now requesting this information at the 

time of entry, as specifically provided in 

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

requirement modernizes the certificate 

requirement in a manner that does not 

create undue burden to importers or 

create a barrier to trade, and instead 

assists compliant importers. CPSC’s 

economic analysis demonstrates that for 

compliant importers, the PGA Message 

Set requirement will not have a 

significant impact on small (or large) 

importers, and thus the requirement 

should not create an obstacle to trade. 

Finally, as a matter of enforcement 

discretion, at least in the initial stages 

of eFiling, CPSC in general does not 

intend to request that CBP deny entry of 

products into the United States solely 

based on a failure to provide eFiled 

certificate data. However, CPSC will 

continue to enforce certificate 

requirements, for example by refusing 

admission under section 17(a)(2) of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2066(a)(2), or 

requesting CBP to initiate seizure of 

noncompliant products. Further, CPSC 

intends to increase or decrease risk 

scores based on eFiled data, which 

should reduce holds and examinations 

of compliant products and better focus 

resources on non-compliant products. 

Comment 66: JPMA (99) asserts that 

Congress did not plainly set forth a 

requirement that certificates be available 

by eFiling and that the language in 

section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA is a distinct 

requirement. Therefore, providing a 

certificate ‘‘upon request’’ even in an 

electronic format should be maintained 

as an option. 

Response 66: We disagree. Section 

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

specific authority to require eFiling for 

imported consumer products. 

Interdicting noncompliant products 

before they are distributed in U.S. 

commerce is an important safety 

mission of the Commission. 

Accordingly, as set forth in response to 

comment 34, to allow the Commission 

to focus limited resources on imported 

products that are not in compliance 

with CPSC regulations, the Final Rule 

retains the SNPR’s eFiling requirement 

for all regulated, imported consumer 

products. The Final Rule retains the 

‘‘upon request’’ certificate option for 

products manufactured in the United 

States, and for imported products, to the 

extent certificate data is not filed at 

entry, as required, or is potentially false 

or misleading. 

P. Out of Scope Comments 

Comment 67: Hansen (115) opines 

that the SNPR did not adequately 

address the 2013 comments filed by the 

Bicycle Product Suppliers Association 

(BPSA; now PeopleforBikes). Hansen 

discussed the bicycle regulation in 16 

CFR part 1512 and particularly electric 

bicycles. 

Response 67: The Final Rule is not 

about the substantive safety 

requirements for bicycles. Note, 

however, that CPSC issued an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking in 2024 

related to eBikes, 89 FR 18861 (Mar. 15, 

2024), and staff anticipate sending the 

Commission a proposed rule related to 

lithium-ion batteries used in 

micromobility products, including 

eBikes, in the coming months. 

The remaining comments primarily 

discuss technical features of the eFiling 

Product Registry. The procedural 

aspects of data entry and the user 

interface of the Product Registry are not 

addressed in the regulation text of this 

Final Rule. Accordingly, if not already 

addressed above, CPSC will endeavor to 

address technical questions in the 

guidance materials on our website. 

Additionally, any firm using the 

Product Registry can report software 

issues, ask questions, or send 

suggestions to: eFilingSupport@

cpsc.gov. 

V. Description and Explanation of the 

Final Rule 

Below we describe and explain the 

basis for the Final Rule’s requirements. 

Because of the number of changes to 

part 1110, the Commission proposes to 

strike and replace the existing 1110 rule 

in its entirety, as described below. 

A. Purpose and Scope (§ 1110.1) 

The Commission finalizes the purpose 

and scope in the Final Rule as proposed 

in the SNPR, which states that the rule 

specifies certificate content, form, and 

availability, and requires eFiling 

certificates for imported finished 

products that are required to be 

certified. The Commission did not 

receive any adverse comment on the 

SNPR’s proposal. 

B. Definitions (§ 1110.3) 

The 2013 NPR added to part 1110 13 

new definitions to introduce concepts 

and terms used in the 1107 and 1109 

rules and to clarify the requirements of 

part 1110. 78 FR 28080, 28081–82. The 

SNPR maintained the additional terms 

proposed in the 2013 NPR, added 

several more terms, and revised several 

definitions. Newly defined terms 

included: ‘‘eFiled certificate,’’ to 

differentiate an electronic certificate, 

primarily used for domestically 

manufactured products, from a 

certificate for an imported product that 

is entered via ACE in a PGA Message 

Set, and ‘‘Product Registry,’’ to describe 

the CPSC-maintained repository for 

certificate data for imported products. 

The SNPR revised several definitions to 

better describe the types of merchandise 

under CPSC’s jurisdiction, which 

includes not only consumer products, 

but also hazardous substances. 

The SNPR also proposed to broaden 

the definition of ‘‘importer’’ as that term 

is used in part 1110, beyond the IOR, to 

allow a party familiar with the products 

with a beneficial ownership in the 

goods to be the importer responsible for 

testing and certification. Thus, the 

SNPR proposed that the definition of 

‘‘importer’’ include any entity that 

could make entry for consumer 

products, and qualify as the importer 

under the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 

1484(a)(2)(B)). Proposed § 1110.3 also 

defined additional terms to develop the 

revised definition of ‘‘importer’’ in the 

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

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

Based on the comments, the Final 

Rule adds two statutory definitions for 

‘‘manufacturer’’ and ‘‘private labeler’’ 

and clarifies several other definitions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1823 

33We note that the party that CPSC holds legally 

responsible for certificate data does not mean that 

this party is responsible for submitting such data 

into ACE, because this party may not be the IOR 

for the shipment or be another party eligible to 

make entry under CBP statutes and regulations. 

proposed in the SNPR. For example, the 

Final Rule modifies the definition of 

ACE in a manner consistent with the 

SNPR, but better aligns with CBP’s 

characterization of their authorized 

electronic data interchange system and 

any successor systems. 

Commenters also continued to 

demonstrate confusion about the 

difference between a component part 

and a finished product, and when a part 

of consumer product is a finished 

product that must be accompanied by a 

finished product certificate. By 

definition, a ‘‘component part’’ is not a 

‘‘finished product.’’ Component part 

certificates are allowed by 16 CFR part 

1109 but are voluntary. Component part 

testing or certification can be relied 

upon to issue a finished product 

certificate, but only finished product 

certificates must accompany finished 

products and be eFiled pursuant to 

§ 1110.13(a)(1). Component part 

certificates are not required and should 

not be eFiled. Accordingly, to add 

clarity to the definition of ‘‘component 

part certificate,’’ the Final Rule adds to 

the definition that a component part 

certificate is voluntary, and, to further 

reduce confusion, the Final Rule moves 

all requirements for component part 

certificates into § 1110.19 at the end of 

the rule. 

Relatedly, based on commenters’ 

concerns, the Final Rule also clarifies 

the definition of a ‘‘finished product’’ by 

removing the phrase ‘‘replacement 

parts,’’ as the phrase appears to have a 

different and broader meaning to 

industry than CPSC intended for this 

rule. The Final Rule now explains the 

three criteria required for a product to 

be considered a ‘‘finished product’’ that 

must be accompanied by a finished 

product certificate—namely, that the 

product must be: (1) subject to a CPSCenforced rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation; (2) imported for 

consumption or warehousing, or 

distributed in commerce; and (3) 

packaged, sold, or held for sale to, or for 

use by, consumers. To address 

comments regarding the role of a 

‘‘finished product certifier,’’ the Final 

Rule adds to the definition the three 

parties in section 14 of the CPSA that 

can be a finished product certifier. 

These are the manufacturer and private 

labeler, as defined in the CPSA, and the 

importer, as defined in this rule. See 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(11) and (a)(12). 

The Final Rule also modifies the 

definition of ‘‘importer’’ in response to 

comments 7 through 10 in section IV of 

this preamble and simplifies related 

definitions of ‘‘owner or purchaser’’ and 

‘‘consignee.’’ The definitions for 

‘‘importer,’’ ‘‘owner or purchaser,’’ and 

‘‘consignee’’ in the Final Rule are 

intended to harmonize with the Tariff 

Act and CBP’s implementing regulations 

that govern importation procedures but 

are solely for purposes of this Final 

Rule. These definitions do not change 

CBP requirements for parties eligible to 

make entry and are specifically limited 

to implementation of CPSC’s eFiling 

requirement and the party CPSC will 

hold legally responsible for issuing a 

finished product certificate for 

imported, CPSC regulated finished 

products. Moreover, these definitions 

may not reflect the full scope of the 

relevant terms under the CPSA or other 

statutes implemented by CPSC. 

The Final Rule clarifies that, as 

proposed in the 2013 NPR and 

consistent with the SNPR comments, for 

purposes of this rule, the ‘‘importer’’ 

means the IOR eligible to make entry for 

imported finished products under the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)), who may be an 

owner, purchaser, or authorized 

customs broker. The Final Rule 

addresses the concerns of commenters 

stating that an IOR authorized to make 

entry for a shipment, such as a broker, 

may not have sufficient knowledge of 

the consumer products to be held 

responsible for testing and certification. 

Accordingly, the definition also 

provides that an authorized broker may 

identify the owner, purchaser, or 

consignee of the finished products who 

authorized the customs broker to make 

entry, as the party responsible for 

compliance with CPSC certificate 

requirements. A broker would identify 

such party by eFiling certificate data 

using CPSC’s PGA Message Set, which 

identifies the finished product certifier 

responsible for product certification, as 

required in § 1110.11(a)(3). 

If identified as the finished product 

certifier in the PGA Message Set data, 

the owner, purchaser, or consignee that 

authorized the broker to file entry is the 

party that CPSC would expect to have 

sufficient knowledge of the finished 

products being imported and to 

understand that such products must 

now comply with U.S. laws and 

regulations, including compliance with 

CPSC’s testing and certification 

requirements.33 A broker identifying an 

owner, purchaser, or consignee as the 

party responsible for certification 

should receive from that party, either 

the Unique ID for the Reference PGA 

Message Set, linking certificate data in 

the Product Registry with the shipment, 

or all certificate data elements for 

submitting the Full PGA Message Set at 

entry. If an authorized customs broker 

fails to submit a PGA Message Set 

containing CPSC’s certificate data 

elements to identify the owner, 

purchaser, or consignee responsible for 

product certification, CPSC can hold 

such a broker legally responsible for 

certificate data as set forth in § 1110.15. 

The Final Rule also clarifies, for 

purposes of this rule, the importer who 

is legally responsible for CPSC’s 

certificate data for finished products 

that must be accompanied by a 

certificate that are imported by mail, or 

for which a de minimis duty exemption 

under 19 U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is 

claimed. These shipments do not have 

an IOR. The ‘‘importer’’ definition in the 

Final Rule specifies the importer for 

purposes of CPSC’s certificate 

requirement for these shipments is a 

party eligible to make entry for the 

merchandise pursuant to CBP statutes 

and regulations, who may be an owner, 

purchaser, consignee, or authorized 

customs broker. An authorized broker 

may also identify the owner, purchaser, 

or consignee that authorized entry as the 

finished product certifier in a PGA 

Message Set for a de minimis shipment 

filed using ET 86. 

The Final Rule defines ‘‘owner or 

purchaser’’ and ‘‘consignee’’ in a way 

consistent with the SNPR, but 

simplified. The Final Rule definitions 

now clarify that these definitions are 

only for the purposes of this rule and 

explain who CPSC may hold 

responsible for certificate data, 

particularly for de minimis and mail 

shipments that lack the required 

certificate data. For this rule, a 

‘‘consignee’’ means a party who takes 

custody or delivery of CPSC regulated 

finished products for which CPSC 

certificate data is required. For this rule, 

an ‘‘owner or purchaser’’ means a party 

who has a financial interest in the 

finished products for which CPSC 

certificate data is required, to include 

the actual owner of the merchandise. 

Because a consumer could fall within 

the definitions of purchaser or 

consignee, the definition of ‘‘importer’’ 

continues to state, as proposed, that for 

the purposes of this rule, CPSC will not 

typically consider an end consumer 

purchasing or receiving products for 

personal use or enjoyment to be the 

importer responsible for certification.. 

The Final Rule changes a defined 

term from ‘‘eFiled certificate’’ to ‘‘eFile’’ 

because the term ‘‘eFiled certificate’’ is 

not used in the rule, but the term 

‘‘eFile’’ or ‘‘eFiled’’ is used nine times 

throughout the regulation. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1824 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

definition of ‘‘eFile’’ is consistent with 

the SNPR definition of ‘‘eFiled 

certificate,’’ and means to electronically 

file the required data elements on a 

finished product certificate, as 

described in § 1110.11, into ACE, in the 

format required in § 1110.13(a)(1). 

Minor edits were also made to the 

definition of ‘‘electronic certificate.’’ An 

‘‘electronic certificate’’ is not an eFiled 

certificate. An electronic certificate 

contains the same certificate 

information as an eFiled certificate, but 

is primarily used to provide an 

electronic certificate to CPSC for 

domestically manufactured products, in 

the format described in § 1110.9(c). 

Finally, the Final Rule clarifies the 

definition of ‘‘Product Registry’’ by 

stating that the finished product certifier 

that is required to issue the finished 

product certificate, as specified in 

§ 1110.7(a), and who is also required to 

eFile the certificate data as set forth in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1), enters finished product 

certificate data into the Product 

Registry. Note that pursuant to 

§ 1110.15, a finished product certifier 

can rely on other parties to maintain 

records, test, or certify products, or 

enter data into the Product Registry, but 

remains legally responsible for the 

validity, accuracy, completeness, and 

availability of finished product 

certificates. 

C. Finished Products Required To Be 

Certified (§ 1110.5) 

The Commission finalizes § 1110.5 as 

proposed, except for two minor 

clarifications. First, § 1110.5 clarifies 

that finished products also include 

‘‘substances,’’ which are regulated 

under the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act (FHSA). Second, the 

title of this section revises ‘‘Products’’ to 

‘‘Finished products,’’ and changes the 

phrase ‘‘GCC or CPC, as applicable’’ to 

‘‘finished product certificate’’ (which 

encompasses GCCs and CPCs), to more 

clearly convey that only finished 

products are required to be certified. 

Accordingly, § 1110.5 explains that a 

certificate is required only when: (1) the 

product is a finished product or 

substance; (2) the product or substance 

is subject to a consumer product safety 

rule under the CPSA, or similar rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation under any 

other law enforced by the Commission; 

and (3) the product or substance is 

imported for consumption or 

warehousing, or is distributed into 

commerce. 

D. Who Must Certify Finished Products 

(§ 1110.7) 

The SNPR required that, unless a 

specific rule states otherwise, only 

importers, as defined in the rule, must 

issue a certificate for imported products. 

However, a private labeler could assume 

responsibility for certifying an imported 

product under the SNPR, if the private 

labeler falls within the definition of an 

importer in § 1110.3. 

For domestically manufactured 

finished products, the SNPR maintained 

the 2013 NPR proposal that, unless 

otherwise required in a specific rule, the 

manufacturer must issue the certificate, 

except for consumer products or 

substances that are privately labeled. 

When a product is privately labeled, a 

manufacturer name does not appear on 

the product. Accordingly, for such 

products, placing responsibility on the 

private labeler is both pragmatic and 

appropriate. However, the SNPR 

proposed to allow private labelers to 

continue to rely on a manufacturer’s 

testing or certification if they choose to 

do so. Importantly, if a manufacturer’s 

name appears on a product, the product 

is not privately labeled under the 

definition in section 3 of the CPSA, 15 

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

manufacturer would be required to test 

and certify the product. 

The SNPR moved the requirement 

regarding the availability of certificates 

for imports and domestic products, 

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

to § 1110.13. 

