Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-30826

Rule2024-30826

Certificates of Compliance

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 8, 2025

Effective

July 8, 2026

Issuing agencies

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1800-1845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30826]

[[Page 1799]]

Vol. 90

Wednesday,

No. 5

January 8, 2025

Part V

Consumer Product Safety Commission

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

16 CFR Part 1110

Certificates of Compliance; Final Rule

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

[[Page 1800]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9affdcf3f6f3f4fde9efeaeaf5e8eedaf9eae9f9b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="583d1e313431363f2b2d2828372a2c183b282b3b763f372e">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>.

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Section 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ CBP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 import-related data. The eFiling
Alpha and Beta Pilots were conducted in conjunction with CBP and tested
use of CPSC's PGA Message Sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The 2020 staff briefing package to implement an eFiling
program at CPSC is available at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf</a>. The record of commission action is available at:
<a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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'

[[Page 1801]]

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.<SUP>4 5</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ On 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: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-Final-Rule-to-Implement-eFiling-for-Certificates-of-Compliance.pdf?VersionId=JN7iuAdHGzooHBnXpuU7xZB4aX4Dkada">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-Final-Rule-to-Implement-eFiling-for-Certificates-of-Compliance.pdf?VersionId=JN7iuAdHGzooHBnXpuU7xZB4aX4Dkada</a>.
\5\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 non-children's products (General
Certificates of Conformity or GCCs) must be based on a test of each
product or a reasonable testing program. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1)(A).
Section 14(a)(1)(B) of the CPSA requires that certificates specify each
rule, ban, standard, or regulation applicable to the product. 15 U.S.C.
2063(a)(1)(B).
Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains additional requirements for the
form, content, and availability of certificates. 15 U.S.C. 2063(g).
Section 14(g)(1) 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

[[Page 1802]]

consumer products (eCommerce) and direct-to-consumer shipments, which
made CPSC's interdiction of non-compliant 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The 1107 rule sets forth requirements for children's product
testing and certification, including when and how products must be
tested and certified, and recordkeeping requirements. The 1109 rule
sets forth conditions and requirements for component part testing
and certification for both children's and non-children's products.
Both rules introduced new concepts and terminology related to
certificates that are not present in the existing part 1110 rule
published in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Currently, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
low-value 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Merchandise 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).
\9\ CBP 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.
\10\ Shipments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 product-
related 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ ACE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1803]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The 2020 staff briefing package to implement an eFiling
program at CPSC is available at: <a href="https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf?BYXOLX2gJmF4NaAN1LCMmqiXRISuaRkr=">https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf?BYXOLX2gJmF4NaAN1LCMmqiXRISuaRkr=</a>. The record of
commission action is available at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf</a>.
\13\ 87 FR 35513 (June 10, 2022).
\14\ 89 FR 47922 (June 4, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ The 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 Sec. 1110.15 of this Final Rule.
\16\ Other 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-by-step 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 <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>. 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

[[Page 1804]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Entry type 06 is used to enter for consumption consumer
products withdrawn from an FTZ for entry for consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definitions (Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.7(a), and who is also required to eFile the
certificate data as set forth in Sec. 1110.13(a)(1).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Pursuant to Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Certificate Content (Sec. 1110.11)

Requirements for certificate content in the Final Rule contain the
following changes from the SNPR proposal:
Individual maintaining records Sec. 1110.11(a)(4)--Moves the
bulleted list summarizing required testing and certification records to
the recordkeeping requirement in Sec. 1110.17, because the data
element in

[[Page 1805]]

Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec.
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 (Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.11(a)(4) to this
section of the rule.

F. Disclaimer Message Sets

The SNPR proposed to require Disclaimer Message Sets in Sec.
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ The 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.