The Commission finalizes § 1110.7 as 

proposed in the SNPR with a 

clarification specifying that the required 

certifier is the ‘‘finished product 

certifier.’’ The terms ‘‘finished product 

certifier’’ and ‘‘finished product 

certificate’’ are used throughout the 

regulation to explain certificate 

responsibilities and content 

requirements. The Final Rule is 

consistent with section 14(g)(1) of 

CPSA, which requires that the 

manufacturer (defined as any person 

who manufactures or imports a 

consumer product) or private labeler 

must test and certify products. For 

domestically manufactured products 

that are privately labeled, the private 

labeler must certify or ensure that a 

manufacturer certifies the product. Also, 

pursuant to the 1109 rule, a private 

labeler can rely on a manufacturer’s 

testing or certification to issue their own 

finished product certificate. Section 

3(a)(12)(B) of the CPSA defines a 

privately labeled product as a product 

with no manufacturer information on 

the product or packaging. Therefore, 

CPSC is unable to identify any other 

party to hold responsible for a 

noncompliant product. For clarity, the 

Final Rule adds the statutory definitions 

of ‘‘manufacturer’’ and ‘‘private labeler’’ 

in 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11)–(12) to the list 

of defined terms in § 1110.3. 

E. Certificate Language and Format 

(§ 1110.9) 

The Final Rule maintains § 1110.9 as 

proposed in the SNPR, with the 

addition of ‘‘finished product 

certificate’’ in place of ‘‘certificate,’’ to 

clarify that the requirements apply to 

finished products. Section IV.E of this 

preamble contains comments and 

CPSC’s responses regarding § 1110.9. 

We describe each section of § 1110.9. 

The SNPR § 1110.9(a) proposed that 

an eFiled certificate must be in English, 

which is consistent with the statutory 

requirement and is necessary for CBP 

and CPSC IT systems. Proposed 

§ 1110.9(a) provided that a hard copy or 

electronic certificate must be in English, 

but may also contain the same content 

in any other language. The Commission 

finalizes § 1109.9(a) without substantive 

change. 

Proposed § 1110.9(b) clarified the 

formats for eFiled and for hard copy and 

electronic certificates. The SNPR 

proposed that an eFiled certificate must 

meet the requirements in proposed 

§ 1110.13(a), and that certificates 

furnished to retailers, distributors, or to 

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

may be provided in hard copy or 

electronically. The Commission 

finalizes § 1109.9(b) without substantive 

change. 

Proposed § 1110.9(c) described the 

format for the electronic certificates 

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

are used to furnish a certificate to 

retailers or distributors, or to CBP or 

CPSC upon request. The SNPR proposed 

to allow password protection of 

certificate information, so long as the 

password is provided to CPSC or CBP at 

the same time as a certificate. This 

provision applies to domestic 

manufacturers and to other certifiers 

when providing a password protected 

electronic certificate to CPSC or CBP; 

the password must be provided to the 

relevant agency at the same time. The 

Commission finalizes § 1109.9(c) 

without substantive change. 

F. Certificate Content (§ 1110.11) 

The 2023 SNPR proposed to require 

the seven statutory certificate data 

elements in the existing rule, and to 

include only one of the three additional 

requirements proposed in the 2013 

NPR—attestation. However, the SNPR 

provided additional detail on the 

required data elements. Below we 

describe each data element proposed in 

§ 1110.11(a) of the SNPR. Except for a 

clarifying change to the attestation 

requirement, and addition of the terms 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1825 

‘‘finished product certificate’’ and 

‘‘finished product certifier’’ in place of 

‘‘certificate’’ and ‘‘certifier,’’ the Final 

Rule retains the requirements as 

proposed in the SNPR. 

Product Identification 

(§ 1110.11(a)(1)): The Final Rule retains 

the SNPR proposal to identify the 

finished product covered by the 

certificate, including at least one unique 

ID from a list of seven options, and a 

sufficient product description so that 

CPSC can match the finished product to 

the certificate. Finished product 

certificates may contain optional 

additional IDs to assist with product 

identification. The SNPR clarified that 

‘‘identification’’ means a unique ID is 

necessary for eFiling, so that certificates 

can be better tracked in the Product 

Registry and RAM. The SNPR explained 

that CPSC expects it would be easier for 

importers to provide a unique ID that 

already exists for the product, instead of 

having certifiers manage an additional 

identifier assigned by CPSC. 

The Final Rule also retains the SNPR 

proposal to expand the term 

‘‘description’’ as it relates to products to 

mean a ‘‘sufficient description to match 

the finished product to the certificate.’’ 

Currently, the product description in a 

certificate is sometimes insufficient to 

enable CPSC staff to determine whether 

the certificate describes the product 

being examined. 

List of Applicable Rules 

(§ 1110.11(a)(2)): Although CPSC 

received adverse comments regarding 

listing applicable subsections of the 

ASTM Toy Standard, codified in 16 CFR 

part 1250, CPSC is maintaining this 

requirement as proposed, as further 

explained in response to comment 26, to 

align with sections 14(a)(1) and 14(g) of 

the CPSA. The underlying requirement 

to list applicable rules is statutory; 

certificates must provide a list of all 

applicable rules to which the product is 

being certified. The eFiling system 

makes this requirement easier for 

certifiers because CPSC provides a 

standardized list of all rules, each 

assigned a code. When eFiling 

certificate data, the certifier will only 

need to select from these codes, either 

in the Full Message Set or in the 

Product Registry. Additionally, certifiers 

of domestically manufactured products, 

and those certifying using a Full 

Message Set, have access to the list of 

all rule citations and testing exclusions, 

which is updated and stored on CPSC’s 

website, available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-DocumentLibrary. 

Identification of Certifier 

(§ 1110.11(a)(3)): The Final Rule retains 

the SNPR proposal to identify the party 

certifying compliance of the finished 

product(s), including the party’s name, 

street address, city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, 

electronic mail (email) address, and 

telephone number. Adding a more 

specific street address interprets the 

statutory requirement for a ‘‘full mailing 

address,’’ and will assist staff in 

distinguishing facilities or locating 

certifiers for site visits. If a certifying 

party’s physical location does not have 

a street address, then a location 

identification typical of the country of 

origin, or a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) coordinate, is also permissible. 

The Final Rule also retains the SNPR 

proposal to include an email address, 

which will improve communication 

between CPSC and the certifying party, 

particularly across time zones. Note that 

for imported finished products, the 

finished product certifier should be the 

Business Account Administrator if 

using the Product Registry to eFile 

certificate data. 

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

The Final Rule retains the SNPR’s 

proposal to provide the identity and 

contact information for the individual 

maintaining records of test results. As 

with the certifier’s contact information, 

the Final Rule includes more detail 

regarding the concept of a ‘‘full mailing 

address,’’ which includes ‘‘street 

address, city, state or province, country 

or administrative region, electronic mail 

(email) address, and telephone 

number.’’ For clarity, and because this 

data element requires a name and 

contact information, the Final Rule 

moves the bulleted list of recordkeeping 

requirements in sections of the CFR that 

apply to GCCs and CPCs to the 

recordkeeping requirement in § 1110.17 

of the Final Rule. 

The Final Rule maintains the SNPR 

clarification that the individual 

maintaining records may be a position 

title, provided that this position is 

always staffed and responsive to CPSC’s 

requests. Allowing a position title 

instead of an individual is in response 

to public comments concerned that the 

individual maintaining the records of 

test results may leave the company or 

otherwise be unavailable, and that a 

position title would provide continuity. 

Manufacture Date and Place 

(1110.11(a)(5)): The Final Rule retains 

the SNPR proposal to provide the date 

when the finished product(s) were 

manufactured, produced, or assembled, 

as further explained in response to 

comment 19. The first date of a batch 

run is the date of manufacturing. The 

Final Rule also retains the statutory 

requirement to provide the place where 

the finished product(s) were 

manufactured. Section 14(g)(1) of the 

CPSA requires that each certificate 

contains ‘‘each party’s name, full 

mailing address, [and] telephone 

number.’’ Therefore, the Final Rule 

aligns with the statute and with the 

other data elements requiring contact 

information, which includes a name, 

street address, city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, email 

address, and telephone number. For this 

data element, the contact information 

must state where the finished product(s) 

were manufactured, produced, or 

assembled. The Final Rule requires this 

manufacturer detail, for eFiling in 

particular, because staff have 

experienced situations where it is 

difficult to distinguish between multiple 

firms with similar addresses and contact 

the correct manufacturer. If a location 

does not have a street address, a 

location identification typical of the 

country of origin or a GPS coordinate is 

permissible. 

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

The Final Rule retains the SNPR 

proposal, which is also in the existing 

rule, to provide the date when the 

finished product(s) were tested for 

compliance. The SNPR amended this 

requirement to clarify that the required 

date is the most recent date of testing. 

The Final Rule retains this change, 

which aids CPSC in assessing the 

validity and integrity of a certificate, 

and promotes consistency across 

certificates for CPSC and certifiers, 

particularly where laboratory testing is 

done over several days. 

The Final Rule also maintains the 

SNPR proposal, which is in the existing 

rule, to provide the place where the 

finished product(s) were tested for 

compliance. As proposed, the Final 

Rule standardizes the contact 

information required, including the 

name of each third-party conformity 

assessment body or other party on 

whose testing the certificate depends, 

and the street address (or locally 

comparable location identification), 

city, state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number. The Final Rule 

also requires an email address, as 

proposed, so staff have another means of 

contacting the testing laboratory. 

Attestation (§ 1110.11(a)(7)): The 

SNPR proposed to include an attestation 

by the certifier that the certificate 

information is true and accurate and 

that the certified product complies with 

all rules, bans, standards, or regulations 

applicable to the product under the 

CPSA or any other Act enforced by the 

Commission. The Final Rule retains the 

attestation requirement for certificates 

provided to CPSC or CBP in hard copy 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1826 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

or in electronic format, as provided in 

§ 1110.9(c), and clarifies that the 

finished product certifier is responsible 

for the attestation. For imported 

products that require an eFiled 

certificate, the Final Rule requires an 

attestation, but clarifies that the eFiling 

requirements for both the Full Message 

Set and the Reference Message Set 

already include an attestation. The Full 

Message Set contains a check box data 

element for the attestation. Importers 

using the Product Registry must 

periodically attest to the veracity of the 

data, depending on the user’s 

permissions. For eFiled certificates, 

even if the importer allows another 

entity to enter certificate data into the 

Product Registry on their behalf, or to 

certify products on their behalf, the 

importer/finished product certifier 

remains responsible for the information 

provided to CPSC, as stated in § 1110.15 

of the Final Rule. Thus, the Product 

Registry includes built-in, simplified 

attestation requirements. 

Electronic access to records 

(§ 1110.11(b)): The Final Rule retains 

the SNPR proposal in § 1110.11(b) for a 

certificate to optionally include a URL 

or other electronic means, along with 

the identification of the custodian of 

records, to allow for electronic access of 

supporting records, such as test records. 

If certifiers provide this information, 

staff can more easily confirm the 

veracity of the certificate. 

Statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusions (§ 1110.11(c)): Although 

CPSC received adverse comments 

regarding the inclusion of testing 

exclusions on certificates, claiming that 

exclusions are self-effective, as 

explained in response to comments 27 

and 28 the Final Rule requires 

identification of testing exclusions that 

are codified in a statute or regulation. 

CPSC’s algorithm will expect either a 

certificate citing a CPSC-accepted 

testing laboratory for each rule, or 

reliance on a testing exclusion. 

Accordingly, as proposed, § 1110.11(c) 

of the Final Rule requires finished 

product certifiers to list all claimed 

testing exclusions, instead of providing 

the date and place where the finished 

product was tested for compliance. 

The requirement to list testing 

exclusions on a finished product 

certificate does not apply to 

Commission enforcement discretion for 

adult wearing apparel or for refrigerator 

doors. This requirement only applies to 

consumer products that are subject to 

testing and certification, where a statute 

or regulation allows for a testing 

exclusion for certain products subject to 

a rule. The Product Registry lists all 

available exclusions for each rule, 

streamlining and standardizing how to 

record these exclusions on a certificate. 

These exclusions are also updated and 

maintained on CPSC’s website for use in 

a Full PGA Message Set and for 

domestically manufactured products 

and CPSC will continue to maintain the 

list of CPSC rules (citations) and any 

associated testing exclusions. CPSC is 

currently updating and finalizing this 

list for use in the expanded Beta Pilot 

and this Final Rule. Some finished 

product certifiers already list testing 

exclusions on a certificate and CPSC’s 

website provides guidance on how to do 

so; the Final Rule standardizes this 

requirement for all finished product 

certifiers. Note that no certificate is 

required if a product is not subject to a 

safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, 

or regulation, or if the product is subject 

to enforcement discretion (such as adult 

wearing apparel relying on 16 CFR 

1610.1(d) and household refrigerators 

subject to 16 CFR part 1750). 

For the Final Rule, CPSC also clarifies 

that, as a matter of policy and to reduce 

burden, importers are not required to 

file a Disclaimer Message Set for: (1) 

products that are not within CPSC’s 

jurisdiction, (2) non-regulated products 

within CPSC’s jurisdiction; or (3) 

products that are regulated but do not 

require certification. Although the 

Commission has authority to require a 

Disclaimer Message Set for all consumer 

products within CPSC’s jurisdiction, 

based on the comments, and to reduce 

burden for products that do not have a 

certificate requirement at the time of 

import, CPSC will not require a 

Disclaimer Message Set. CPSC updated 

the CATAIR guideline to reflect this 

change. However, CPSC encourages 

importers to file Disclaimer Message 

Sets, where appropriate, meaning when 

a certificate may be expected, because 

this additional information will inform 

CPSC staff as to why a certificate does 

not accompany the shipment, reducing 

the possibility of a hold at the port for 

further inspection. 

Duplicative testing not required 

(§ 1110.11(d)): To reduce burden for 

certifiers, the Final Rule retains the 

SNPR proposal in § 1110.11(d) regarding 

duplicative testing, but provides more 

clarity regarding when this provision 

applies, based on a comment. The Final 

Rule clarifies that finished product 

certifiers are not required to conduct the 

same third party test more than once on 

each sample when a rule references, or 

incorporates fully, another applicable 

consumer product safety rule or similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any other law enforced by the 

Commission, that contains the same 

requirement. This provision is 

applicable primarily to children’s 

products that are more likely to have 

overlapping requirements, such as those 

for lead content or small parts that 

apply specifically to children’s products 

but also may be required within a 

product level safety rule, such as the toy 

rule or rules for bassinets, strollers, or 

other durable infant or toddler products. 

G. Certificate Availability (§ 1110.13) 

Although CPSC received adverse 

comments regarding the availability of 

certificates, arguing that the current 

‘‘upon request’’ system is sufficient, 

section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA specifically 

provides the Commission with the 

authority to, by rule, require eFiling of 

certificates for imported consumer 

products. Moreover, the Commission 

has been explaining and demonstrating 

the benefits of eFiling since at least 

2012, in the Alpha Pilot, Beta Pilot, in 

establishing the eFiling program in 

2020, and in the SNPR and this Final 

Rule. 

Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA 

establishes several requirements 

regarding the availability of certificates, 

which must: ‘‘accompany the applicable 

product or shipment of products 

covered by the same certificate;’’ ‘‘be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product;’’ and be furnished to the 

Commission upon request. By codifying 

the eFiling requirement, an eFiled 

certificate meets the ‘‘accompany’’ and 

‘‘upon request’’ requirements of section 

14(g)(3). 

As explained in response to 

comments 34, 45, and 65, the Final Rule 

retains § 1110.13(a) as proposed in the 

SNPR. Now that IT solutions are 

developed, available, and being tested, 

the Final Rule points to a CPSC-specific 

CATAIR and Product Registry that 

contain the IT solutions for eFiling. For 

example, the Final Rule does not retain 

a separate ‘‘accompany’’ requirement for 

imported finished products that are 

delivered directly to a consumer in the 

United States, but rather provides for 

collecting these certificates through 

eFiling. However, finished product 

certifiers must still provide a finished 

product certificate when asked by CPSC 

or CBP, especially in cases where a 

required certificate has not been eFiled 

or contains false or misleading 

information. 

The final § 1110.13(a) explains that a 

finished product certificate must 

accompany each finished product or 

finished product shipment required to 

be certified pursuant to § 1110.5. 

Additionally, § 1110.13(a) requires that 

each certificate describe a single 

product. One product per certificate 

allows the RAM to conduct risk analysis 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1827 

34See, for example, § 1107.23, which explains a 

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

that are not the same in all material respects cannot 

be on the same certificate. 

on unique products in a shipment, 

which allows better targeting of 

potentially violative products and 

avoids delaying delivery of shipments 

that do not warrant examination.34

Final § 1110.13(a)(1) states the 

requirements for finished products 

manufactured outside the United States 

that are offered for importation into the 

United States for consumption or 

warehousing, including products 

offered for consumption or warehousing 

from a Foreign Trade Zone, or products 

eligible for the de minimis duty 

exemption under 19 U.S.C. 

1321(a)(2)(C). As proposed, finished 

product certificate data elements 

required in § 1110.11 must be eFiled at 

the time of filing the CBP entry, or entry 

summary, if both are filed together, into 

ACE as provided in CPSC’s CATAIR and 

any revisions of the CATAIR. CPSC’s 

most recent CATAIR is provided in Tab 

B of the Staff Final Rule Briefing Memo. 

Section 1110.13(a)(1) of the Final Rule 

contains minor clarifications related to 

international mail shipments, stating 

that for products imported by mail, the 

finished product certifier must enter the 

required finished product certificate 

data elements into CPSC’s Product 

Registry before the shipment arrives in 

the United States. 

Section 1110(a)(2), stating 

requirements for domestically 

manufactured products that are required 

to be certified pursuant to § 1110.5, is 

finalized as proposed. The finished 

product certifier for these products must 

issue the required certificate on or 

before the finished product is 

distributed in commerce, and they must 

make the finished product certificate 

available for inspection immediately, 

meaning with 24 hours of CPSC’s 

request. 

Final § 1110.13(b) maintains the 

statutory requirement to ‘‘furnish’’ a 

required finished product certificate to 

each distributor or retailer, and final 

§ 1110.13(c) maintains the statutory 

requirement to make certificates 

available for inspection immediately 

upon request by CPSC or CBP. To be 

clear regarding the expectation, the term 

‘‘immediately’’ means within 24 hours, 

as explained in the NPR and the SNPR. 

H. Legal Responsibility of Finished 

Product Certifiers (§ 1110.15) 

CPSC did not receive adverse 

comments on this section of the SNPR; 

however, the Final Rule provides 

further explanation, consistent with the 

SNPR and with the 1109 rule, regarding 

how a finished product certifier may 

rely on other parties to maintain data, 

test or certify component parts or 

finished products, or enter data into the 

Product Registry. The Final Rule 

continues to state, as proposed, that a 

finished product certifier remains 

legally responsible for the information 

in a finished product certificate, 

including its validity, accuracy, 

completeness, and availability. The 

Final Rule is intended to accommodate 

diverse relationships between finished 

product certifiers and their trade 

partners to better facilitate trade. 

However, the Final Rule places 

accountability for certifications and 

submitted data on the finished product 

certifiers, who are ultimately 

responsible for ensuring that imported 

products comply with applicable U.S. 

law, including CPSC’s required testing 

and certification. Finished product 

certifiers, meaning importers for 

imported products, will have the ability 

in the Product Registry to manage 

permissions for trade partners to enter 

data and/or to certify products, 

including managing the roles of specific 

individuals who enter data or certify 

products on the finished product 

certifier’s behalf. Finished product 

certifiers should exercise due diligence 

if they allow another entity to submit 

data into the Product Registry or to 

certify on their behalf. 

I. Recordkeeping Requirements 

(§ 1110.17) 

CPSC did not receive adverse 

comments on proposed § 1110.17 in the 

SNPR. However, the Final Rule modifies 

§ 1110.17 by moving into this section 

the bulleted list of potential certificaterelated records previously in 

§ 1110.11(a)(4). The listed records are 

the same as those stated in the SNPR, 

but they are formatted differently and 

with additional explanation. The Final 

Rule states that finished product 

certificates, which include CPCs and 

GCCs, and related records, must be 

maintained for five years, as proposed. 

J. Component Part Certificates 

(§ 1110.19) 

The Final Rule is consistent with the 

SNPR proposal; however, based on 

continued confusion regarding 

component part certificates, the Final 

Rule adds the purpose of the 1109 rule, 

explaining that component part 

certificates are voluntary, but may be 

relied upon by a finished product 

certifier to issue a finished product 

certificate. The Final Rule further 

explains that component part 

certificates must not be eFiled into ACE. 

The Final Rule continues to set forth the 

content, form, and availability 

requirements for component part 

certificates. 

VI. Effective Dates 

The Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of the Final Rule. 

5 U.S.C. 553(d). In the SNPR, the 

Commission proposed that a Final Rule 

revising 16 CFR part 1110 become 

effective 120 days after publication in 

the Federal Register, to provide 

importers time to onboard with CPSC’s 

Product Registry and upgrade software 

to send PGA Message Sets to their 

broker for eFiling. Based on the public 

comments and Beta Pilot participant 

feedback, CPSC will finalize a longer 

effective date of 18 months after a Final 

Rule publishes in the Federal Register, 

except for consumer products and 

substances that are imported into an 

FTZ and subsequently entered for 

consumption or warehousing. For 

products and substances entered for 

consumption or warehousing from an 

FTZ, the Final Rule is effective 24 

months after publication of the Final 

Rule in the Federal Register. 

A. 18-Month Effective Date—Domestic 

and eFiled Certificates 

The Final Rule provides an 18-month 

effective date for regulated, domestic 

products and substances that are 

required to be certified. Domestic 

certificates should not be eFiled. 

However, the Final Rule includes three 

primary changes for domestic 

certificates: 

• § 1110.7—Unless otherwise stated 

in a specific rule, the manufacturer is 

the finished product certifier that must 

issue a certificate. However, for 

privately labeled products, the private 

labeler is the finished product certifier 

that must issue a certificate, unless the 

manufacturer issues the certificate. 

• § 1110.11(a)(7)—Include an 

attestation of compliance. 

• § 1110.11(c)—Unless otherwise 

provided by the Commission, if a 

finished product certifier is claiming a 

statutory or regulatory testing exclusion 

for an applicable rule, then in addition 

to listing all applicable rules, and in lieu 

of providing the date and place of 

testing, the certificate must list the 

applicable testing exclusion. 

If a product is privately labeled, the 

Final Rule shifts the responsibility of 

certification onto the private labeler, 

who becomes the finished product 

certifier that must certify the product or 

ensure that the manufacturer certifies 

the product. A privately labeled product 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1828 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

35Currently available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

s3fs-public/BetaPilotCitationandTestingExclusion

Codesv3.xlsx. 

36Tab C of Staff’s Final Rule Memo contains the 

Beta Pilot participant survey responses. 

is one that is branded and does not 

contain the name of a manufacturer. 

Currently, CPSC’s website advises that 

firms list testing exclusions on 

certificates; the Final Rule will require 

certificates to list such exclusions. Thus, 

when a rule applies, but a certifier does 

not test to the rule because a testing 

exclusion within a rule or statute 

applies, the Final Rule requires that 

such testing exclusion be listed on the 

certificate instead of the name of the 

testing laboratory. CPSC’s website 

contains a list of all testing exclusions 

to include on a certificate, where 

applicable.35 This additional 

information will require certifiers to 

review the requirement, assess their 

products, and align their certificates 

accordingly. Because domestic 

manufacturers and private labelers must 

reassess their business relationships and 

responsibilities, and certificates will 

now be required to identify testing 

exclusions, the Final Rule’s effective 

date for domestically manufactured 

products is 18 months after publication 

in the Federal Register. 

With regard to eFiled products, CPSC 

surveyed Beta Pilot participants to 

gauge their preparation time for 

eFiling.36 On average, Beta Pilot 

participants took five weeks to prepare 

for the Beta Pilot and create their 

Business Account in the Product 

Registry. This preparation included 

attending meetings, reviewing and 

understanding CPSC’s guidance 

documents, communicating internally 

and externally with trade partners, and 

organizing certificate data in an 

electronic format. Furthermore, Beta 

Pilot participants stated that their 

customs brokers needed to concurrently 

update their software to enable 

transmission of the PGA Message Set 

into ACE via the Automated Broker 

Interface. Several brokers who assisted 

importers in the Beta Pilot estimated 

that this update (either in-house or from 

a software developer) takes three to 12 

months, with an average of nine 

months. Based on this feedback, as well 

as public comments, the Final Rule is 

effective for all imported, products 

regulated by CPSC 18 months after 

publication of the Final Rule in the 

Federal Register for all entry types, 

except for products entered for 

consumption or warehousing from an 

FTZ. 

B. 24-Month Effective Date—Products 

Entered for Consumption or 

Warehousing From an FTZ 

For regulated products imported into 

an FTZ and subsequently entered for 

consumption or warehousing, the Final 

Rule is effective 24 months after 

publication of a Final Rule in the 

Federal Register. Based on discussions 

with the National Association of Foreign 

Trade Zones (NAFTZ) and other 

importers, updating processes and 

software to meet this Final Rule will be 

particularly challenging for importers 

using FTZs. Importers can use FTZs in 

various ways before entering consumer 

products into customs territory for 

consumption or warehousing. For 

example, importers can use an FTZ to: 

hold products prior to making entry into 

the United States; assemble components 

of products from various manufacturing 

sites into finished products; bring 

products into compliance with CPSC 

rules; manufacture components or 

finished products; or test and certify 

finished products. Although products 

and materials admitted into an FTZ are 

accounted for on CBP Form 214, when 

products are imported into the United 

States, CBP allows for entry to occur on 

a weekly basis, including estimation of 

the number of products removed from 

an FTZ for entry for consumption. If this 

estimate is exceeded, entry must be 

made for the excess quantity prior to its 

removal from an FTZ into customs 

territory. 

CBP’s current FTZ import procedure 

does not allow accurate CPSC PGA 

Message Sets to be attached to CBP 

entries. Commenters (Comment 44), 

including the NAFTZ, state that FTZ 

importers require additional time before 

eFiling implementation to build the 

necessary infrastructure to 

accommodate accurate CPSC PGA 

Message Sets and to troubleshoot issues. 

Commenters explain that the First-InFirst-Out inventory accounting method 

applicable to fungible merchandise 

within an FTZ uses a Unique Identifier 

(UIN) for inventory control and 

recordkeeping which has no 

relationship to the compliance data 

CPSC requests. Commenters explain 

that currently, FTZ imports can only 

attach the latest certificate associated 

with an article/supplier combination 

and cannot attach a specific certificate 

at the inventory level that CPSC’s 

Message Set requires. Commenters state 

that FTZ importers will require 

significant changes to their current 

software to comply with an eFiling 

requirement. Moreover, commenters 

allege that FTZ procedures are 

incompatible with a requirement to file 

certificates at entry summary, because 

goods imported from an FTZ may have 

already been shipped to stores and 

possibly sold, negating CPSC’s ability to 

place such goods on hold for 

examination. 

Commenters encourage CPSC to work 

with the CBP Border Interagency 

Executive Council (BIEC) to build a 

single window concept inclusive of 

FTZs and provide a transition period of 

at least 24 months. CPSC staff further 

informs that CBP processes for FTZ 

imports would also need to be updated 

to accommodate an eFiling requirement, 

but 24 months is likely necessary for 

full implementation of eFiling for FTZimported products and substances. 

CPSC intends to work with the trade 

and with CBP in the coming months, to 

initiate conversations on software 

solution(s) that would best allow 

compliance with CPSC’s Message Set. 

Once a software solution is identified, 

meeting the eFiling requirement will 

involve software development, testing, 

implementation, and troubleshooting. 

Based on CPSC’s experience with 

developing and testing IT solutions for 

the Beta Pilot, for products entered for 

consumption or warehousing from an 

FTZ, the effective date is 24 months 

after publication of the Final Rule in the 

Federal Register. 

VII. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

the SNPR, the Commission certified that 

the proposed rule would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small businesses. 88 FR 

85760, 85783. The Commission received 

additional information during the SNPR 

comment period and the eFiling Beta 

Pilot regarding: (1) initial startup burden 

for eFiling; (2) filing fees; (3) Disclaimer 

Message Sets (disclaims); and (4) de 

minimis entry filings. Based on these 

comments, the Commission has 

prepared a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis (FRFA) that includes an 

analysis of this additional information. 

The conclusion of this FRFA is that the 

cost of the Final Rule is likely less than 

one percent of the revenue for a small 

firm, and therefore does not impose 

significant costs to a substantial number 

of firms. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1829 

37The rule also applies to private labelers who 

may be contingent or substitute recordkeepers or 

filers. However, in order to avoid double counting 

of impacts, staff developed the analysis for 

domestic manufacturers and importers only. 

38Part 1107 governs the creation and 

recordkeeping requirements for CPCs. Among other 

requirements, part 1107 requires that importers and 

domestic manufacturers of children’s products 

issue a CPC affirming that the firm has met third 

party testing requirements: https://www.ecfr.gov/ 

current/title-16/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-1107. 

A. Need for Agency Action and 

Objectives of the Rule 

Sections I and II of the preamble 

describe the need for agency action and 

objectives of the Final Rule. 

B. Issues Raised by Comments and 

Resulting Changes 

Several SNPR commenters provided 

additional information regarding costs 

to importers and eFilers, including 

technology and staff-related costs from 

initial startup activities for eFiling, 

filing fees, disclaims, and de minimis 

entries. See Comments 53–63 in section 

IV.N of this preamble. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

The Final Rule applies to all 

importers and domestic 

manufacturers 37 required to issue 

certificates for products or substances 

subject to a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation, that are imported for 

consumption or warehousing into the 

United States or are distributed in 

commerce.38 The Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) estimated 

the number of small businesses 

impacted by the rule. 88 FR 85760, 

85783. This FRFA uses these same 

estimates, which are displayed in Table 

2. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF SMALL BUSINESSES IMPACTED BY THE RULE

Small business Non-children 

products 

Children 

products Total 

Manufacturers .............................................................................................................................. 7,771 18,852 26,623 

Importers ...................................................................................................................................... 35,290 211,148 246,438 

Number of Small Business .......................................................................................................... 43,061 230,000 273,061 

Table 3 presents an estimate of the 

number of certificates produced 

annually by small firms impacted by the 

Final Rule. These estimates assume 

small firms produce 10 percent of the 

number of certificates the average firm 

in their industry produces: 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES PRODUCED ANNUALLY BY SMALL FIRMS IMPACTED BY THE RULE

Certificates created by small business GCCs CPCs Total 

Manufacturers .............................................................................................................................. 34,438 11,590 46,028 

Importers ...................................................................................................................................... 85,002 129,804 214,806 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 119,440 141,393 260,834 

D. Compliance, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements of the Rule 

1. Potential Impact on Small Firms 

This FRFA assesses the economic 

costs that will be incurred by small U.S. 

firms impacted by the Final Rule. 

Typically, CPSC considers costs that 

exceed one percent of gross revenue to 

be an economically significant cost 

impact. This FRFA estimates the cost 

impact of the Final Rule on small firms 

arising from both extended 

recordkeeping of GCCs (i.e., the burden 

associated with the increasing the 

recordkeeping period for GCCs from 

three to five years) and eFiling (which 

includes (i) the hourly burden and (ii) 

the out-of-pocket costs from 

electronically filing certificate data for 

regulated, imported consumer 

products). 

Small firms face an hourly burden 

related to uploading or submitting 

information via; 

• The CPSC Product Registry, 

• Full Message Sets to CBP through a 

broker, 

• Reference Message Sets (of 

certificates uploaded into the Product 

Registry) with simplified filings with 

CBP, and 

• Disclaimer Message Sets (for 

products or substances that do not 

require a certificate). 