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 118..................... Writing Instrument Manufacturer's
(AFSL) Association (WIMA)
95.................................... National Fireworks Association (NFA) 119..................... Promotional Products Association
International (PPAI)
96.................................... National Association of Foreign-Trade 121..................... National Association of Foreign-Trade
Zones (NAFTZ) Zones (NAFTZ)
97.................................... Toy Association (TA) 122..................... National Customs Brokers and Forwarders
Association of America, Inc. (NCBFAA)
98.................................... Informational Technology Industry Council 123..................... IKEA
(ITI)
99.................................... Juvenile Products Manufacturers 124..................... IKEA
Association (JPMA)
100................................... Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, Inc. 125..................... Informational Technology Industry Council
(OPEI) (ITI)
101................................... American Pyrotechnics Association (APA) 126..................... Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
102,.................................. Ingram Enterprises, Inc. DBA Fireworks 127..................... National Association of Foreign-Trade
120................................... Over America and Affiliated Zones (NAFTZ)
Companies (FOA) (Comment 120 identical)
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 130..................... IKEA
TNT Fireworks (APE)
106................................... Window Covering Manufacturers Association 131..................... Express Association of America (EAA)
(WCMA)
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;

[[Page 1806]]

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 four-phased approach to create an eFiling program
at CPSC \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Record of Commission Action available at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/RCA-CPSC-Plan-to-Create-an-eFiling-Program-for-Imported-Consumer-Products.pdf</a>.
\23\ Section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>. 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.

[[Page 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1808]]

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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Section 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
Sec. 1110.7, including the party's name, street address, city,
state or province, country or administrative region, electronic mail
(email) address, and telephone number.
\26\ A 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 non-beneficial 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.15, the
importer, who is the defined finished product certifier in Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 1110.5 in the Final
Rule.
Comment 12: JPMA (99) agrees with the proposed Sec. 1110.5
clarification that certificates are only required for finished
products. However, JPMA (99) also writes that proposed Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1810]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.15.

F. Section 1110.9 Certificate Language and Format

Comment 14: JPMA (99) agrees with Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.9(b).
Comment 15: JPMA (99) requests that CPSC affirmatively allow for
password protection in Sec. 1110.9 to maintain the confidentiality of
proprietary competitively sensitive information.
Response 15: The SNPR proposed to allow for password protection of
certificates in Sec. 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 Sec.
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

[[Page 1811]]

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 Sec. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See 15 U.S.C. 2055(a) (describing procedures for potential
disclosure of confidential information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1812]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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
Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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

[[Page 1813]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1814]]

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd98bb949194939aae888d8d928f89bd9e8d8e9ed39a928b">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Available at: <a href="https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>.
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 Sec. 1110.11(a)(10).
Finally, several commenters (AFSL (94), TA (97), JPMA (99)) state
that additional manual certification is legally unnecessary, because
Sec. 1110.15 clearly states the legal responsibility of the certifier
and Sec. 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

[[Page 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.11(a)(7) must
be made by the entity responsible for product certification identified
in Sec. 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 Sec. 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, Sec. 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 Sec. 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 non-compliant 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

[[Page 1816]]

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 low-quality
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

[[Page 1817]]

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 non-compliant 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
``ACE-independent'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ See, e.g., CBP's website listing 13 other agency CATAIRs
and discussing CPSC's Beta Pilot, available at: <a href="https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair">https://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 1818]]

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 <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library">https://www.cpsc.gov/eFiling-Document-Library</a>.
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:
<bullet> All eFiled certificate data is encrypted at rest
(encrypted storage) and in flight (Secure Sockets Layer and other
secure protocols).
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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
Self-Assessment 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.

[[Page 1819]]

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 non-compliant 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 non-
significant 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 eFiling-related 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ This 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 x 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 one-
time 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The values presented are rounded, so the results on each
side of the equation may not exactly match.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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),

[[Page 1820]]

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 multi-certificate
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.

[[Page 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 inferior-officer 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

[[Page 1822]]

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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2643604f4a4f484175535656495452664556554508414950">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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 (Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec.
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

[[Page 1823]]

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 Sec. 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
Sec. 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 CPSC-enforced 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 1824]]

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 Sec.
1110.11, into ACE, in the format required in Sec. 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 Sec. 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
Sec. 1110.7(a), and who is also required to eFile the certificate data
as set forth in Sec. 1110.13(a)(1), enters finished product
certificate data into the Product Registry. Note that pursuant to Sec.
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 (Sec. 1110.5)

The Commission finalizes Sec. 1110.5 as proposed, except for two
minor clarifications. First, Sec. 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,
Sec. 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 (Sec. 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 Sec.
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 Sec.
1110.7(c) of the existing rule, to Sec. 1110.13.
The Commission finalizes Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.3.

E. Certificate Language and Format (Sec. 1110.9)

The Final Rule maintains Sec. 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 Sec. 1110.9. We describe each section of Sec.
1110.9.
The SNPR Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Se

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 8, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.