In addition to the hourly burden, 

small importers will face out of pocket 

expenses that include: Startup costs, 

and Filing fees to eFile certificates. 

(a) Extended Recordkeeping of GCCs 

The Final Rule requires firms to 

maintain records of all certificates for 

five years. CPC’s records are already 

required to be kept for a period of five 

years pursuant to part 1107. Currently, 

however, for non-children’s products, 

firms are either required within specific 

rules to maintain records for three years 

or follow the guidance in the existing 

part 1110 to maintain records for three 

years. Thus, firms supplying nonchildren products will have to hold 

certificates and supporting 

documentation, such as test reports, for 

two additional years after the Final Rule 

becomes effective. 

To estimate this additional burden, 

the FRFA takes the difference of the 

total burden under the current 

requirements (i.e., baseline) and total 

burden with the Final Rule 

requirements. To estimate the number of 

non-children’s product certificates that 

additionally require recordkeeping with 

the Final Rule, the FRFA conservatively 

uses the number of active certificates 

and multiplies by five (years). The 

FRFA estimates the number of 

certificates requiring recordkeeping in 

the baseline by multiplying the total 

number of certificates issued annually 

by the current recordkeeping period of 

three (years). The hourly burden of 

additional recordkeeping is the 

difference between active certificates 

and baseline certificates (i.e., the 

increase in the number of active 

certificates) multiplied by the estimated 

3 seconds it takes to ensure that records 

of active certificates are kept in a safe 

virtual storage location and the 

provision of routine maintenance of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1830 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

39Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation’’, Table 4. Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation for private industry 

workers by occupational and industry group, June 

2024, ‘‘Total Compensation’’ for ‘‘Office and 

administrative support occupations’’ under ‘‘Goodsproducing industries’’, https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/ecec.t04.htm. 40The cost per firm is $0.16. Three seconds per 

active certificate represent $0.02963 (3/3600 × 

$35.56), where $35.56 is the hourly compensation 

(includes benefits plus wage) of office and 

administrative support occupation in good 

producing industries as of June 2024. The estimated 

number of active GCCs is 597,202 and the net 

increase in the number of responses due to the 

move from 3 to 5 years is 238,881. There are a total 

of 43,061 small firms producing GCCs, so the net 

increase in the average number of active certificate 

records is 5.5. The annual cost per firm is then 

roughly $0.16. 

41Except for providing domestic manufacturers 

with the ability to upload certificate data into the 

Product Registry, eFiling should not affect 

manufacturers. If each domestic manufacturer 

uploaded all the certificates it generated during the 

year, the total hourly burden would reach 111 

hours. At a total compensation of $35.56 per hour 

for Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

in Good-producing industries as of June 2024, the 

cost of the annual burden to all domestic 

manufacturers would be $3,955; roughly $0.15 per 

manufacturer. 

records. The estimated total cost is 

equal to the number of burden hours 

multiplied by the hourly compensation 

of office and administrative support 

occupations 39 of $35.56.40

Table 4 presents staff’s estimate of the 

additional routine annual recordkeeping 

burden of the Final Rule to domestic 

manufacturers and importers. The total 

cost of maintaining GCC records for two 

additional years is $7,079; of this total 

$2,041 is a burden to manufacturers and 

$5,038 a burden to importers. 

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED COST OF ROUTINE ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING OF GCCS BY SMALL FIRMS

Cost of routine GCC recordkeeping for small firms Prior to the 

rule With the rule Net change 

Active Certificates: 

Manufacturers ....................................................................................................................... 103,314 172,191 68,876 

Importers ............................................................................................................................... 255,007 425,011 170,004 

Burden Hours: 

Manufacturers ....................................................................................................................... 86.1 143.5 57.4 

Importers ............................................................................................................................... 212.5 354.2 141.7 

Cost of the Burden: 

Manufacturers ....................................................................................................................... $3,062 $5,103 $2,041 

Importers ............................................................................................................................... $7,557 $12,594 $5,038 

Total Change in Cost for Routine GCC Recordkeeping ............................................... $10,618 $17,697 $7,079 

(b) eFiling of Certificates 

Small firms required to eFile finished 

product certificates, either a GCC or 

CPC, are likely to face an hourly burden 

due to eFiling activities. Importers will 

have two methods of filing certificate 

data with CBP: a Full Message Set, or a 

Reference Message Set. While the Final 

Rule does not require the use of the 

Product Registry, CPSC expects that 

most small importers will use the 

Product Registry to enter and maintain 

certificate data. The use of Reference 

Message Sets along with the Product 

Registry will likely reduce the time for 

storing, transmitting, and eFiling 

certificates. Full Message Sets are more 

burdensome than Reference Message 

Sets because they require repeated data 

entry, maintained by the importer or 

broker, rather than relying on CPSC’s IT 

solution, the Product Registry, and a 

shortened Reference Message Set. 

To achieve compliance with the Final 

Rule’s eFiling requirements, small 

importers of products requiring either a 

GCC or CPC may also incur out-ofpocket costs from several activities 

including startup costs (consisting of the 

one-time cost of updating technology 

and training staff for eFiling) and filing 

fees. The following sections present 

estimates for the hourly burden and outof-pocket cost for eFiling. 

(i) eFiling Hourly Burden 

The burden of eFiling is only a 

burden on importers. Domestic 

manufacturers are unaffected by 

eFiling.41 Within the category of eFiling, 

this FRFA considered the hourly costs 

of entering records in the: 

• CPSC Product Registry, 

• Full Message Sets, 

• Reference Message Sets, and 

• Disclaimer Message Sets. 

Most importers will upload product 

certificate records for products regulated 

by CPSC into the Product Registry; 96.4 

percent of eFilings by importers will 

likely use Reference Message Sets to 

submit certificate data already stored in 

the Product Registry based on data from 

the eFiling Beta Pilot. The FRFA uses 

this share for small importers. The 

FRFA assumes the remaining 3.6 

percent of eFiled certificates to use a 

Full Message Set, which requires users 

to enter all data fields on a certificate 

every time a product is imported. 

Aside from Reference and Full 

Message Sets, some importers will file 

Disclaimer Message Sets for products or 

substances that do not require a 

certificate. Disclaimer Message Sets are 

not required but can be filed for finished 

products or substances under CPSC’s 

jurisdiction that would otherwise 

require a certificate, but do not require 

one under the circumstances. Based on 

data from the Beta Pilot, the FRFA 

estimates that Disclaimer Message Sets 

will account for 14.4 percent of the total 

number of Reference and Full Message 

Sets. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1831 

42Staff used the responses of Beta Pilot survey 

participants regarding the number of minutes it 

took them to enter or upload certificate data, along 

with the number of certificates each participant 

uploaded to estimate the average time per certificate 

at different volumes of certificate intake. 

Specifically, staff found that participants who 

entered or uploaded less than 100 certificates (an 

average of 39.7 certificates per participant), spend 

an average of 3.52 minutes filling out and 

submitting each Reference Message Set; while 

participants who entered/uploaded more than 100 

certificates (an average of 409 certificates per 

participant), spend an average of 0.2 minutes per 

Reference Message Set. Staff used these 

observations to fit a learning curve with a slope of 

¥0.6147 that implies a 34.7 percent time 

improvement for every doubling in the number of 

certificates processed. To be conservative, staff used 

a learning curve slope that is half the size of the 

slope estimated from the data (¥1.229). 

43Staff obtained 15 seconds as the weighted 

average of 18.6 seconds for importers of children’s 

products (who have less opportunities for learning 

as they file a lower number of certificates per year 

but generate a higher number of filings as a group— 

59.2 percent); and 12.2 seconds for importers of 

nonchildren products (who have more learning 

opportunities by filing a higher number of 

certificates per year but generate a lower number of 

total filings as a group—40.8 percent). The 

hypothetical time it would have taken to file the 

first certificate through a Reference Message Set was 

estimated as the highest average time observed from 

the Beta Pilot survey, or 4.64 minutes per 

certificate. 

44Staff considered half the time of a Reference Set 

is reasonable given that a Disclaimer Message Set 

does not require inputting any certificate data or 

unique ID. 

45Staff assumes that the learning curve slope 

(¥0.6147) obtained for Reference Message Sets 

would also apply to Full Message Sets. Therefore, 

staff applied a similar learning curve to the 

estimated time for the first certificate filed through 

a Full Message Set using the average number of Full 

Message Set generated by each importer. Staff 

estimated the time it would have taken to file the 

first certificate as the average time to enter and 

transfer a single product certificate data to the 

broker for the submission of a Full Message Set, as 

provided by Beta Pilot survey respondents. This 

average from the survey was 12 minutes. 

46For importers of children’s products, CPCs are 

filed with CBP on average 20 times per year. Note 

that large suppliers subject to part 1107 may have 

to certify and thus eFile many more products 

annually. Additionally, importers must eFile GCCs 

with CBP with each import; on average 20 times per 

year per GCC. Like with children’s products, staff 

expects larger importers to file more frequently, 

while smaller importers may only file a few times 

a year. 

47Beta Pilot data suggests that the number of 

Reference Message Sets would represent 96.4 

percent of the total number of filings, excluding 

disclaims. Therefore, each certificate would be filed 

as a Full Message Set the remaining 3.6 percent of 

times, or 0.7 times per year ([20/96.4] × 3.6%). 

48Based on data from the Beta Pilot, the number 

of Disclaimer Message Sets is roughly 14.4 percent 

of the total number of Full and Reference Message 

Sets. Because a total of 20.7 filings of Full and 

Reference Message Sets would be submitted per 

certificate, then an average of 3 disclaims would be 

created annually per existing certificate, where 3 = 

20.7 × 14.4%. 

49An annual average of 20 Reference Message Set 

filings per certificate with each filing taking 15.3 

seconds results in 305.8 seconds per certificate. 

Additionally, one filing per year of certificate data 

in the Product Registry takes 8.7 seconds. Then, an 

annual average of 0.7 (or 0.7368 to be more 

accurate) Full Message Sets per certificate with each 

taking 4.8 minutes (or 4.7549) results in an 

additional 210.21 seconds per year. Finally, an 

annual total of 3 disclaims per certificate at 7.6 

seconds each total 22.89 seconds. Therefore, the 

Rule creates an annual time burden per certificate 

of 547.6 seconds, or 9.1 minutes. 

The Beta Pilot participants provided 

estimates for this FRFA regarding the 

time it would take importers to submit 

each type of Message Set. This FRFA 

assumes that eFilers would become 

more efficient over time as eFiling 

becomes widespread and learning takes 

place. Accordingly, this FRFA uses a 

learning curve 42 that helps assess the 

impact of learning efficiencies in the 

processing time of Message Sets. Using 

this approach, the FRFA estimates that 

it would take participants an average of 

15.3 seconds 43 to file a Reference 

Message Set; half that amount of time, 

or 7.6 seconds,44 to file a Disclaimer 

Message Set; and 4.75 minutes 45 to file 

a Full Message Set. Additionally, each 

certificate filed in the Product Registry 

as part of a multi-certificate data upload 

would take an average of 8.7 seconds. 

This FRFA assumes, conservatively, 

that all importer certificates will be filed 

once in the Product Registry. Based on 

import surveillance data, this FRFA 

estimates that 20 Reference Message 

Sets will be filed annually per 

certificate.46 Then, using the number of 

Reference Message Sets per certificate, 

this FRFA estimates that 0.7 47 Full 

Message Sets and 3 48 Disclaimer 

Message Sets will be filed annually per 

certificate. 

The annual creation of certificates is 

industry dependent. Firms in some 

industries produce a low number of new 

annual certificates per year, usually due 

to lower levels of innovation or product 

turnover, while other industries 

produce a larger number of annual 

certificates. Therefore, the cost per firm 

in some industries may be larger than in 

others. For instance, high certificate 

turnover industries of small importers 

include Vinyl Plastic Film (43 annual 

certificates), Furniture (25 annual 

certificates), Special Packaging or PPA 

(23 annual certificates), and Clothing 

and Apparel (13 annual certificates) 

Table 5 presents staff’s estimate of the 

number of annual GCC and CPC filings 

by importers, under the assumptions 

discussed earlier. 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED ANNUAL eFILINGS BY SMALL IMPORTERS IMPACTED BY THE RULE

Filings by importers GCCs CPCs Total 

Initial Filing in Product Registry ................................................................................................... 85,002 129,804 214,806 

Transmission of Full Message Set to Broker .............................................................................. 62,630 95,640 158,271 

Transmission of Reference Message Set ................................................................................... 1,700,044 2,596,076 4,296,120 

Transmission of Disclaims ........................................................................................................... 254,471 388,593 643,063 

All Filings .............................................................................................................................. 2,102,147 3,210,113 5,312,260 

Note: Totals made not sum due to rounding. 

Aggregating the processing times per 

type of certificate filing with the number 

of annual filings per certificate, the 

annual burden of the Final Rule per 

certificate would be 9.1 minutes.49

Table 6 shows the hourly burden on 

small importers. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED HOURLY BURDEN ON SMALL IMPORTERS IMPACTED BY THE eFILING PROVISION OF THE RULE

eFiling hourly burden on small importers GCCs CPCs Total 

Initial Filing in Product Registry ................................................................................................... 205 314 519 

Transmission of Full Message Set to Broker .............................................................................. 4,963 7,579 12,543 

Transmission of Reference Message Set ................................................................................... 7,220 11,026 18,247 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1832 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

50Staff expects small importers in industries such 

as Architectural Glazing Materials, Bicycle Helmets, 

and Bunk Beds to produce less than one certificate 

per year, on average. 

51This FRFA assumes that most small firms file 

only 10 percent the average number of certificates 

filed by the average firm within their NAICS code. 

52For instance, larger importers and 

manufacturers may choose to invest in technology 

to enable batch uploads of data into the Product 

Registry or to submit certificate data to their 

brokers. Most small importers are unlikely to have 

the incentives to develop in-house tools, but they 

may purchase third-party software or services. The 

Final Rule, however, does not require any specific 

investments from large or small importers. 

53CPSC does not expect small businesses to 

invest in technology due to the creation of CPSC’s 

Product Registry. A small business only needs a 

laptop with a hard drive for storing records and an 

internet connection to enter certificates into the 

Product Registry. 

54This corresponds to a learning factor of 3, one 

sixth the size of the learning factor used to estimate 

processing times for Reference Message Sets. 

55As of June 2024, the hourly rate for 

management, professional, and related occupations 

at good producing industries was $73.02, while the 

hourly rate for office and administrative support 

occupations was $35.56. Staff assumes that the 

hours invested in startup activities are one half 

managerial and one-half support staff, which 

produces an average hourly rate of $54.29. 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED HOURLY BURDEN ON SMALL IMPORTERS IMPACTED BY THE eFILING PROVISION OF THE RULE— 

Continued 

eFiling hourly burden on small importers GCCs CPCs Total 

Transmission of Disclaims ........................................................................................................... 540 825 1,366 

All Filings .............................................................................................................................. 12,930 19,744 32,674 

Note: Totals made not sum due to rounding. 

Given the hourly burden and the 

$35.56 hourly compensation rate for 

each hour of burden, the average annual 

cost of eFiling per small importer at 

high turnover industries will be 

between $70 and $232, while in low 

turnover industries the hourly burden 

will be as low as $1.50 Given these small 

amounts, it is unlikely for the cost of the 

hourly burden of eFiling to exceed 1% 

of revenue for the typical small firm.51

Tables 7 shows the estimated annual 

cost of such burden on small importers. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF THE BURDEN OF EFILING ON SMALL IMPORTERS

Cost of eFiling hourly burden on importers GCCs CPCs Total 

Initial Filing in Product Registry ................................................................................................... $7,305 $11,155 $18,460 

Transmission of Full Message Set to Broker .............................................................................. 176,495 269,520 446,015 

Transmission of Reference Message Set ................................................................................... 256,761 392,090 648,851 

Transmission of Disclaims ........................................................................................................... 19,217 29,345 48,562 

All Filings .............................................................................................................................. 459,778 702,110 1,161,888 

Staff expect small importers to incur 

a total cost of $1.16 million, which 

approximates $4.71 per small importer. 

The estimated average hourly burden of 

eFiling for small importers of children’s 

and non-children’s products would be 

$3.33 and $13.03. These amounts are 

unlikely to exceed one percentage of the 

annual revenue of a typical small 

importer. 

(ii) eFiling Out-of-Pocket Costs 

Startup Costs: eFiling may require 

some firms to invest in a combination of 

new technologies,52 as well as training 

and/or hiring staff to conduct eFiling 

activities. Large firms may be able to 

build these new technologies 

themselves. Third-party service 

providers may develop tools that large 

or small firms may use.53 Firms are also 

likely to train staff on the use of these 

new technologies and the updated 

processes that support eFiling of 

certificates, including participating in 

meetings with their brokers, reading 

guidance documents, and 

communicating and distributing 

information. 

A survey conducted among Beta Pilot 

participants indicated that firms 

invested roughly the equivalent of 60 

staff hours in preparation for their 

participation in the Beta Pilot, including 

getting trained, understanding and 

communicating the guidance, gathering 

product information, and coordinating 

with their brokers. However, most firms 

that participated in the Beta pilot are of 

significant size, which likely implies the 

startup times for the average firm may 

not be as large. Also, the potential 

introduction of third-party tools or 

third-party support to perform these 

duties will likely reduce the number of 

hours required for setting up the 

logistics of the average firm to conduct 

eFiling activities. Accordingly, the 

FRFA assumes that the average firm will 

invest the equivalent of only one-third 

of the value of startup activities, or the 

monetized equivalent of 20 hours,54 in 

all startup activities. Many firms could 

likely hire third parties that benefit from 

economies of scale, instead of devoting 

as many staff hours to startup tasks; or 

will use a combination of third-party 

vendors and staff to set up eFiling. 

This FRFA converts the 20 hours of 

startup time into an average cost per 

firm of $1,086 using an average 

compensation rate for managerial and 

administrative occupations.55 This 

startup cost per firm does not exceed 

one percent of revenue of the typical 

small firm in each of the industries 

impacted by this Final Rule, as 

discussed later in this section. 

Filing Fees: Many importers use 

import brokers to facilitate customs 

filings and reporting with the U.S. 

government. Brokers typically charge a 

fee per entry or per entry line that is 

filed, and each entry line may contain 

one or more product certificates. During 

the eFiling Beta Pilot in 2024, brokers 

had made or were making technological 

investments needed for eFiling, and the 

fees that brokers would charge for 

eFiling would cover these investments. 

This FRFA includes these broker fees as 

a cost for importers. While it is 

uncertain what changes, and the 

magnitude of changes, firms would 

choose to make to their technology, 

brokers will likely seek to recover their 

investments through fees. Use of the 

Product Registry will reduce the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1833 

56Average fees per certificate are estimated 

assuming a maximum fee per entry of $25, which 

is based on information provided by Beta Pilot 

participants. Staff then assumes that the average 

importer receives an average number of shipments 

per year, and estimated the number of certificates 

per entry dividing the average number of GCCs and 

CPCs per year by the average number of shipments. 

Finally, the average fees per GCCs and CPCs are 

estimated dividing $25 per entry by the average 

number of certificates included with each entry; 

these averages then are weighted by the total 

number of GCCs and CPCs to obtain an overall 

weighted average per certificate of $0.77. 

57This number of filings includes 20 Reference 

Message Sets, 0.7 Full Message Sets, and 3 

Disclaimer Message Sets per average certificate. 

Most brokers are not expected to charge a fee for 

Disclaimer Message Sets. 

58Brokers will charge fees for 20.7 filings per 

certificate. This number results from adding up the 

expected number of Reference Message Sets per 

certificate (20) with the number of Full Message 

Sets (0.7). 

59The cost to small domestic manufacturers is 

non-significant, only a few cents per firm, and 

indicated earlier, so it is not included in this 

section. 

60 If domestic manufacturers were included here, 

this figure would increase by $2,041 to $7,079. 

61Staff estimates the number of small businesses 

during the PRA Analysis by multiplying the 

estimated proportion of small businesses for a given 

NAICS industry by the number of estimated firms 

for that industry. For an explanation of how staff 

estimated the number of firms see section VIII of 

this preamble. 

62Additional Burden is defined as the difference 

between existing burden from statute and other 

applicable rules and that of the Final Rule. 

63This is rate of discount or default social rate of 

time preference set by Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Guidance for all effects from the 

present through 30 years into the future in Circular 

A–4 (Regulatory Analysis) of November 2023. 

complexity of Message Sets by allowing 

importers to supply only a Unique ID 

for each product certificate, which may 

result in less complex entries and 

reduced brokers fees. 

The fees that brokers charge vary with 

the complexity of the Message Set and 

with the number of Message Sets filed. 

Most brokers charge a maximum fee per 

entry, which reduces the filing fees per 

certificate for firms that file multiple 

certificates per entry. This FRFA 

assumes that the majority of importers 

will choose to file as many product 

certificates as possible per entry, and 

this action will significantly lower the 

cost per individual product certificate 

filed. The estimated average fee per 

filing under these conditions is $0.77.56

As discussed, the eFiling burden 

depends on the number of filings, the 

number of annual certificates generated 

by each small importer, and the 

frequency of product imports. This 

FRFA assumes that each certificate will 

generate a total of 23.7 annual filings,57

out of which 20.7 require broker fees 58

for a total of $15.97 per certificate. 

Accounting for the number of 

certificates filed annually per NAICS 

code, the range of fees for an average 

small importer would fluctuate between 

$2 and $686 depending on the industry. 

This range is unlikely to exceed one 

percent of revenue for most small 

importers. 

2. Overall Cost to Small Importers 

CPSC estimates the cost to small 

importers 59 of CPSC regulated products 

by summing the costs and sub costs 

from: 

• recordkeeping, 

• eFiling of certificates, 

Æ filing hourly burden, 

Æ eFiling out-of-pocket cost, 

D startup costs, and 

D filing fees. 

Table 8 shows the cost from the 

additional recordkeeping and eFiling 

requirements on small importers. Small 

importers, a total of 35,290 small firms, 

will have to maintain records of GCCs 

and their supporting information for 

two additional years, which generates 

an additional annual cost of $5,038.60

Additionally, these 35,290 small 

importers 61 will eFile GCCs at a burden 

of 12,930 hours, which is a cost of 

$459,778, and another 211,148 small 

importers will eFile CPCs with CBP at 

a total additional burden 62 of 19,744 

hours, which is a cost of $702,110. In 

total, this is 32,674 hours per year and 

a total estimated cost of $1.16 million 

for eFiling’s hourly burden. 

TABLE 8—TOTAL ESTIMATED INITIAL COST OF THE RULE TO SMALL IMPORTERS

[First-year costs] 

Annual cost of the final rule to importers GCCs CPCs All 

Additional Recordkeeping Hourly Burden ................................................................................... $5,038 $0 $5,038 

eFiling Hourly Burden .................................................................................................................. 459,778 702,110 1,161,888 

Total Startup Costs ............................................................................................................... 38,317,945 229,264,000 267,581,945 

Annual Filing Fees ................................................................................................................ 1,357,259 2,072,622 3,429,881 

eFiling Out of Pocket Cost .......................................................................................................... 39,675,204 231,336,622 271,011,826 

Impact of eFiling on Importers ..................................................................................................... 40,134,982 232,038,732 272,173,714 

Total Cost of the Rule to Importers ...................................................................................... 40,140,020 232,038,732 272,178,752 

In addition to the hourly burden, 

small importers of CPSC regulated 

products will also bear monetary costs 

that include total startup costs of 

$267.58 million and eFiling fees of 

$3.43 million for a total out-of-pocket 

cost burden of $271.01 million. The 

total overall cost of the Final Rule on 

small importers reaches $272.18 million 

in the first year of the Final Rule of 

which $232.04 are linked to children’s 

product certificates and $40.14 are 

linked to non-children product 

certificates. 

Table 9 presents the corresponding 

annualized costs of the Final Rule to 

small importers. As opposed to Table 8 

that shows the total startup cost, Table 

9 presents the annualized startup cost to 

small importers over a time span of 30 

years at a 2 percent discount rate.63 The 

total annualized cost to small importers 

is $16.54 million; $3.53 million for 

small importers of general use products 

and $13.01 million for small importers 

of children’s products. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST OF THE RULE TO SMALL IMPORTERS

Annual cost of the final rule to importers GCCs CPCs All 

Additional Recordkeeping Hourly Burden ................................................................................... $5,038 $0 $5,038 

eFiling Hourly Burden .................................................................................................................. 459,778 702,110 1,161,888 

Annualized Startup Costs ..................................................................................................... 1,710,893 10,236,620 11,947,513 

Annual Filing Fees ................................................................................................................ 1,357,259 2,072,622 3,429,881 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1834 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

64Staff obtained the shipment value per 

certificate filed from CPSC’s division of import 

surveillance (EXIS). Staff added a 60% markup to 

estimate the sales value of the imported products. 

65Note that small importers of children’s 

products as a group include a larger number of 

firms and eFilings than importers of non-children’s 

products. 

66ECN Core Statistics Economic Census (2017): 

Establishment and Firm Size Statistics for the U.S. 

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

economic-census/data/2017/sector00/. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED COST OF THE RULE TO SMALL IMPORTERS—Continued 

Annual cost of the final rule to importers GCCs CPCs All 

eFiling Out of Pocket Cost .......................................................................................................... 3,068,152 12,309,242 15,377,394 

Impact of eFiling on Importers ..................................................................................................... 3,527,930 13,011,352 16,539,282 

Total Cost of the Rule to Importers ...................................................................................... 3,532,968 13,011,352 16,544,320 

Table 10 presents the average costs of 

the Final Rule per small importer. Small 

importers will incur an average cost of 

$1,104 per firm ($272.18 million/ 

246,438 small importers) in first-year 

costs in connection with the Final 

Rule’s new requirements. The cost per 

small importer of non-children’s 

products will be on average $1,137, 

while the cost per small importer of 

children’s products will be $1,099. The 

difference between these two estimates 

is mainly driven by a larger number of 

certificates created by small importers of 

non-children’s products. 

TABLE 10—ESTIMATED AVERAGE COST OF THE RULE PER SMALL IMPORTER

Average cost per small importer GCCs CPCs Total 

Average Additional Recordkeeping Hourly Burden ..................................................................... $0.14 $0.00 $0.02 

Average eFiling Hourly Burden ................................................................................................... 13.03 3.33 4.71 

Average Annualized Startup Costs ...................................................................................... 1,085.80 1,085.80 1,085.80 

Average Annual Filing Fees ................................................................................................. 38.46 9.82 13.92 

Average eFiling Out of Pocket Cost ............................................................................................ 1,124.26 1,095.62 1,099.72 

Average Impact of eFiling per Importer ....................................................................................... 1,137.29 1,098.94 1,104.43 

Average Cost of the Rule per Small Importer ............................................................................. 1,137.43 1,098.94 1,104.45 

3. eFiling Impact as a Percent of Filed 

Certificate Value 

The Final Rule requires importers to 

eFile certificates with CBP at entry, at 

which point the import value of the 

shipment is tabulated. This FRFA 

compares the burden of the eFiling 

requirements to the average sales value 

per certificate filed 64 for imported 

products subject to the Final Rule’s 

eFiling requirement. This approach 

provides a pragmatic assessment of the 

Final Rule’s impact on small firms. 

Table 11 shows the burden cost per 

certificate filed and its relative cost 

impact as a percentage of expected 

revenue per certificate. 

TABLE 11—ESTIMATED ANNUAL IMPACT OF THE RULE ON SMALL IMPORTERS AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE

Cost as share of estimated revenue per certificate GCCs CPCs All 

Total Cost of the Rule to Importers ............................................................................................. $40,140,020 $232,038,732 $272,178,752 

Total Number of eFilings ...................................................................................................... 2,102,147 3,210,113 5,312,260 

Average Cost Per eFiling ..................................................................................................... 19.09 72.28 51.24 

Estimated Revenue per Certificate Filed ..................................................................................... 12,050 12,050 12,050 

Cost as a % of Estimated Revenue per Certificate ............................................................. 0.1585% 0.5999% 0.4252% 

Table 11 shows that small importers 

of general use products will bear an 

estimated burden of $19.09 per eFiling 

and a total initial cost of $40.14 million 

during the first year of implementation 

of the Final Rule. Small importers of 

children’s products will bear an 

estimated $72.28 burden per eFiling for 

a total initial cost of $232.04 million.65

During the first year of implementation 

of the Final Rule, the average burden of 

the Final Rule across importers of all 

products regulated by CPSC is $51.24, 

which represents 0.43 percent of the 

average revenue per certificate filed. If 

these initial cost estimates are 

annualized over a 30-year lifespan at a 

2 percent discount rate, small importers 

will bear an annualized cost of $3.11 per 

certificate filing ($1.68 per GCC filing 

and $4.05 per CPC filing). These equate 

to $16.54 million in annualized cost to 

small importers: $3.53 million to small 

importers of general use products and 

$13.01 million to small importers of 

children products. The estimated 

impact per eFiling for both importers of 

general use products and importers of 

children’s products is well under one 

percent of the estimated revenue from 

selling the imported products associated 

with each eFiling. 

4. Net Impact on Small Businesses 

CPSC uses the threshold of one 

percent of revenue to estimate whether 

a given rule will have a significant 

impact on the small businesses the rule 

covers. 

Table 12 shows the average revenue 

for firms smaller than the largest 50 

firms in a given NAICS code.66 This 

segment is characteristic of smaller 

firms. The Final Rule impact does not 

exceed the threshold of one percent of 

the average revenue of this subset of 

small firms because the overall cost 

impact of the Final Rule is minimal. 

Several NAICS industries have an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1835 

67The sales value i.e. revenue, of the shipment is 

the value of the shipment that CPSC estimates 

based on trade data plus a direct-to-consumer 

markup of 60%. See https://www.shopify.com/ 

retail/product-pricing-for-wholesale-and-retail. 

CPSC’s estimate relies on de minimis shipments 

that filed an ET 86 entry, which does not include 

shipments that did not file an entry or international 

mail shipments. However, CPSC’s estimate covers 

all de minimis shipments by extrapolating from the 

data based on the ratios of products under CPSC 

jurisdiction for de minimis shipments entered 

under Entry Type 86. 

average revenue of slightly under $1 

million for firms smaller than the top 

50. However, the one percent threshold 

(in this case, roughly $10,000) is greater 

than both the cost of the Final Rule of 

$1,137 per small importers of 

nonchildren’s products, and $1,099 per 

small importers of children’s products. 

In the SNPR the Commission 

requested comments on the average 

annual revenues of small businesses 

within the impacted industries and 

alternative industry classifications for 

SBA purposes, but did not receive any 

comments. 

TABLE 12—AVERAGE REVENUE FOR FIRMS SMALLER THAN THE TOP 50 BY NAICS INDUSTRY

Product 

2017 Average revenue for firms smaller than top 50 

($ thousands) 

% Small NAICS 1 NAICS 2 NAICS 3 NAICS 1 NAICS 2 NAICS 3 Min NAICS 

revenue 

1% of 

revenue 

Matchbooks ............................... 97 339999 325998 .................... $920 $8,491 .................... $920 $9 

Bicycle Helmets ......................... 83 339113 339920 .................... 4,305 1,979 .................... 1,979 20 

CB Band Base Station Antennas ......................................... 75 334220 .................... .................... 5,351 .................... .................... 5,351 54 

Walk Behind Power Mowers ..... 95 333112 .................... .................... 1,288 .................... .................... 1,288 13 

Swimming Pool Slides .............. 85 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Cellulose Insulation ................... 37 322219 322299 .................... 3,445 4,127 .................... 3,445 34 

Cigarette and Multipurpose 

Lighters .................................. 97 339999 325998 .................... 920 8,491 .................... 920 9 

Garage Door Openers .............. 97 332321 332710 335999 5,069 1,806 4,220 1,806 18 

Furniture (paint & entrapment), 

Furniture (bunk beds) ............ 85 337110 337121 337122 1,115 2,481 771 771 8 

Furniture (bunk beds) ................ 85 337124 .................... .................... 979 .................... .................... 979 10 

Paints and Coatings .................. 90 325211 325510 .................... 18,334 5,321 .................... 5,321 53 

ATVs .......................................... 95 336999 .................... .................... 1,410 .................... .................... 1,410 14 

Pools and Spas (VGB Act) ....... 85 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... Fireworks Devices ..................... 90 325998 .................... .................... 8,491 .................... .................... 8,491 85 

Bicycles ..................................... 95 336991 .................... .................... 958 .................... .................... 958 10 

Carpets and Rugs ..................... 95 314110 .................... .................... 1,800 .................... .................... 1,800 18 

Mattresses ................................. 95 337910 .................... .................... 3,400 .................... .................... 3,400 34 

Refrigerators .............................. 95 333415 335220 .................... 9,159 .................... .................... 9,159 92 

Candles w/Metal Core Wicks .... 66 325612 .................... .................... 3,266 .................... .................... 3,266 33 

Refuse Bins ............................... 62 326199 .................... .................... 12,445 .................... .................... 12,445 124 

5. Impact on Importers of De Minimis 

Shipments 

Merchandise imported by one person 

on one day that is accorded a duty 

exemption under 19 U.S.C. 

1321(a)(2)(C), for which the aggregate 

fair retail value in the country of 

shipment does not exceed $800, is 

commonly known as a de minimis 

shipment. Such merchandise may be 

entered under the ‘‘release from 

manifest’’ process or via the ACE Entry 

Type 86 Test (89 FR 2630 (Jan 16. 

2024)). Merchandise subject to PGA 

requirements, such as CPSC’s PGA 

Message Set or certification requirement 

for regulated consumer products, is 

ineligible for entry under the ‘‘release 

from manifest’’ process. Accordingly, 

the Final Rule requires that importers 

file a type 86 entry for de minimis 

shipments to submit CPSC’s PGA 

Message Set. Staff estimate that a 

significant number of small importers 

would need to file type 86 entry for de 

minimis shipments containing a product 

subject to a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation. These small businesses ship 

thousands of units of products through 

de minimis entries. Staff considered 

current entry type 86 shipments in HTS 

codes that could fall within CPSC’s 

jurisdiction, although CPSC has no way 

to determine whether these shipments 

contain consumer products or whether 

such products are regulated by CPSC. 

As shown in Figure 1, the median value 

of a de minimis shipment is about $30; 

after applying a direct-to-consumer 

markup, staff estimates the sales value 

is $48.67


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1836 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

68https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/buyer-bewarebad-actors-exploit-de-minimis-shipments. 

69https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/trade. 

70For example, if a consumer received a direct 

shipment from a foreign company, no U.S. small 

business may be involved in the transaction. 

Under current shipping conditions, 

importers of parties eligible to file a type 

86 entry would likely eFile a single 

certificate per entry; this would increase 

the filing fees per certificate to the point 

that it might represent a significant 

portion (greater than one percent) of the 

value of each shipment. 

CBP reports that they process 

approximately 4 million de minimis 

shipments a day.68 In 2022, CBP 

reported 685.1 million total de minimis 

shipments, which are also called section 

321 shipments.69 Until this Final Rule is 

in effect, importers of regulated 

consumer products claiming a de 

minimis exemption are not required to 

submit CPSC’s PGA Message Set using 

entry type 86. Accordingly, CPSC 

currently does not know how many de 

minimis shipments per day contain 

finished products within CPSC’s 

jurisdiction, nor how many of those 

finished products are subject to a rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation enforced by 

CPSC. 

The RFA requires consideration of the 

impact of the Final Rule on U.S. small 

businesses. Importers can be either 

foreign 70 or domestic firms and firms of 

varying sizes. CBP does not classify 

importers by size. Accordingly, without 

additional data on de minimis and mail 

shipments, and who uses this mode of 

importation, CPSC does not have 

sufficient information to estimate the 

number of small U.S. firms that would 

be impacted by the Final Rule 

requirements. To the extent that de 

minimis entries are primarily caused by 

foreign companies, for example, such 

costs would not be included in the 

FRFA impact assessment. 

Moreover, as a result of the Final 

Rule, some firms may choose to cease 

using entry type 86 if this importation 

route becomes more costly, and may 

choose to bundle shipments using 

another entry type, such as an 01 entry 

for consumption or warehousing. 

However, CPSC does not have enough 

information to determine what 

percentage of the impacted firms would 

be able to structure their import 

transactions in a manner to avoid a 

substantial increase in fees. 

Additionally, CPSC does not know 

whether some of these firms may have 

other sources of revenue offsetting the 

type 86 entry filing requirement or 

whether some of these firms are actually 

subsidiaries of larger firms. 

Accordingly, CPSC is currently unable 

to estimate the impact of the Final Rule 

on small U.S. importers of de minimis 

shipments. 

E. Alternatives for Reducing the Adverse 

Impact on Small Businesses 

CPSC considered three alternatives to 

the Final Rule: 

(1) Make eFiling of certificates 

voluntary, instead of mandatory; 

(2) Require PDF submissions of 

certificates rather than eFiling 

certificates; and 

(3) Extend the effective date of the 

Final Rule to 36 months for all products, 

regardless of their origin. 

Alternative 1 to the Final Rule would 

allow, rather than require, certificate 

data for imported products to be eFiled 

at entry. If the Commission adopted this 

alternative, the certificate would still 

have to be available for examination 

upon request, as it is now. Allowing, 

instead of requiring, certificates to be 

eFiled at entry could reduce the burden 

on small businesses, but it would not 

meaningfully enhance the Commission’s 

ability to target shipments for 

examination by using the additional 

certificate data elements collected via 

eFiling, nor to enforce and verify the 

accuracy of certificates. This alternative 

would largely maintain the status quo, 

because it is likely that only a few firms 

would choose to eFile certificates; 

therefore, unlike mandatory eFiling, this 

alternative would not reduce costly 

delays at the ports. 

Alternative 2 to the Rule would 

require PDF submissions of certificates. 

For imported products, the importer 

could upload a PDF to CBP’s Document 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3ER08JA25.000</GPH>

De minimis value distribution 

■ Frequency 

4,500 1()1)5 

4,000 909' 

S,500 aa 

i 3,000 1°" 

8 

I!! 

:c 

2,500 

-

~ 

'8 2,000 .. 4°" 5 

8 1,500 30% 

1,000 205 

500 lffi' 

°" 

Averqeimportvalue 

Figure 1 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1837 

71Totals shown may not exactly match the 

product of component parts due to rounding. 

72The estimates from the equation may not match 

the total number of hours due to rounding. 

73This includes the entire eFiling burden of 

144,487 hours and 2,223 hours of additional hours 

of recordkeeping due to the increase in the 

recordkeeping period of GCCs from 3 to 5 years. 

Image System. Similar to Alternative 1, 

this alternative would not enhance the 

Commission’s ability to target 

shipments for examination by using the 

additional certificate data elements 

collected via eFiling. Not only are PDF 

files not useful for targeting, but CBP is 

also unlikely to allow the collection and 

maintenance of a large volume of PDFs 

in ACE, because PDF files require a 

relatively large amount of storage space. 

Alternative 3 would delay 

implementation of the Final Rule by 

changing the effective date from 18 

months for all consumer products 

subject to a CPSC rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation not entered from an FTZ and 

24 months for products and substances 

entered for consumption or 

warehousing from an FTZ, to 36 months 

for all CPSC regulated products 

regardless of their origin. This would 

allow small firms importing from nonFTZ areas 24 additional months to 

implement any new technology and 

organizational changes needed for 

eFiling, train staff, communicate with 

partners, and perform quality controls, 

among other activities. Alternative 3 did 

not receive any substantive comments 

from small firms importing from nonFTZs indicating a need for such an 

extension. The Commission has already 

extended the 120-day effective date to 

18 months, providing small firms with 

an ample amount of time for preparation 

and implementation activities. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Final Rule contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the PRA. 44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521. The PRA requires an agency to 

publish the following information: 

D a title for the collection of 

information; 

D a summary of the collection of 

information; 

D a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

D a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

D an estimate of the burden that will 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

D notice that comments may be 

submitted to OMB. 

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

The Final Rule creates a new 

collection of information for certificates 

for non-children’s products and 

expands the existing collection for 

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products, OMB Control No. 3041–0159. 

The Children’s Product OMB control 

number would expand to include 

eFiling certificates for imported 

children’s products that are subject to a 

CPSC rule requiring certification. We 

update and summarize that information 

here. 

In accordance with OMB’s 

requirement, the Commission provides 

the following information: 

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

Third Party Testing of Children’s 

Products, approved previously under 

OMB Control Number 3041–0159. 

Summary, Need, and Use of 

Information: Sections I and II of this 

preamble contain this information. 

Respondents and Frequency: For 

products manufactured outside of the 

United States, respondents include 

importers of consumer products subject 

to a CPSC-enforced regulation. For 

products manufactured within the 

United States, respondents include 

manufacturers and private labelers of 

consumer products subject to a CPSCenforced regulation. 

Estimated Burden: CPSC has 

estimated the respondent burden in 

hours and the estimated labor costs to 

respondents. 

Estimate of Respondent Burden: 

Below we categorize and estimate the 

burden created by both the statute and 

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

Certificates: The burden associated 

with the creation of certificates (GCCs 

and CPCs). This can be considered a 

general recordkeeping burden. 

Disclosure: The burden derived from 

disclosing certificate information and 

from furnishing the certificates to these 

third parties (distributors and retailers). 

Recordkeeping: The burden 

associated with the initial storage and 

routine maintenance of records, 

including records of the certificates and 

any supporting and testing 

documentation, for a period of five 

years. 

eFiling: The initial burden from 

electronically filing the certificates, 

using either the CPSC-maintained 

Product Registry or the systems 

provided by the brokers that support 

importers’ activities, as well as the 

routine burden on importers submitting 

associated Full or Reference PGA 

Message Sets. 

A. Hourly Burden for GCCs 

CPSC estimates that there may be 

49,364 non-children’s products firms 

subject to the Final Rule. On average, 

these firms are expected to create 27 

certificates per year, for a total of 

1,333,982 certificates.71 CPSC assumes 

each certificate will require 5 minutes of 

labor per certificate, which equates to 

111,165 hours spent on their creation. 

These same firms must keep the 

records supporting the certificates for a 

period of five years. CPSC assumes 

recordkeeping will take, on average, 1 

minute for record creation and initial 

storage and an additional 15 seconds for 

the routine annual maintenance of the 

certificate record. This annual burden 

comes to 27,791 hours (1.25 minutes/60 

× 1,333,982 certificates). 

The firms must also disclose each 

certificate to retailers and distributors of 

the product upon request; thus, staff 

estimates an additional 0.25 hours (15 

minutes) burden for third-party 

disclosure. This sums to 333,495 hours 

(15 minutes/60 × 1,333,982 certificates). 

CPSC estimates the number of 

responses for eFiling as 23,491,168. The 

average filing takes roughly 22 seconds 

across filing modes. This adds to an 

estimated eFiling burden of 144,487 

hours (22 seconds/3,600 × 

23,491,168).72

The aggregate burden of the Final 

Rule for suppliers of non-children’s 

products is 616,939 hours and has a 

total cost of $26,102,580. This estimate 

includes the burden imposed by statute, 

which non-children’s products 

suppliers would bear in absence of the 

Final Rule. The net burden from the 

Final Rule—excluding the statutory 

burden—is 146,710 hours 73 and the net 

cost is $5,217,007. Table 13 shows that 

importers of general use products 

requiring a GCC bear most of both the 

statutory burden and the additional 

burden from the eFiling requirement. 

CPSC expects that 82 percent of the 

firms supplying non-children’s products 

subject to the Final Rule will be 

importers with the remaining 18 percent 

as manufacturers. As shown in Table 13, 

staff estimate the statutory burden borne 

by importers is 480,905 hours (78%) 

and the expected burden to 

manufacturers as 136,034 hours (22%). 

The net annual burden of the Final Rule 

of 146,710 hours can be broken into a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1838 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

74To estimate the cost of the hourly burden, 

CPSC staff used the hourly compensation (benefits 

plus wage) of management, professional, and 

related occupations in goods-producing industries 

for the production of certificates ($73.02), and the 

hourly compensation of office and administrative 

support occupations in good-producing industries 

for the disclosure, recordkeeping, and eFiling of 

certificates ($35.56). These hourly compensation 

estimates were obtained from the report on 

‘‘Employer Cost for Employee Compensation’’ 

prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as 

of June 2024. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ecec.t04.htm. 75The average filing takes roughly 22 seconds 

across filing modes. This adds to an estimated 

eFiling burden of 209,462 hours (22 seconds/3,600 

× 34,055,116). The result from this equation may 

not exactly match the total due to rounding. 

76To estimate the cost of the hourly burden of 

eFiling, staff used the hourly compensation 

(benefits plus wage) of office and administrative 

support occupations in good producing industries 

($35.56). This hourly compensation estimate was 

obtained from the report on ‘‘Employer Cost for 

Employee Compensation’’ prepared by the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics as of June 2024. https:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t04.htm. 

burden of 146,070 hours borne by importers (99.6%) and 640 hours borne 

by manufacturers (0.4%). 

TABLE 13—TOTAL BURDEN ON NON-CHILDREN PRODUCTS COVERED BY PART 1110 

Total burden Respondents 

Frequency 

of 

response 

Responses Response 

time 

Burden 

hours 

Cost per 

burden 

hour 74

Total cost of 

burden 

Total 

Certificates .............................................................................. 49,364 27.0 1,333,982 0.0833 111,165 $73.02 $8,117,279 

Disclosure ................................................................................ 49,364 27.0 1,333,982 0.2500 333,495 35.56 11,859,097 

Recordkeeping ........................................................................ 49,364 27.0 1,333,982 0.0208 27,791 35.56 988,258 

eFiling ...................................................................................... 40,665 577.7 23,491,168 0.0062 144,487 35.56 5,137,946 

Total ................................................................................. 49,364 557.0 27,493,113 0.0224 616,939 42.31 26,102,580 

Additional Burden from the Rule 

Total ................................................................................. 49,364 475.9 23,491,168 0.006245 146,710 35.56 5,217,007 

Manufacturers 

Certificates .............................................................................. 8,699 44.2 384,095 0.0833 32,008 73.02 2,337,219 

Disclosure ................................................................................ 8,699 44.2 384,095 0.2500 96,024 35.56 3,414,607 

Recordkeeping ........................................................................ 8,699 44.2 384,095 0.0208 8,002 35.56 284,551 

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

Total ................................................................................. 8,699 132.5 1,152,286 0.1181 136,034 44.37 6,036,377 

Additional Burden to Manufacturers 

Total ................................................................................. 8,699 0.0 0 0.0000 640 35.56 22,764 

Importers 

Certificates .............................................................................. 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.0833 79,157 73.02 5,780,059 

Disclosure ................................................................................ 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.2500 237,472 35.56 8,444,491 

Recordkeeping ........................................................................ 40,665 23.4 949,886 0.0208 19,789 35.56 703,708 

eFiling ...................................................................................... 40,665 577.7 23,491,168 0.0062 144,487 35.56 5,137,946 

Total ................................................................................. 40,665 647.8 26,340,828 0.0183 480,905 41.73 20,066,203 

Additional Burden to Importers 

Total ................................................................................. 40,665 577.7 23,491,168 0.0062 146,070 35.56 5,194,243 

Note: Totals made not sum due to rounding. 

B. Hourly Burden for eFiling CPCs 

Section 14 of the CPSA requires thirdparty testing of children’s products that 

are subject to an applicable children’s 

product safety rule to ensure 

compliance with such rules. Based on 

this testing, manufacturers, including 

importers, are required to certify 

compliance of their products to the 

applicable standards. The burden 

associated with certificate production, 

recordkeeping, and disclosure is already 

subject to an OMB control number, 

3041–0159, for children’s product 

testing, as set forth in 16 CFR parts 1107 

and 1109. The Final Rule adds a 

certificate eFiling requirement for 

importers of finished children’s 

products and estimates the reporting 

burden for this requirement. 

Table 14 presents CPSC’s estimate 

that there are 224,000 small importers 

supplying children’s products. 

Commission staff estimates an average 

of 152 certificate filings per firm based 

on assumptions supported on data from 

the Division of Import Surveillance and 

the Beta Pilot, which means that 

34,055,116 shipments related to 

imported children’s products would be 

annually required to eFile certificates, 

with an estimated eFiling burden of 

209,462 hours.75 This number only 

includes burden imposed by the Final 

Rule, so the net burden from the Final 

Rule is also 209,462 hours, and the cost 

of this additional burden from the Final 

Rule is $7,448,474. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1839 

TABLE 14—EFILING CHILDREN’S PRODUCT CERTIFICATES (CPC) 

Total burden Respondents Frequency 

of response Responses Response time 

Burden 

hours 

Cost per 

burden 

hour 76

Total cost of 

burden 

eFiling ...................................................................................... 224,000 152.0 34,055,116 0.0062 209,462 $35.56 $7,448,474 

Additional Burden from the Rule 

Total ................................................................................. 224,000 152.0 34,055,116 0.0062 209,462 35.56 7,448,474 

C. Burden Estimate Breakdowns by 

Imported and Domestically 

Manufactured Products 

Table 15 provides a summary of the 

analysis for imported products, and 

Table 16 provides a summary of this 

analysis for domestically manufactured 

products. 

TABLE 15—IMPORT DATA ANALYSIS BY PRODUCT

Product 

Total CPC GCC 

Total 

respondents 

Total 

responses 

Percent of 

Resp as 

CPC 

CPC 

responses 

Percent of 

Resp as 

GCC 

GCC 

responses 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pool and Spa drain covers ............................................................................... 2,636 33,397 0 0 100 33,397 

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

Portable fuel containers .................................................................................... 386 5,974 0 0 100 5,974 

Portable gas containers .................................................................................... 386 5,974 0 0 100 5,974 

Portable hook-on chairs .................................................................................... 564 5,328 0 0 100 5,328 

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

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

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

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


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1840 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 15—IMPORT DATA ANALYSIS BY PRODUCT—Continued 

Product 

Total CPC GCC 

Total 

respondents 

Total 

responses 

Percent of 

Resp as 

CPC 

CPC 

responses 

Percent of 

Resp as 

GCC 

GCC 

responses 

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

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

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

Stationary activity centers ................................................................................. 37 3,093 100 3,093 0 0 

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 16—DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER DATA BY PRODUCT CATEGORY

CFR Product categories NAICS NAICS_description Respondents 

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

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

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

plastics, manufacturing.

139 

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

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

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

Asbestos products (except brake shoes and clutches) manufacturing.

7 

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

(ATVs), wheeled or tracked, manufacturing.

5 

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

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

manufacturing.

125 

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

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

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

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

equipment manufacturing.

10 

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

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

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

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

16 CFR part 1507; 16 CFR 

1500.17(3) and 1500.17(8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 U.S.C. 1472a ............................ Liquid Nicotine Packaging ............. 325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing: Nicotine and derivatives (i.e., 

basic chemicals) manufacturing.

278 

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

permanent, ceramic or ferrite, manufacturing.

7 

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

Magnets, permanent, metallic, manufacturing.

18 

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

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

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

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

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

Asbestos products (except brake shoes and clutches) manufacturing.

10 

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

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

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

solid inorganic, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing; 

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

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

94 

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

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

solid organic, not specified elsewhere by process, manufacturing.

156 

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

uncompounded, manufacturing.

115 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1841 

77Technology investments may decrease the 

overall costs associated with managing certificate 

data, records, or entering products into the Product 

Registry or into a broker’s database. Importers are 

not required to invest in this technology but larger 

firms with more resources at their disposal may do 

so, provided a positive return exists on such an 

investment. To minimize costs, most firms would 

likely take advantage of existing broker technologies 

and not make unnecessary changes to their system 

unless there was a business case to do so. 

Furthermore, testing facilities offer suppliers tools 

to manage and eFile certificate data. Online tools, 

such as Interlink by Intertek, can be used by firms 

of any size to capture, track, and file GCCs and 

CPSC. 

78We use startup timeframes to estimate startup 

costs. In reality, many firms will likely hire third 

parties to benefit from the economies of scale, 

instead of devoting as many staff hours to startup 

tasks. This will reduce burden. 

79This corresponds to a learning factor of 3, one 

sixth the size of the learning factor used to estimate 

processing times for Reference Message Sets. 

80As of June 2024, the hourly rate for 

management, professional, and related occupations 

at good producing industries was $73.02, while the 

hourly rate for office and administrative support 

occupations was $35.56. CPSC assumes that the 

hours invested in startup activities are one-half 

managerial and one-half support staff at an average 

hourly rate of $54.29. 

TABLE 16—DOMESTIC MANUFACTURER DATA BY PRODUCT CATEGORY—Continued 

CFR Product categories NAICS NAICS_description Respondents 

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

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing ................................ 107 

16 CFR part 1700 .......................... PPPA ............................................. 325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing: Mouthwashes (except medicinal) 

manufacturing; Permanent wave neutralizers.

236 

16 CFR part 1301 .......................... Refuse Bins ................................... 332439 Other Metal Container Manufacturing: Light gauge metal garbage 

cans manufacturing.

20 

16 CFR part 1207 .......................... Swimming Pool Slides .................. 339920 Sporting and athletic goods manufacturing .......................................... 24 

16 CFR part 1205 .......................... Walk Behind Power Mowers ......... 333112 Lawn and garden tractor and home lawn and garden equipment 

manufacturing.

29 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Vinyl Plastic Film ........................... 326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing—Vinyl and vinyl copolymer film and unlaminated sheet (except packaging) manufacturing.50 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315110 Hosiery and sock mills .......................................................................... 1 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315190 Other apparel knitting mills ................................................................... 2 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315210 Cut and sew apparel contractors ......................................................... 72 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315220 Men’s and boys’ cut and sew apparel manufacturing .......................... 13 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315240 Women’s, girls’, and infants’ cut and sew apparel manufacturing ....... 34 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315280 Other cut and sew apparel manufacturing ........................................... 11 

16 CFR part 1611 .......................... Clothing And Apparel .................... 315990 Apparel accessories and other apparel manufacturing ........................ 17 

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

D. Additional Recordkeeping Costs 

Public comments stated there were 

additional eFiling costs not considered 

in the SNPR. In response to these 

comments, agency staff analyzed survey 

responses and data from the eFiling Beta 

Pilot participants and queried import 

brokers to assess additional potential 

out-of-pocket expenses imposed by the 

Final Rule. As a result of this 

assessment, staff conducted an analysis 

of three additional annual cost burden 

categories: (1) startup costs to account 

for the burden of organizational 

meetings, staff training, and setting up 

accounts and a data storage system to 

house the certificate data; (2) fees 

charged by brokers to file message sets 

with CBP; and (3) de minimis filings. 

However, for the reasons stated in 

section VII.D.5 of this preamble, CPSC 

has insufficient information for a 

substantive burden analysis involving 

de minimis filings impacted by the Final 

Rule. Therefore, the following subsections discuss startup costs and filing 

fees. 

1. Startup Burden Cost 

eFiling of certificates may require 

some importers to invest in a 

combination of new technologies and 

training or hiring staff to conduct 

eFiling activities. These new 

technologies may be built in-house by 

larger firms. Also, third-party service 

providers may develop tools and 

services that large or small importers 

could use.77 Firms are also likely to 

train their staff on the use of these new 

technologies and the updated processes 

that support the eFiling of certificates, 

including participating in meetings with 

their brokers, reading guidance 

documents, and communicating and 

distributing information. 

Firms that participated in the Beta 

Pilot indicated an average of 60 hours of 

startup time 78 for training, 

understanding and communicating 

eFiling guidance, gathering product 

information, and coordinating with 

brokers. However, most firms that 

participated in the Beta Pilot are of 

significant size, which implies the 

startup times for the average importer 

likely are not as large. Also, the 

potential introduction of third-party 

tools or third-party support to perform 

these duties will likely reduce the 

number of hours required for setting up 

the logistics of the average importer to 

conduct eFiling activities. 

Consequently, CPSC assumes that the 

average firm would invest the 

equivalent of only one-third the time, or 

20 hours,79 in all startup activities. More 

than 264 thousand importers will be 

involved in eFiling, so ample room 

exists for learning and cost 

improvements. 

The 20 hours of startup time converts 

to an average cost per firm of $1,086 

using the average wage rate of 

management and administrative 

occupations.80 Annualizing the average 

startup cost per firm at a 2% discount 

rate over 30 years, the estimated 

annualized cost equivalent per firm is 

$48.48. Table 17 presents a summary of 

estimated startup costs. 

TABLE 17—EFILING STARTUP COSTS

Additional costs of response Importers Frequency 

of response Responses Cost per response 

Total 

additional 

costs 

GCC Startup Burden ................................................................................ 40,665 1 40,665 $48.48 $1,971,475 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1842 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

81This figure assumes an average fee per entry of 

$25, Average fees per GCCs and CPCs are estimated 

dividing $25 per entry by the average number of 

certificates included with each entry; these averages 

then are weighted by the total number of GCCs and 

CPCs to obtain an overall weighted average per 

certificate of $0.77. 

82 $64.28 comes from rounding $64.275 = 133,692 

a year/2,080 hours per year. See https://

www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/ 

salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2024/DCB.pdf. 

83https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm 

TABLE 17—EFILING STARTUP COSTS—Continued 

Additional costs of response Importers Frequency 

of response Responses Cost per response 

Total 

additional 

costs 

CPC Startup Burden ................................................................................ 224,000 1 224,000 48.48 10,859,718 

Total .................................................................................................. 264,665 1 264,665 48.48 12,831,194 

Note: Totals made not sum due to rounding. 

2. Filing Fees 

Many importers use import brokers to 

facilitate customs filings and reporting 

with the government. Brokers typically 

charge a fee per entry or per entry line 

that is filed, and each entry line may 

contain one or more product certificates. 

The fees that brokers charge vary with 

the complexity of the Message Set and 

with the number of Message Sets filed. 

Most brokers charge a maximum fee per 

entry which reduces the filing fees per 

certificate for firms that file multiple 

certificates per entry. CPSC assumes 

that a majority of firms would choose to 

file as many product certificates as 

possible per entry, and this action will 

significantly lower the cost per 

individual product certificate filed. 

CPSC estimates the average fee per filing 

under these conditions to be $0.77.81

Importers are only expected to pay a 

filing fee for Reference Message Sets and 

Full Message Sets. 

Table 18 presents an estimate of filing 

fees. CPSC estimates importers of nonchildren’s products will file 19,697,612 

annual message sets (Full and Reference 

Message Sets) for a fee. At the average 

filing fee per certificate of $0.77, the 

expected fees for all GCCs are 

$15,167,162 in total. CPSC also estimate 

that importers of children’s products 

will file 28,555,603, annual message sets 

for a fee, and expect filing fees for CPCs 

to total $21,987,815 annually. The 

estimated annual total filing fees paid 

by all filers is $37,154,976. These totals 

exclude de minimis filings. 

TABLE 18—ESTIMATED ANNUAL FILING FEES

Additional cost Importers Filings with 

a fee Responses Cost per response 

Total filling 

fees 

GCC Filing Fees ...................................................................................... 40,665 484 19,697,612 $0.77 $15,167,162 

CPC Filings Fees ..................................................................................... 224,000 127 28,555,603 0.77 21,987,815 

All Importer Filings ............................................................................ 264,665 182 48,253,216 0.77 37,154,976 

E. Cost to the Federal Government 

The estimated annual cost of the 

information collection requirements to 

the federal government in Fiscal Year 

2026 (October 1, 2025, through 

September 30, 2026) is approximately 

$1.2 million in 2024 dollars, which 

includes 2,080 staff hours to manage the 

eFiling program and $1 million in 

contracting costs. This estimate for 

Fiscal Year 2026 is based in part on the 

annual salary for a mid-level salaried 

GS–13–5 employee in the Washington, 

DC metropolitan area (effective as of 

January 2024) which is $64.28 per 

hour.82 This represents 67.7 percent of 

total compensation (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ March 2024, 

Table 2, percentage of wages and 

salaries for all civilian management, 

professional, and related employees.83

Adding an additional 32.3 percent for 

benefits brings the average annual 

compensation for a mid-level salaried 

GS–13–5 employee to $94.94 per hour 

($64.28 ÷ 0.677). Assuming that 

approximately 2,080 hours will be 

required annually, this results in an 

annual labor cost of $197,477.10 ($94.98 

per hour × 2,080 hours = $197,477) plus 

an annual contracting cost of $1,000,000 

in IT development for an annual cost to 

the government of $1.2 million in Fiscal 

Year 2026. Contracting costs are 

expected to decrease substantially 

thereafter. Because eFiling will be fully 

functional and firms will be 

experienced with it, contractor support 

should only be required for ongoing 

operations and maintenance. 

F. OMB Submission 

CPSC has submitted the information 

collection requirements of this Final 

Rule to OMB for review in accordance 

with PRA requirements. 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d). 

IX. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether the agency is required to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

an environmental impact statement. 

Under these regulations, certain 

categories of CPSC actions normally 

have ‘‘little or no potential for affecting 

the human environment,’’ and therefore, 

do not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Rules 

regarding product certification fall 

within this categorical exclusion. 16 

CFR 1021.5(c)(2). 

X. Preemption 

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

2075(a), addresses the preemptive effect 

of CPSC’s consumer product safety 

standards. Part 1110, however, is a 

procedural rule, not a consumer product 

safety standard. Therefore, the 

preemption provision of section 26(a) of 

the CPSA does not apply to this Final 

Rule. 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 

5 U.S.C. 801–808) states that before a 

rule may take effect, the agency issuing 

the rule must submit the rule, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1843 

certain related information, to each 

House of Congress and the Comptroller 

General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The CRA 

submission must indicate whether the 

rule is a ‘‘major rule.’’ The CRA states 

that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines 

whether a rule qualifies as a ‘‘major 

rule.’’ 

Pursuant to the CRA, OIRA has 

determined that this Final Rule qualifies 

as a ‘‘major rule,’’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). To comply with the CRA, CPSC 

will submit the required information to 

each House of Congress and the 

Comptroller General. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1110 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Business and industry, 

Certificate, Certification, Children, 

Component part certificate, Consumer 

protection, Electronic filing, Imports, 

Labeling, Product testing and 

certification, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Record 

retention, Regulated products. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Commission revises 16 CFR part 

1110 to read as follows: 

PART 1110—CERTIFICATES OF 

COMPLIANCE 

Sec. 

1110.1 Purpose and scope. 

1110.3 Definitions. 

1110.5 Finished products required to be 

certified. 

1110.7 Who must certify finished products. 

1110.9 Certificate language and format. 

1110.11 Certificate content. 

1110.13 Certificate availability. 

1110.15 Legal responsibility of finished 

product certifiers. 

1110.17 Recordkeeping requirements. 

1110.19 Component part certificates. 

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

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

(2008), Pub. L. 112–28 (2011). 

§ 1110.1 Purpose and scope. 

This part specifies the entities that 

must issue certificates for finished 

products in accordance with section 

14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 

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

2063(a); specifies certificate content, 

form, and availability requirements that 

must be met to satisfy the requirements 

of section 14 of the CPSA; requires 

importers to file certificates 

electronically (eFile) with U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) for 

imported finished products that are 

required to be certified; and clarifies 

which provisions of this part apply to 

component part certificates. This part 

does not address the type or frequency 

of testing necessary to support a 

certificate. 

§ 1110.3 Definitions. 

(a) The definitions of section 3 of the 

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

definitions in the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(CPSIA), Pub. L. 110–314, apply to this 

part. 

(b) Additionally, the following 

definitions apply for purposes of this 

part: 

Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) means an electronic data 

interchange system authorized by CBP 

for the transmission of data and 

documents used to track, control, and 

process commercial imports, including 

entry and entry summary data, and 

includes any successor CBP authorized 

electronic data interchange system. 

CBP or Customs means U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection. 

Certificate or certificate of compliance 

means a certification that the finished 

products or component parts within the 

scope of the certificate comply with the 

consumer product safety rules under the 

CPSA, or similar rules, bans, standards, 

or regulations under any other law 

enforced by the Commission, as set forth 

on the certificate. ‘‘Certificate’’ and 

‘‘certificate of compliance’’ generally 

refer to all four types of certificates, as 

defined in this section: General 

Certificates of Conformity (GCC), 

Children’s Product Certificates (CPC), 

finished product certificates, and 

component part certificates. 

Certifier means the party who issues 

a certificate of compliance. 

Children’s Product Certificate (CPC) 

means a certificate of compliance for a 

finished product issued pursuant to 

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

2063, and part 1107 of this chapter. 

Commission or CPSC means the 

United States Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

Component part means a component 

part of a consumer product or other 

product or substance regulated by the 

Commission, as defined in § 1109.4(b) of 

this chapter, that is intended to be used 

in the manufacture or assembly of a 

finished product, and is not intended 

for sale to, or use by, consumers as a 

finished product. 

Component part certificate means a 

voluntary certificate of compliance for a 

component part, as defined in this 

section. 

Consignee, for purposes of this part, 

means a party who takes custody or 

delivery of imported finished products 

for which CPSC certificate data are 

required, and may be held legally 

responsible by CPSC for the required 

finished product certificate data as set 

forth in § 1110.15. 

eFile means to electronically file the 

required data elements on a finished 

product certificate, as described in 

§ 1110.11, into ACE, in the format 

required in § 1110.13(a)(1). 

Electronic certificate means the set of 

required data elements on a finished 

product certificate, described in 

§ 1110.11, that are available in, and 

accessible by, electronic means, in the 

format described in § 1110.9(c). 

Finished product means a consumer 

product or other product or substance, 

or a part of a consumer product or 

substance, 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 is 

distributed in commerce, and that is 

packaged, sold, or held for sale to, or for 

use by, consumers. 

Finished product certificate means a 

certificate of compliance for a finished 

product, as defined in this section, that 

is required by § 1110.5. There are two 

types of finished product certificates: 

Children’s Product Certificates (CPCs) 

and General Certificates of Conformity 

(GCCs). 

Finished product certifier means a 

party who is required to issue a finished 

product certificate pursuant to § 1110.7. 

Pursuant to sections 14(a)(1) and (2) of 

the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2052, 2063(a)(1), 

and 2063(a)(2)), a finished product 

certifier must be an importer, as defined 

in this section, or a manufacturer or 

private labeler as defined in sections 

3(a)(11) and (12) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(11) and (12)). 

General Certificate of Conformity 

(GCC) means a certificate of compliance 

for a finished product issued pursuant 

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

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

Importer, for the purposes of this part, 

means the Importer of Record (IOR) 

eligible to make entry for imported 

finished products under the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 

1484(a)(2)(B)), who may be an owner, 

purchaser, or authorized customs 

broker; provided that, if the IOR is an 

authorized customs broker, the customs 

broker may identify the owner, 

purchaser, or consignee of the finished 

products who authorized the customs 

broker to make entry, as the party 

responsible for compliance with CPSC 

certificate requirements as part of the 

finished product certificate data filed in 

CPSC’s PGA Message Set. For finished 

products imported by mail, or for which 

a de minimis duty exemption under 19 

U.S.C. 1321(a)(2)(C) is claimed, the 

importer for purposes of CPSC’s 

certificate requirements is a party 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
1844 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible to make entry for the finished 

products pursuant to CBP statutes and 

regulations, who may be an owner, 

purchaser, consignee, or authorized 

customs broker. For purposes of this 

rule, CPSC will not typically consider a 

consumer purchasing or receiving 

products for personal use or enjoyment 

to be the importer responsible for 

certification. 

Manufacturer as defined in section 

3(a)(11) of the CPSA, means any person 

who manufactures or imports a 

consumer product. 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(11). 

Owner or purchaser, for purposes of 

this part, means a party who has a 

financial interest in imported finished 

products for which CPSC certificate data 

are required, including the actual owner 

of the finished products, who may be 

held legally responsible by CPSC for the 

required finished product certificate 

data as set forth in § 1110.15. 

Private labeler as defined in section 

3(a)(12) of the CPSA, means an owner 

of a brand or trademark on the label of 

a consumer product which bears a 

private label. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(12). A 

consumer product bears a private label 

if: (i) the product (or its container) is 

labeled with the brand or trademark of 

a person other than a manufacturer of 

the product; (ii) the person with whose 

brand or trademark the product (or 

container) is labeled has authorized or 

caused the product to be so labeled; and 

(iii) the brand or trademark of a 

manufacturer of such product does not 

appear on such label. 

Product Registry means a database 

created and maintained by CPSC that 

facilitates the electronic submission of 

required data elements on a finished 

product certificate, as provided in 

§ 1110.11, by a finished product certifier 

as stated in § 1110.7(a), who is required 

to eFile the finished product certificate 

pursuant to § 1110.13(a)(1). This 

definition includes any CPSC successor 

system. 

Third party conformity assessment 

body means a testing laboratory whose 

accreditation has been accepted by the 

CPSC to conduct certification testing on 

children’s products, as required in 

§ 1107.2 of this chapter. 

§ 1110.5 Finished products required to be 

certified. 

Finished products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other law enforced 

by the Commission, which are imported 

for consumption or warehousing, or are 

distributed in commerce, must be 

accompanied by a finished product 

certificate. 

§ 1110.7 Who must certify finished 

products. 

(a) Imports. Except as otherwise 

provided in a specific rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation enforced by 

CPSC, for a finished product 

manufactured outside of the United 

States that must be accompanied by a 

certificate as set forth in § 1110.5, the 

importer, as defined in this part, is the 

finished product certifier that must 

issue a finished product certificate that 

meets the requirements of this part. 

(b) Domestic products. Except as 

otherwise provided in a specific rule, 

ban, standard, or regulation enforced by 

the Commission, for a finished product 

manufactured in the United States that 

must be accompanied by a certificate, as 

set forth in § 1110.5, the manufacturer is 

the finished product certifier that must 

issue a finished product certificate that 

meets the requirements of this part. 

However, if a finished product 

manufactured in the United States is 

privately labeled, the private labeler is 

the finished product certifier that must 

issue a finished product certificate that 

meets the requirements of this part, 

unless the manufacturer issues the 

finished product certificate. 

§ 1110.9 Certificate language and format. 

(a) Language. An eFiled finished 

product certificate must be in the 

English language. All other certificates, 

including hard copy and electronic 

certificates, must be in the English 

language and may also contain the same 

content in any other language. 

(b) Format. Finished product 

certificates for finished products 

manufactured outside the United States 

and offered for importation into the 

United States for consumption or 

warehousing are required to be eFiled 

using the format required in 

§ 1110.13(a)(1). All other finished 

product certificates must be made 

available as provided in § 1110.13(b) 

and (c), and may be provided in hard 

copy or electronically, as set forth in 

subsection (c) of this section. 

(c) Electronic certificates. An 

electronic finished product certificate 

meets the requirements of § 1110.13(b) 

and (c) if it is identified prominently on 

the finished product, shipping carton, or 

invoice by a unique identifier and can 

be accessed via a World Wide Web 

uniform resource locator (URL) or other 

electronic means, provided that the 

finished product certificate, the URL or 

other electronic means, and the unique 

identifier are accessible, along with 

access to the electronic finished product 

certificate itself, to the Commission, 

CBP, distributors, and retailers, on or 

before the date the finished product is 

distributed in commerce. If the 

electronic finished product certificate is 

password protected, the password must 

be provided at the same time as the 

certificate when requested by CPSC or 

CBP. 

§ 1110.11 Certificate content. 

(a) Content requirements. Each 

finished product certificate must: 

(1) Identify the finished product(s) 

covered by the certificate. Finished 

product certificates must contain at least 

one of the following unique identifiers: 

global trade item number (GTIN), model 

number, registered number, serial 

number, stock keeping number (SKU), 

universal product code (UPC), or 

alternate identifier, along with a 

sufficient description to match the 

finished product to the certificate. 

Finished product certificates may also 

include other identifiers, such as lot 

number, model style, and model color, 

that may assist with product 

identification. 

(2) State each consumer product 

safety rule under the CPSA, or similar 

rule, ban, standard, or regulation under 

any law enforced by the Commission, to 

which the finished product(s) are being 

certified. Finished product certificates 

must identify separately all applicable 

rules, bans, standards, or regulations. 

(3) Identify the finished product 

certifier that is certifying compliance of 

the finished product(s), as set forth in 

§ 1110.7, including the party’s name, 

street address, city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, 

electronic mail (email) address, and 

telephone number. 

(4) Identify and provide contact 

information (consisting, at a minimum, 

of the individual’s name, street address, 

city, state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number) for the 

individual maintaining records listed in 

§ 1110.17 on behalf of the finished 

product certifier. The individual can be 

a position title, provided that the 

position is always staffed and 

responsive to CPSC’s requests. 

(5) Provide the date (month and year, 

at a minimum) and place (including a 

manufacturer name, street address, city, 

state or province, country or 

administrative region, email address, 

and telephone number) where the 

finished product(s) were manufactured, 

produced, or assembled. For 

manufacturing runs over a series of 

days, provide the initial date of 

manufacture (month and year, at a 

minimum). 

(6) Provide the most recent date and 

place(s) (including for each third party 

conformity assessment body or other 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 2025 / Rules and Regulations 1845 

party on whose testing the finished 

product certificate depends, the name, 

street address, city, state or province, 

country or administrative region, email 

address, and telephone number) where 

the finished product(s) were tested for 

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

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

§ 1110.11(a)(4). 

(7) Provide the finished product 

certifier’s attestation. For eFiled 

certificates required in § 1110.13(a)(1), 

attestations are included in the Product 

Registry and in CPSC’s Partner 

Government Agency (PGA) Message Set 

CBP and Trade Automated Interface 

Requirements (CATAIR) 

Implementation Guide (including 

revisions thereto). Paper and electronic 

finished product certificates described 

in § 1110.9(b) and (c), and required in 

§§ 1110.13(a)(2), (b), and (c), must 

include the following attestation by the 

finished product certifier: 

I hereby certify that the finished product(s) 

covered by this certificate comply with the 

rules, bans, standards, and regulations stated 

herein, and that the information in this 

certificate is true and accurate to the best of 

my knowledge, information, and belief. I 

understand and acknowledge that it is a 

United States federal crime to knowingly and 

willfully make any materially false, fictitious, 

or fraudulent statement, representation, or 

omission on this certificate. 

(b) Electronic access to records. In 

addition to identification of the 

individual maintaining records, as 

described in § 1110.11(a)(4), a finished 

product certificate may include a URL, 

or other electronic means, which 

provides electronic access to the 

required underlying records to support 

the certificate as specified in §§ 1107.26 

and 1109.5(g) of this chapter, or any 

other applicable consumer product 

safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation 

enforced by the Commission. 

(c) Statutory or regulatory testing 

exclusions: Unless otherwise provided 

by the Commission, if a finished 

product certifier is claiming a statutory 

or regulatory testing exclusion to an 

applicable consumer product safety rule 

or similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation, then in addition to listing all 

applicable rules, bans, standards, and 

regulations as required under 

§ 1110.11(a)(2), and in lieu of providing 

the date and place where testing was 

conducted for that regulation under 

§ 1110.11(a)(6), a finished product 

certificate shall identify the applicable 

testing exclusion. 

(d) Duplicative testing not required. 

Although finished product certificates 

must list each applicable rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation separately, 

finished product certifiers are not 

required to conduct the same third party 

test on each sample more than once 

when a rule references, or incorporates 

fully, another applicable consumer 

product safety rule or similar rule, ban, 

standard, or regulation under any other 

law enforced by the Commission with 

the same requirement. 

§ 1110.13 Certificate availability. 

(a) Accompanying certificates. A 

finished product certificate must 

accompany each finished product or 

finished product shipment required to 

be certified pursuant to § 1110.5. Each 

finished product certificate must 

describe only one product. 

(1) In the case of finished products 

that are manufactured outside the 

United States and are offered for 

importation into the United States for 

consumption or warehousing, including 

finished products offered for 

consumption or warehousing from a 

Foreign Trade Zone, or finished 

products eligible for the de minimis 

duty exemption under 19 U.S.C. 

1321(a)(2)(C), the finished product 

certifier must eFile the finished product 

certificate data elements required in 

§ 1110.11 at the time of filing the entry, 

or the time of filing the entry and entry 

summary, if both are filed together, in 

ACE as provided in CPSC’s PGA 

Message Set CATAIR Implementation 

Guide (including revisions thereto). In 

the case of finished products that are 

manufactured outside of the United 

States and imported by mail, the 

finished product certifier must enter the 

finished product certificate data 

elements required in § 1110.11 into 

CPSC’s Product Registry before arrival 

of the product or substance in the 

United States. 

(2) In the case of finished products 

manufactured in the United States, the 

finished product certifier must issue the 

required certificate on or before the date 

the finished product is distributed in 

commerce and make the finished 

product certificate available for 

inspection immediately, meaning 

within 24 hours, upon request by CPSC. 

(b) Furnishing certificates. A finished 

product certifier must furnish the 

required finished product certificate to 

each distributor or retailer of the 

finished product. 

(c) Availability. Finished product 

certifiers must make finished product 

certificates available for inspection 

immediately, meaning within 24 hours, 

upon request by CPSC or CBP. 

§ 1110.15 Legal responsibility of finished 

product certifiers. 

Finished product certifiers may, 

directly or through another entity, 

maintain an electronic certificate 

platform. Pursuant to part 1109 of this 

chapter, a finished product certifier may 

rely on another party to test or certify 

component parts or finished products. 

Also, for purposes of § 1110.13(a)(1), a 

finished product certifier may rely on 

another party to enter data into the 

Product Registry or to certify finished 

products on their behalf. The finished 

product certifier, identified in § 1110.7, 

remains legally responsible for the 

information in a finished product 

certificate, including its validity, 

accuracy, completeness, and 

availability. 

§ 1110.17 Recordkeeping requirements. 

Finished product certifiers are 

required to maintain finished product 

certificates and the following records 

supporting such certificates for at least 

five years from the certificate creation 

date: 

(a) Records of test results on which a 

GCC is based, and records described in 

§§ 1109.5(g) and (j) of this chapter 

(where applicable). 

(b) 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). 

(c) 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. 

§ 1110.19 Component part certificates. 

Pursuant to part 1109 of this chapter, 

component part certificates are 

voluntary, but may be relied upon by a 

finished product certifier to issue a 

finished product certificate. Component 

part certificates must not be eFiled in 

ACE upon importation of a component 

part. Certifiers of component parts, and 

finished product certifiers that rely on 

component part certificates to issue a 

finished product certificate, must meet 

the requirements in part 1109 of this 

chapter. Component part certificates 

must meet the same form, content, 

recordkeeping, and availability 

requirements as finished product 

certificates, described in §§ 1110.9, 

1110.11, 1110.13(c), 1110.15, and 

1110.17. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–30826 Filed 1–7–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES3