Certificates of Compliance, 28079-28109 [2013-11164]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28079-28109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11164]



[[Page 28079]]

Vol. 78

Monday,

No. 92

May 13, 2013

Part IV





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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





16 CFR Part 1110





Certificates of Compliance; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 28080]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1110

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2013-0017]


Certificates of Compliance

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(Commission, CPSC, or we) is issuing a proposed rule that would amend 
the existing regulation on certificates of compliance. The proposed 
amendment is intended to update the rule to clarify requirements in 
light of new regulations on testing and labeling pertaining to product 
certification, and component part testing. The proposed amendment 
would, among other things, use newly defined terms such as ``finished 
product certificate'' and ``component part certificate''; require that 
regulated finished products that are privately labeled be certified by 
the private labeler for products manufactured in the United States; 
clarify requirements for the form, content, and availability of 
certificates of compliance; and require that importers of regulated 
finished products manufactured outside of the United States file the 
required certificate electronically with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) at the time of filing the CBP entry or at the time of 
filing the entry and entry summary, if both are filed together.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-
0017, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no 
longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except 
through www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be 
posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of the 
proposed rule should be directed to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or 
emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Cave, Director, Office of Import 
Surveillance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; ccave@cpsc.gov; telephone (301) 504-7677.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

A. Background on 16 CFR Part 1110

    The Commission promulgated a direct final rule on ``certificates of 
compliance,'' also referred to as ``certificates,'' on November 18, 
2008 (73 FR 68328), which is codified at 16 CFR part 1110 (the existing 
1110 rule). The Commission published the existing 1110 rule shortly 
after the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) was 
enacted on August 14, 2008, to clarify for stakeholders the certificate 
requirements imposed by the newly amended section 14(a) of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (CPSA) and section 14(g) of the CPSA. The CPSIA 
amended section 14(a) of the CPSA to require that manufacturers and 
private labelers of children's products subject to a children's product 
safety rule certify such products as compliant based on testing 
conducted by a third party conformity assessment body, and that 
manufacturers and private labelers of regulated non-children's products 
certify compliance based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable 
testing program. Section 14(g) of the CPSA states requirements for 
certificate content. Thus, the existing part 1110 rule sets forth 
certificate requirements, such as:
     Limiting the parties who must issue a certificate to the 
importer, for products manufactured outside the United States, and, in 
the case of domestically manufactured products, to the manufacturer;
     Allowing certificates to be in hard copy or electronic 
form;
     Clarifying requirements for an electronic form of 
certificate; and
     Providing certificate content requirements.

B. Why is the Commission proposing to amend the 1110 rule now?

    The Commission is proposing to amend the 1110 rule now to clarify 
certificate requirements in light of new rules related to testing and 
certification of consumer products and to implement section 14(g)(4) of 
the CPSA, which allows the Commission, in consultation with the 
Commissioner of Customs, to require that certificates for imported 
products be filed electronically with CBP up to 24 hours before arrival 
of an imported product.
    Since the existing 1110 rule was promulgated in 2008, the 
Commission has been working diligently to implement the requirements of 
the CPSIA, including the requirements in section 14 of the CPSA for 
testing, labeling, and certification of consumer products. Recently, 
the Commission issued two key rules: (1) Testing and Labeling 
Pertaining to Product Certification, 16 CFR part 1107 (the Testing Rule 
or the 1107 rule), and (2) Conditions and Requirements for Relying on 
Component Part Testing or Certification, or Another Party's Finished 
Product Testing or Certification, to Meet Testing and Certification 
Requirements, 16 CFR part 1109 (the Component Part Rule or the 1109 
rule). Both rules were published in the Federal Register on November 8, 
2011 (76 FR 69482 and 76 FR 69546, respectively). The Testing Rule sets 
forth requirements for the testing, certification, and labeling of 
regulated children's products. It became effective on February 8, 2013. 
The Component Part Rule, which allows for component part testing and 
certification to meet testing and certification requirements, became 
effective on December 8, 2011. Amending the existing 1110 rule would 
allow the Commission to define and use new terms introduced by the 1107 
and 1109 rules, and to describe and explain how certificates must be 
integrated and consistent with these new rules.

C. What statutory requirements apply to certificates of compliance?

    This section of the preamble describes the statutory requirements 
that apply to certificates and the Commission's authority to implement 
such requirements. Section 14(a)(1) of the

[[Page 28081]]

CPSA, as amended by the CPSIA, requires that except for certificates 
that apply to children's products, every manufacturer, or private 
labeler if there is one, of a consumer product that is subject to a 
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or similar rule, ban, 
standard, or regulation under any other law enforced by the Commission 
that is imported for consumption or warehousing, or distributed in 
commerce, must issue a certificate. Section 3(a)(8) of the CPSA defines 
``distribute in commerce'' to mean ``to sell in commerce, to introduce 
or deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or 
distribution after introduction into commerce.'' For non-children's 
products, the certificate must be based on a test of each product or on 
a reasonable testing program. The certificate must specify each 
applicable rule, ban, standard, or regulation enforced by the 
Commission and certify that the product complies with all such listed 
rules.
    Similarly, section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires that every 
manufacturer or private labeler, if there is one, of a children's 
product that is subject to a children's product safety rule must have 
the children's product tested by a third party conformity assessment 
body, and based on such testing, certify that the product is compliant 
with all applicable rules. Before importing such children's products 
for consumption or warehousing, or before distributing such children's 
products in commerce, manufacturers or private labelers must submit 
sufficient samples of the children's product, or samples that are 
identical in all material respects to the children's product, to a 
third party conformity assessment body, whose accreditation has been 
accepted by the Commission to perform such testing, to be tested for 
compliance with all applicable children's product safety rules. The 
manufacturer or private labeler must issue a certificate or 
certificates based on such testing, certifying that the children's 
products covered by the certificate(s) comply with all applicable 
children's product safety rules. Section 14(a)(2)(B) of the CPSA states 
that a certificate can be issued for each applicable children's product 
safety rule, or one certificate for the product can combine all 
applicable rules, by listing each applicable children's product safety 
rule separately and certifying compliance with all of them.
    Section 3(a)(11) of the CPSA defines the term ``manufacturer'' as 
any person who manufactures or imports a consumer product. As such, any 
statutory obligation assigned to a manufacturer, by definition, applies 
to an importer. Thus, as written, the statutory obligation to issue a 
certificate for children's and non-children's products falls to the 
manufacturer, importer, or the private labeler of a consumer product, 
if the product is privately labeled under section 3(a)(12) of the CPSA. 
Section 14(a)(4) of the CPSA provides that in the case of a consumer 
product that has more than one manufacturer or private labeler, the 
Commission may, by rule, designate which person is responsible for 
issuing a certificate, and exempt all other persons from issuing 
certificates.
    Section 14(g) of the CPSA contains certificate requirements. 
Section 14(g)(1) of the CPSA requires that a certificate shall identify 
the manufacturer (including importer) or private labeler issuing the 
certificate, as well as any third party conformity assessment body on 
whose testing the certificate depends. At a minimum, certificates are 
required to include: the date and place of manufacture; the date and 
place where the product was tested; each party's name, full mailing 
address, and telephone number; and contact information for the 
individual responsible for maintaining records of test results. 
Additionally, section 14(g)(2) of the CPSA requires that every 
certificate be legible and that all contents must be in English. 
Contents may also be in any other language. Moreover, pursuant to 
section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA, certificates must accompany the 
applicable product or shipment of products covered by the certificate, 
and a copy of the certificate must be furnished to each distributor or 
retailer of the product. Upon request, the manufacturer (including 
importer) or private labeler issuing the certificate must provide a 
copy of the certificate to the Commission. Finally, section 14(g)(4) of 
the CPSA states that in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, 
the CPSC may, by rule, provide for the electronic filing of 
certificates up to 24 hours before arrival of an imported product. Upon 
request, the manufacturer (including importer) or private labeler 
issuing the certificate must provide a copy of such certificate to the 
Commission or to CBP.
    In addition to the statutory authority to require certificates for 
regulated products, as outlined in sections 14(a) and (g) of the CPSA, 
the Commission has general implementing authority with regard to 
certificates, pursuant to section 3 of the CPSIA, which provides: 
``[t]he Commission may issue regulations, as necessary, to implement 
this Act and the amendments made by this Act.''

II. Description of the Proposed Rule

    Because of the number of proposed changes, the Commission intends 
to strike the existing 1110 rule in its entirety and replace it with 
the proposed rule set forth below.

A. What is the purpose and scope of this part?--Proposed Sec.  1110.1

    Proposed Sec.  1110.1 would continue to describe the purpose of 
part 1110 but does so in language that is clearer and more simple. The 
changes also clarify which provisions of this part apply to component 
part certificates. Existing Sec.  1110.1(a)(1) states that the purpose 
of the rule is to ``limit'' the entities required to issue certificates 
because the existing rule does not cover private labelers. The proposed 
rule would increase the number of entities responsible for issuing 
certificates and therefore would state that the purpose is to 
``specify'' the entities that must issue certificates. The proposed 
rule also would implement section 14(g)(4) and require certificates for 
imported products to be filed electronically with CBP. Proposed Sec.  
1110.1(b) would reflect this change.

B. What definitions apply to this part?--Proposed Sec.  1110.3

    Existing Sec.  1110.3 defines an ``electronic certificate,'' and 
incorporates definitions from section 3 of the CPSA as well as 
definitions set forth in the CPSIA. Proposed Sec.  1110.3 would 
maintain these provisions, with minor grammatical changes, and would 
add 13 new definitions. The proposed new definitions would clarify the 
different types of certificates outlined in the Testing and Component 
Part Rules, such as ``Children's Product Certificate (CPC),'' ``General 
Conformity Certificate (GCC),'' ``finished product certificate,'' and 
``component part certificate.'' For example, two types of finished 
product certificates would be defined in the proposed rule: CPCs and 
GCCs. Either a CPC or GCC would only be required for ``finished 
products'' but not for ``component parts'' of consumer products under 
the proposed rule. Only certain regulated finished products would be 
required to be certified because our regulations typically are based on 
finished products. Under the Component Part Rule certification of 
component parts is voluntary, so not all component parts will be tested 
or certified, unless and until they become part of a regulated finished 
product; and component part suppliers may not know how the component 
part will be used and whether it will become part of a regulated 
finished product.

[[Page 28082]]

    The proposed new definitions would also make part 1110 consistent 
with the Component Part Rule, by including and clarifying terminology 
used in that rule, such as ``component part'' and ``finished product.'' 
Proposed Sec.  1110.3(b)(6) would define a ``component part'' as ``a 
component part of a consumer product or other product or substance 
regulated by the Commission, as defined in Sec.  1109.4(b) of this 
chapter, that is intended to be used in the manufacture or assembly of 
a finished product, and is not intended for sale to or use by consumers 
as a finished product.'' Thus, the term ``component part'' would refer 
only to parts of products that are intended to be used in the 
manufacture or assembly of a finished product. In contrast, the term 
``finished product'' refers to a product that is ``imported for 
consumption or warehousing or is distributed in commerce.'' Under the 
proposed definition, parts of such products that are packaged, sold, or 
held for sale to or use by consumers would also be considered finished 
products.
    The distinction between a ``component part'' and a ``finished 
product'' is important because it defines when a product must be 
accompanied by a certificate under the proposed rule. ``Finished 
products'' are intended for sale to, or use by, consumers. ``Component 
parts'' are intended for incorporation into a finished product, and are 
not packaged, sold, or held for sale for use by consumers. In contrast, 
replacement parts of finished products that are sold separately would 
be considered finished products under the proposed rule. Because use of 
the Component Part Rule is voluntary, not every component part will be 
certified. It is only at the finished product stage that finished 
product certifiers will know all of the regulations that apply to a 
product and whether it must be accompanied by a certificate.
    For example, doll clothing can be packaged and sold directly to 
consumers as a doll accessory. Such doll clothing that is packaged for 
sale to consumers would be considered a finished product under the 
proposed rule and must be certified. However, the same doll clothing 
could also be imported for use in the final assembly of a doll. Doll 
clothing that is imported for the purpose of being assembled with a 
doll for sale to consumers would be considered a component part under 
the proposed rule, and it would not be required to be accompanied by a 
certificate. If such doll clothing is a portion of a children's 
product, however, it still must comply with the applicable rules. 
Moreover, such doll clothing would need to be certified as compliant as 
part of a finished children's product.
    Proposed Sec.  1110.3(b)(11) would define a ``finished product 
certifier'' as ``a party that is required to issue a finished product 
certificate pursuant to Sec.  1110.7.'' Note that Sec.  1107.2 of the 
Testing Rule defines a ``manufacturer'' as ``the parties responsible 
for certification of a consumer product pursuant to 16 CFR part 1110.'' 
Thus, changing the party responsible for issuing a certificate in the 
proposed rule would also change the party responsible for third party 
testing under the Testing Rule.
    The proposed rule would continue to place on the importer the 
obligation to certify finished products manufactured outside the United 
States that are not delivered directly to consumers in the United 
States. Proposed Sec.  1110.3(b)(13) would define an ``importer'' as 
the importer of record, as defined under the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B)) (Tariff Act). Pursuant to the Tariff Act, the 
importer of record is either ``the owner or purchaser of the 
merchandise or, when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, 
or consignee of the merchandise, a person holding a valid'' customs 
broker's license, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641.

C. When are certificates required?--Proposed Sec.  1110.5

    Existing Sec.  1110.5 states that a certificate that is in hard 
copy or electronic form ``and complies with all applicable requirements 
of this part 1110 meets the certificate requirements of section 14 of 
the CPSA,'' and that such a certificate ``does not relieve the importer 
or domestic manufacturer from the underlying statutory requirements 
concerning the supporting testing and/or other bases to support 
certification and issuance of certificates.'' Requirements for 
certificate format have been moved to proposed Sec.  1110.9.
    Proposed Sec.  1110.5 would clarify when consumer products are 
required to be certified. Proposed Sec.  1110.5 would require that only 
finished products that are subject to a consumer product safety rule 
under the CPSA, or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any 
other law enforced by the Commission, which are imported for 
consumption or warehousing or are distributed in commerce, must be 
accompanied by a GCC or a CPC, as applicable. Component parts of a 
consumer product are not required to be accompanied by a certificate.
    The issue of whether banned products require certificates presents 
an unusual question. It could be argued that if a product is banned and 
no longer on the market, the need for a certificate is moot since there 
are theoretically no products to test and certify. However, very few 
CPSC bans completely remove all products in a specific category from 
the market. Instead, they generally remove the subset of products with 
hazardous characteristics, but still leave some products subject to 
CPSC regulation. In sum, manufacturers of products in a category where 
a subset of the products are subject to a ban must still issue 
certificates.
    For example, the Commission's ban on non-children's lawn darts at 
16 CFR 1306.1 et seq. states that ``any lawn dart is a banned hazardous 
product.'' This appears to ban the entire product category, yet the 
Commission is aware that certain manufacturers continue to sell 
products advertised as plastic-tipped lawn darts. These lawn darts 
appear not to present the hazard of death or injury that metal-tipped 
lawn darts do. In such a case, the Commission expects such 
manufacturers to issue GCCs that certify that the plastic-tipped lawn 
darts do not fit within the class of banned lawn darts.
    The Commission acknowledges it may be difficult at times to 
distinguish those bans that function more like a standard from those 
that ban an entire product category. To address this concern, Table A 
provides guidance as to which bans require certification. For those 
bans listed in which the Commission is not requiring certification we 
do so because either the entire product category should not exist so 
there is nothing to certify to or certification is captured by 
certification to another rule, standard or regulation (e.g., certain 
fireworks are covered by certification to 16 CFR part 1507). For 
example, the Commission is proposing to not require the issuance of 
GCCs to show compliance with the ban on soluble cyanide salts. However, 
we realize the use of this chemical may have changed since the ban was 
first issued in 1972 and are seeking comments on the current use of 
cyanide salts in consumer products. Please see section III.3 of this 
preamble for additional information on this issue.

[[Page 28083]]



                                 Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Ban                      Description         GCC Required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1301..........................  Ban of unstable refuse    Yes.
                                 bins.
1302..........................  Ban of extremely          No.
                                 flammable contact
                                 adhesives.
1303..........................  Ban of lead-containing    Yes.
                                 paint and certain
                                 consumer products
                                 bearing lead-containing
                                 paint.
                                --General Use: Applies
                                 to consumer paints and
                                 paint used on non-metal
                                 furniture.
1304..........................  Ban of consumer patching  Yes.
                                 compounds containing
                                 respirable free-form
                                 asbestos.
1305..........................  Ban of artificial         Yes.
                                 emberizing materials
                                 (ash and embers)
                                 containing respirable
                                 free-form asbestos.
1306..........................  Ban of hazardous lawn     Yes.
                                 darts.
1500.17(a)(1).................  Ban of ``extremely        No.
                                 flammable'' interior
                                 masonry wall sealers.
1500.17(a)(2).................  Ban of carbon             No.
                                 tetrachloride and
                                 mixtures containing it.
1500.17(a)(3).................  Ban of fireworks with     No.
                                 audible effects
                                 produced by a charge of
                                 more than 2 grains of
                                 pyrotechnic composition.
1500.17(a)(4).................  Ban of liquid drain       No.
                                 cleaners containing 10
                                 percent or more by
                                 weight of sodium and/or
                                 potassium hydroxide,
                                 unless packaged in
                                 special packaging under
                                 the PPPA.
1500.17(a)(5).................  Ban of products           No.
                                 containing soluble
                                 cyanide salts.
1500.17(a)(7).................  Ban of general-use        No.
                                 garments containing
                                 asbestos.
1500.17(a)(8).................  Ban of firecrackers with  No.
                                 audible effects
                                 produced by a charge of
                                 more than 50 mg of
                                 pyrotechnic composition.
1500.17(a)(9).................  Ban of all fireworks,     No.
                                 other than
                                 firecrackers, unless
                                 they meet the
                                 requirements of 1507.
1500.17(a)(10)................  Ban of self-pressurized   No.
                                 products intended or
                                 suitable for household
                                 use that contain vinyl
                                 chloride monomer.
1500.17(a)(11)................  Ban of reloadable tube    No.
                                 aerial shell fireworks
                                 that use shells larger
                                 than 1.75 inches in
                                 outer diameter.
1500.17(a)(12)................  Ban of multiple-tube      No.
                                 mine and shell
                                 fireworks that have any
                                 tube measuring 1.5
                                 inches (3.8cm) or more
                                 in inner diameter, and
                                 that have a minimum tip
                                 angle less than 60
                                 degrees when tested in
                                 accordance with 1500.12.
1500.17(a)(13)................  Candles with metal-cored  Yes.
                                 wicks.
CPSA..........................  Butyl Nitrite...........  No.
CPSA..........................  Isopropal Nitrites......  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Who must certify finished products?--Proposed Sec.  1110.7

    Existing Sec.  1110.7 provides that, except as otherwise provided 
in a specific standard, in the case of a product manufactured outside 
the United States, only the importer must certify a product and provide 
a certificate in accordance with section 14(a) of the CPSA, and that 
only the manufacturer must certify a product and provide a certificate 
for products manufactured in the United States. As explained below, the 
proposed rule would modify this section.
1. Imports--Proposed Sec.  1110.7(a)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.7 would retitle the section to read: ``Who must 
certify finished products?'' to state more accurately the focus of 
proposed Sec.  1110.7 and to clarify that only finished products must 
be certified. Proposed Sec.  1110.7(a) would maintain the requirement 
that an importer certify products manufactured outside the United 
States, except in the circumstance of products that are delivered 
directly to consumers in the United States, such as products purchased 
through an Internet Web site. In such a case, the proposed rule would 
require that the foreign manufacturer certify the product, unless the 
product bears a private label. The private labeler would be required to 
issue a certificate for products that bear a private label that are 
delivered directly to a consumer in the United States, unless the 
foreign manufacturer issues the certificate.
    The proposed rule would continue to place on the importer the 
obligation to certify products manufactured outside the United States 
that are not delivered directly to a consumer. Section 1110.3(b)(13) of 
the proposed rule would define ``importer'' to be the importer of 
record, as defined under the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1484(a)(2)(B)) (Tariff Act). Pursuant to the Tariff Act, the importer 
of record is either ``the owner or purchaser of the merchandise or, 
when appropriately designated by the owner, purchaser, or consignee of 
the merchandise, a person holding a valid'' customs broker's license, 
pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641. Thus, a validly licensed customs broker who 
serves as the importer of record for the imported products would be 
responsible for issuing the certificate required by section 14(a) of 
the CPSA and this rule with respect to the imported products.
    Some common carriers, contract carriers, third party logistics 
providers, and freight forwarders (collectively, carriers), in addition 
to their delivery and transportation services, also may become licensed 
customs brokers and may serve as importer of record when bringing goods 
into the United States. Like any other customs broker that agrees to 
serve as an importer of record, when such a carrier chooses to serve as 
the importer, the carrier would be responsible for issuing a required 
certificate under the proposed rule.
    Treating a carrier who also serves as an importer of record as an 
``importer'' under the proposed rule is consistent with section 3(b) of 
the CPSA, which provides:

    A common carrier, contract carrier, third party logistics 
provider, or freight forwarder shall not, for purposes of this Act, 
be deemed to be a manufacturer [including importer], distributor, or 
retailer of a consumer product solely by reason of receiving or 
transporting a consumer product in the ordinary course of its 
business as such a carrier or forwarder.

This provision protects carriers from being ``deemed'' a manufacturer, 
importer, distributor, or retailer, based ``solely'' on ``receiving or 
transporting a consumer product'' in the ordinary course of business as 
a carrier. Under the proposed rule, imposing importer-related 
certification requirements on a carrier that chooses to become a 
licensed customs broker and that agrees to serve as the importer of 
record is based on the carrier's status as importer of record and 
related customs functions rather than on the carrier's transportation-
related functions.
    Additionally, the proposed rule would place the obligation to 
certify products that are delivered directly to consumers in the United 
States, such as products purchased through an Internet Web site, on the 
foreign manufacturer, unless the product bears a private label. This 
proposed revision would clarify and remove any doubt about which

[[Page 28084]]

entity has the burden to certify products directly delivered to 
consumers. The Commission recognizes that when a foreign entity 
delivers products directly to a consumer in the United States, the 
consumer could be considered the importer. Placing the obligation to 
test and certify consumer products on the purchasing consumer would be 
inconsistent with the goals of the statute, in that it would not 
protect consumers as intended by the testing and certification scheme 
set forth by Congress, and implemented by the Commission. Accordingly, 
the proposed rule would not place the burden of ensuring such 
compliance on consumers; rather, the Commission believes that the 
appropriate way to ensure compliance is to require companies that 
purposefully send their products into the United States to test and 
certify their products, as required by United States law.
    For the vast majority of products imported into the United States 
through CBP, the proposed rule would continue to require that the 
importer of record certify the product, to provide a uniform, 
consistent, and predictable means of enforcing testing and 
certification requirements for imported products. We understand that 
some private labelers and brand owners with foreign manufacturing 
facilities want to test and certify their products. The Component Part 
Rule, which is already in effect, allows an importer to rely on testing 
or certification conducted by another party, as long as the importer 
meets the requirements of the 1109 rule, including exercising due care 
(see 16 CFR 1109.5(i)). Thus, private labelers and brand owners already 
can test and certify products on which an importer can then rely to 
issue their own certificate. The proposed rule would clarify that a 
finished product certificate must be issued by a required finished 
product certifier. An importer cannot simply pass along a component 
supplier's certificate. Thus, proposed Sec.  1110.7(a) would ensure 
that the certificate required by the CPSC must be issued by the 
importer, who is required to certify the product. The ability of 
finished product certifiers, such as importers, to rely on another 
party's testing or certification under the 1109 rule allows a private 
labeler to test and certify, as needed, while maintaining the 
Commission's ability to enforce its regulations against the party 
responsible for importing the product.
2. Domestic Products--Proposed Sec.  1110.7(b)
    For products manufactured in the United States, the proposed rule 
would continue to place the responsibility for issuing a required 
finished product certificate on the manufacturer, except in 
circumstances where a product is privately labeled, as defined in the 
CPSA. If a product is privately labeled, the proposed rule would place 
the obligation to certify the product on the private labeler, unless 
the manufacturer certifies the product. The Commission recognizes that 
under the existing 1110 rule, privately labeled products are required 
to be certified by the manufacturer. This relationship may continue as 
long as the product is certified. The proposed rule, however, would 
shift the obligation to ensure compliance for privately labeled 
products on to the private labeler.
    Duplication of effort to issue a certificate should not occur by 
requiring the private labeler to certify privately labeled products. A 
``private labeler'' is a defined term in the CPSA. Pursuant to section 
3(a)(12) of the CPSA, the term applies only to products that carry the 
private labeler's brand or trademark on the product and not the 
manufacturer's brand or trademark. Therefore, all products manufactured 
in the United States that contain a brand or trademark in addition to a 
manufacturer brand or trademark are not considered privately labeled 
under the CPSA, and the manufacturer would remain the required finished 
product certifier under the proposed rule. The proposed rule would 
change only the obligation to certify a product to the private labeler 
for products manufactured in the United States that bear a private 
label, which are those products that do not contain the brand or 
trademark of the manufacturer.
    A ``brand owner'' is not defined in the CPSA. A brand owner would 
not be a required finished product certifier under the proposed rule, 
unless that entity imports products, manufactures products in the 
United States, or meets the definition of a ``private labeler'' for 
products made in the United States. We understand that some brand 
owners license their brand or trademark to appear on consumer products. 
Like ``brand owner,'' ``licensee'' and ``licensor'' are not defined 
terms under the CPSA, and the Commission cannot require a ``licensee'' 
or a ``licensor'' to issue a certificate. Regardless of who the 
required finished product certifier is under the proposed rule, brand 
owners can already test and certify products under Sec.  1109.5(i) of 
the Component Part Rule. If the product is imported, an importer can 
rely on a brand owner's testing or certification as a basis to issue 
the required finished product certificate. Moreover, a domestic 
manufacturer can rely on a brand owner's testing or certification to 
issue a required certificate, as long as all parties follow the 
requirements in the 1109 rule.
    The proposed revisions to expand the required finished product 
certifier to include the private labeler for privately labeled products 
should not necessarily result in a change to existing relationships 
with regard to testing products and issuing certificates. Testing and 
certification can already be conducted by other parties under the 
Component Part Rule, and in both cases, where the private labeler has 
been included, the manufacturer can continue to issue the certificate.

E. What form(s) may the certificate take?--Proposed Sec.  1110.9

    Existing Sec.  1110.9, titled, ``Form of certificate,'' states that 
``the information on a hard copy or electronic certificate must be 
provided in English and may be provided in any other language.'' 
Proposed Sec.  1110.9 would revise and elaborate on this concept, 
establishing requirements for language, format, and electronic 
certificates. This section would restate the statutory requirement that 
certificates must be in English, and may also contain the same content 
in any other language. The section would state that, except as provided 
in proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(1), which requires an electronic 
certificate for products imported into the United States, certificates 
may be provided in hard copy or electronically.
    Proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would set forth requirements for 
electronic certificates in all cases, except certificates that would be 
required to be filed electronically with CBP at importation. The 
proposed rule would continue to allow a broad range of formats for 
electronic certificates, as long as they are identified by a unique 
identifier and can be accessed via a World Wide Web uniform resource 
locator (URL) or other electronic means. However, several changes are 
proposed. First, proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would provide requirements 
for electronic certificates other than the filing of certificates 
electronically with CBP for imported products, which is discussed in 
detail in proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(1) in section II.G of this 
preamble. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would apply only to: 
products manufactured in the United States; foreign-manufactured 
products that are delivered directly to a consumer in the United 
States; and imported finished products after importation, such as when 
requested by CPSC or CBP, or when certificates are furnished to 
retailers and distributors.

[[Page 28085]]

    Second, proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would still allow for use of a 
``unique identifier'' to access a certificate electronically, but it 
would require that the unique identifier be ``identified prominently on 
the finished product, shipping carton, or invoice.'' Experience with 
electronic certificates has shown that they can be effective as long as 
they are easily accessible. Searching products and paperwork for a 
certificate identifier should not require significant time and 
resources because it detracts from the efficiencies achieved by 
allowing electronic certificates. Requiring the placement of a unique 
identifier to be ``prominent'' and limiting the placement to three 
distinct options is intended to ensure the efficiency of allowing 
electronic certificates.
    Third, proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would state that electronic 
certificates must be accessible ``without password protection.'' This 
amendment would ensure that access to electronic certificates is easy 
and efficient and does not require significant CPSC time and resources. 
If accessing information electronically is cumbersome, it defeats any 
efficiency achieved by electronic certificates. Thousands of entities, 
including manufacturers, private labelers, and importers, likely must 
certify consumer products. Maintenance of password information by the 
CPSC could become burdensome for CPSC's import surveillance and other 
enforcement efforts. Accordingly, we propose that electronic 
certificates be accessible without password protection.
    Finally, existing Sec.  1110.13(a)(1) requires that electronic 
certificates be available to ``the Commission or to the Customs 
authorities as soon as the product or shipment itself is available for 
inspection.'' Neither CPSC nor CBP regulations define or interpret this 
phrase, so it is currently unclear when the obligation to present a 
certificate on demand actually vests. Proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) would 
clarify that electronic certificates, the URL, or other electronic 
means, and the unique identifier be accessible to the Commission, CBP, 
distributors, and retailers, ``on or before the date the finished 
product is distributed in commerce,'' to set forth a definite point in 
a finished product's distribution chain when the certificate must be 
available. This requirement is intended to prevent a scenario where the 
CPSC or a retailer or distributor attempts to access an electronic 
certificate to find that it does not exist yet or is unavailable.

F. What must the certificate contain?--Proposed Sec.  1110.11

    Existing Sec.  1110.11 restates and interprets the requirements for 
the contents of certificates, as provided in sections 14(a) and 14(g) 
of the CPSA. Proposed Sec.  1110.11 would revise content requirements 
to reflect that such content requirements apply to all three types of 
certificates: GCCs, CPCs, and component part certificates. In addition, 
proposed Sec.  1110.11 would add three content requirements to a 
certificate: (a) Date of initial certification (proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(2)); (b) scope of the certificate (proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(3)); and (c) an attestation of compliance (proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(10)). Each requirement in the proposed rule is discussed 
below.
1. Identification of the Component Part or Finished Product--Proposed 
Sec.  1110.11(a)(1)
    The existing rule requires: ``Identification of the product covered 
by the certificate.'' Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a) would state that each 
certificate must contain the information described therein, and then 
list each piece of information as numbered items 1 through 10, under 
proposed Sec.  1110.11(a). Thus, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(1) would 
incorporate the requirement to identify the product being certified, 
but it would broaden the nature of the ``product'' that can be covered 
by a certificate to include component parts as well as finished 
products. The proposed rule would require the certificate to state 
whether it covers a finished product or a component part to assist with 
enforcement and to clarify for all other parties the scope of the 
certificate.
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(1) would further state that ``[a] model 
number, style, or other unique identifier of the product should be 
provided, if any, along with a description of the finished product or 
component part. Certifiers may also include an identifier, such as a 
universal product code (UPC), a global trade item number (GTIN), or 
other identifying code that may assist with product identification.'' 
This clarification is intended to provide guidance on the type of 
information that would be considered to be identifying information for 
a product. Providing a model number or style number, if they exist, 
would be the most useful way for the CPSC to identify the product, 
along with a narrative description of the product. Certifiers may also 
provide a stock-keeping unit, or SKU, to assist in product 
identification. Additionally, the CPSC is aware that many manufacturers 
use codes for purposes of product identification, such as UPC codes and 
GTINs. This type of information is also useful for CPSC to identify 
products. Certifiers would be encouraged to include any type of 
identifying code on the certificate, if it would aid in product 
identification. UPCs and GTINs are examples of identifying codes. 
Stakeholders are encouraged to comment on whether other types of codes 
should be stated specifically in the codified text. Although harmonized 
tariff codes may be placed on a certificate, they are insufficient, 
alone, to identify a product on a certificate. Similarly, a registered 
identification number, or RN, on wearing apparel, alone, is 
insufficient to identify a product on a certificate. An RN is a number, 
assigned by the Federal Trade Commission, which identifies a business, 
and does not distinguish products. This type of information can be used 
in conjunction with other identifying information to identify a product 
adequately on a certificate but is not sufficient by itself to identify 
a product.
    Certifiers are reminded that they may rely on one certificate to 
certify more than one product, if products are manufactured at the same 
facility and the tests apply to all of the products on the certificate. 
For example, several sizes of a garment may be listed on one 
certificate, if they were manufactured at the same facility and the 
testing on the component parts (e.g., fabric, buttons, and zippers) is 
applicable to each size garment produced. Certificates can be based on 
the one set of tests. The manufacturer could create one certificate, or 
it could create a certificate for each product. For example, under the 
Component Part Rule, a manufacturer of plastic trains that uses the 
same plastic resin in five different molds to create five different 
types of trains may test the plastic resin under the 1109 rule and then 
use those test results to support certification of all products made 
with the plastic resin. If that were the only testing required, the 
manufacturer could create one certificate for all five types of trains, 
or it could create five separate certificates relying on the same 
testing. The certificate must be explicit as to which product or 
products it is intended to cover. If additional testing is required 
that is unique to each product, certifiers should certify each product, 
but may rely on the same testing, where warranted.

[[Page 28086]]

2. Date of Initial Certification--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(2)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(2) would require the certificate to: 
``[s]tate the date of initial certification of the finished product(s) 
or component part(s) to which the certificate refers.'' This would be a 
new content requirement on the certificate, but the requirement is 
drawn from a current requirement in existing Sec.  1110.13(b), which 
requires that electronic certificates have a means to verify the date 
of creation or last modification. In practice, many certificates, 
regardless of whether they are electronic or paper based, contain a 
date. The proposed rule would standardize the date required to be 
provided to reflect the date the product was originally certified. If a 
children's product undergoes a material change, a new certificate must 
be issued, pursuant to the Testing Rule. Accordingly, we anticipate 
that the certification date would be updated after a material change to 
reflect that the product was subjected to testing for applicable 
consumer product safety rules affected by the material change, and a 
new certificate was issued, as required.
3. Identification of Certificate Scope--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(3)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(3) would require the certificate to: 
``[i]dentify the scope of finished product(s) or component part(s) for 
which the certificate applies, such as by a start date, a start and end 
date, by a lot number, starting serial number, serial number range, or 
other means to identify the set of finished product(s) or component 
part(s) that are covered by the certificate.'' This would be a new 
content requirement on the certificate that would assist the Commission 
in understanding the scope of the products covered by a certificate. By 
adding this requirement, the Commission does not intend to require 
certifiers to modify or create certificates to change the scope of the 
certificate for each shipment. Certifiers can identify the scope of 
products covered by a certificate through any reasonable means, such as 
a date or dates, lot numbers, or serial numbers, providing such 
information will assist the Commission in understanding the scope of 
each certificate. Certifiers are required to maintain information on 
the scope of certificates for children's products, pursuant to Sec.  
1107.26 of the Testing Rule and Sec.  1109.5(g) and (j) of the 
Component Part Rule, when applicable.
4. List of Rules Being Certified--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(4)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(b) requires: ``Citation to each CPSC product 
safety regulation or statutory requirement to which the product is 
being certified. Specifically, the certificate shall identify 
separately each applicable consumer product safety rule under the 
Consumer Product Safety Act and any similar rule, ban, standard or 
regulation under any other Act enforced by the Commission that is 
applicable to the product.'' Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(4) would 
incorporate the statutory requirement in section 14(a) of the CPSA to 
specify each rule on a certificate, but it would broaden the nature of 
the ``product'' that can be covered by the certificate to include 
component parts of a product. Accordingly, the first sentence in 
proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(4) would require the certifier to: ``State 
each consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or similar rule, ban, 
standard, or regulation under any law enforced by the Commission, to 
which the finished product(s) or component part(s) are being 
certified.''
    Moreover, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(4) would clarify the different 
requirements for finished product certificates versus component part 
certificates. A finished product certificate would need to ``identify 
separately all applicable rules, bans, standards, or regulations.'' A 
finished product certifier is responsible for knowing what rules, bans, 
standards, or regulations apply to each product and for listing all of 
them on the certificate, or providing a certificate for each applicable 
rule. However, a component part certifier would have the option to 
certify a component part to specific rules or parts of rules, even 
though such certification may not ultimately cover all applicable 
rules. This is because the component part certifier might not know the 
final use of the component part, and thus, not know the scope of all 
applicable rules or because additional tests may be required to be 
conducted on a finished product. Accordingly, a component part 
certificate would need to ``identify all rules, or parts of rules, 
standards, bans, or regulations for which the component part(s) are 
being certified.'' The proposed component part requirement recognizes 
that some component parts can be certified to portions of a standard. 
For example, an accessory used on a children's product may be tested 
separately from the children's product with regard to lead in paint. It 
would remain the responsibility of a finished product certifier, 
relying on a component part test or certification, to ensure that all 
component parts of a finished children's product are tested and 
certified not only to the lead in paint standard, but also to all other 
applicable rules, bans, standards, and regulations.
5. Identification of the Certifying Party--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(5)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(c) requires: ``Identification of the 
importer or domestic manufacturer certifying compliance of the product, 
including the importer or domestic manufacturer's name, full mailing 
address, and telephone number.'' Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(5) would 
incorporate the statutory requirement in section 14(g)(1) of the CPSA 
to ``identify the manufacturer or private labeler issuing the 
certificate'' and provide ``each party's name, full mailing address, 
telephone number,'' but would broaden the requirement to include 
certificates for both finished products and component parts. Regardless 
of the type of certificate being issued, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(5) 
would require the certificate to ``[i]dentify the party certifying 
compliance of the finished product(s) or component part(s), including 
the party's name, electronic mail (email) address, full mailing 
address, including the street address, and telephone number.'' Note 
that the proposed rule would broaden the identification requirement to 
include an electronic mail (email) address and a street address. The 
email address would provide CPSC with an additional means of contacting 
and communicating with certifiers, including those located overseas or 
in different time zones. Providing a street address would ensure that 
CPSC staff can locate the certifier's place of business should an 
investigation require a site visit.
6. Contact Information for Records Custodian--Proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(6)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(d) requires: ``Contact information for the 
individual maintaining records of test results, including the 
custodian's name, email address, full mailing address, and telephone 
number. (CPSC suggests that each issuer maintain test records 
supporting the certification for at least three years as is currently 
required by certain consumer product specific CPSC standards, for 
example at 16 CFR 1508.10 for full-size baby cribs.)''
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(6) would incorporate the statutory 
requirement in section 14(g)(1) of the CPSA to provide contact 
information for the individual maintaining records of test results but 
would broaden it to include contact information for the custodian of 
all records required for each type of

[[Page 28087]]

certificate, as set forth in the Testing Rule and the Component Part 
Rule. Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(6)(ii) would require contact 
information for the individual ``maintaining records of test results 
and other records on which a CPC is based.'' Proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(6)(iii) would require contact information for the individual 
``maintaining records of test results and other records on which a 
component part certificate is based.'' As in proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(5), proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(6) would require the record 
custodian's email address, in addition to a full mailing address and 
telephone number to provide additional means for CPSC to contact the 
custodian of records. Further, the proposed rule would delete the 
portion of existing Sec.  1110.11(d) that requires records be 
maintained ``for at least three years'' for all records, because the 
1107 and 1109 rules require certificates and test results to be 
maintained for 5 years. Recordkeeping requirements are discussed in 
section II.I of this preamble.
7. Date and Place of Manufacture--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(7)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(e) requires: ``Date (month and year at a 
minimum) and place (including city and state, country, or 
administrative region) where the product was manufactured. If the same 
manufacturer operates more than one location in the same city, the 
street address of the factory in question should be provided.''
    In addition to requiring that a certificate contain the date and 
place of manufacture of a product, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(7) would 
use the newly defined term ``finished product'' and broaden the nature 
of the ``product'' to include component parts. Moreover, proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(7) would interpret ``place'' to include a street address in 
all circumstances, not just when a manufacturer operates more than one 
location in the same city. A post office box would be insufficient to 
meet this requirement. In addition, the proposed rule would clarify 
that ``place'' also includes either the name of a state or a province, 
as well as either the name of a country or an administrative region. To 
clarify where a product has been ``manufactured,'' the definition of 
``manufactured'' is included in the proposed rule. Section 3(a)(10) of 
the CPSA states: ``manufactured'' means ``to manufacture, produce, or 
assemble.'' The Commission is also requesting comment on the 
possibility of requiring additional information on a certificate, such 
as the name of the manufacturer, including foreign manufacturers. 
Please see section III.1 of this preamble for further discussion of 
this issue.
8. Date and Place of Testing To Support the Certificate--Proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(8)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(f) requires: ``Date and place (including 
city and state, country or administrative region) where the product was 
tested for compliance with the regulation(s) cited above in subsection 
(b).'' In addition to requiring that a certificate contain the date and 
place where the product was tested, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(8) would 
use the newly defined term ``finished product'' and broaden the nature 
of the ``product'' to include component parts. Moreover, proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(8) would make the words ``date'' and ``place'' plural, 
recognizing that finished products and component parts may be tested in 
multiple or different locations. The Commission's preference is that 
all required information be condensed into one certificate, but we 
acknowledge that section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA allows for a certificate 
for each applicable standard. Supporting documentation, such as test 
results, component part certificates, and other finished product 
certificates, should be available for review upon request, or may be 
bundled with the required certificate but do not take the place of a 
required certificate that contains the 10 elements in proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a). The proposed rule would also require ``place'' to include a 
street address, city, state, or province, and country or administrative 
region. Thus, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(8) would state: ``Provide the 
dates and places (including a street address, city, state or province, 
and country or administrative region) where the finished product(s) or 
component part(s) were tested for compliance with the rule(s), ban(s), 
standard(s), or regulation(s) cited in Sec.  1110.11(a)(4) of this 
part.''
9. Identification of Parties That Conducted Testing To Support the 
Certificate--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(9)
    Existing Sec.  1110.11(g) requires: ``Identification of any third 
party laboratory on whose testing the certificate depends, including 
name, full mailing address and telephone number of the laboratory.'' In 
addition to requiring that a certificate identify and provide contact 
information for any third party conformity assessment body on whose 
testing the certificate depends, proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(9) would use 
the statutory language for a third party laboratory, i.e., ``third 
party conformity assessment body,'' and would broaden the scope to 
include all parties who conducted testing on which the certificate 
depends. This provision would allow all parties, including the CPSC, to 
identify whether a GCC or a CPC is based on first or third party 
testing. Finally, required contact information would be broadened to 
include an email address and a street address, in addition to a name, 
mailing address, and telephone number. Providing an email address would 
provide CPSC with additional means of contacting and communicating with 
parties conducting testing, including those located overseas or in 
different time zones. Providing a street address would ensure that CPSC 
staff can locate the third party conformity assessment body if an on-
site visit becomes necessary.
10. Attestation of Compliance--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(10)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(10) would be a new section of the 
certificate that would require an attestation that the finished 
products or component parts covered by the certificate are compliant 
with the applicable rules. The attestation would be made by the party 
identified as the certifier under proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(5). The 
certifier would attest that the finished products or component parts 
covered under the certificate comply with the rules, bans, standards, 
and regulations stated in the certificate, at proposed Sec.  
1110.11(a)(4), and that the information in the certificate is true and 
accurate to the best of the certifier's knowledge, information, and 
belief. Finally, the certifier would acknowledge an understanding that 
it is a federal crime to knowingly and willfully make any materially 
false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, representations, or 
omissions, on the certificate. The proposed language stems from 18 
U.S.C. 1001. The language in this section serves several purposes. 
First, the certificate is an attestation of compliance. The existing 
certificate requirements do not state explicitly what attestation or 
affirmation the certifier is making with regard to the products covered 
by the certificate. Thus, the proposed language would make plain to 
everyone the scope and gravity of the obligation being made. Second, 
requiring each certificate to include this language would educate the 
certifier, including foreign certifiers, of the certifier's obligations 
under United States law. Finally, some portions of the applicable 
consumer product safety rules that require compliance, such as certain 
labeling requirements, are not subject to testing. The attestation is 
an affirmation by the certifier that the

[[Page 28088]]

product complies with all the requirements of the applicable rules, not 
only those provisions for which there are test results.
11. Electronic Access to Records--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(b)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11 would contain a new subsection (b) regarding 
electronic access to records. This new provision would allow a 
certificate to include a Web address that links to required records, in 
addition to identification of the custodian of records, as described in 
proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(6). Providing contact information for a 
custodian of records is a statutory requirement, but certifiers may 
find it efficient for business and regulatory purposes also to provide 
a direct link to the required records. For example, Sec.  1109.5(g) of 
the Component Part Rule requires that ``testing parties'' and 
``certifiers,'' as defined in that rule, must provide certain 
documentation, which may include, for example, a component part 
certificate to certifiers intending to rely upon such documentation to 
certify a product. Thus, to the extent that such records already exist 
in an easily accessible electronic format to meet recordkeeping 
requirements in other rules, access to this same electronic format can 
be provided on a certificate.
12. Statutory or Regulatory Testing Exclusions--Proposed Sec.  
1110.11(c)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.11(c) is a new provision that would describe 
what certifiers must put on a certificate when a certifier is claiming 
statutory or regulatory testing exclusions for any applicable rules. In 
such a case, the certifier must list all of the applicable rules, and 
then state when the product is not subject to testing for a specific 
rule, and the statutory or regulatory basis for such claim, instead of 
providing the date and place where testing was conducted. Certifiers 
are already doing this in many instances, but this requirement would 
ensure that certifiers are consistent in how they document exceptions 
on a certificate. So, for example, if a manufacturer makes a children's 
product (not a toy) that is made entirely of untreated wood, but the 
product is painted, then the certifier will need to issue a certificate 
of compliance stating that the paint on the product is compliant with 
16 CFR part 1303, the Commission's rule on lead in paint. The 
children's product is also subject to the lead content requirement in 
section 101 of the CPSIA, but the manufacturer can rely on the 
Commission's determination at 16 CFR 1500.91 that untreated wood does 
not contain more than 100 ppm lead content. The manufacturer must list 
both the lead in paint and the lead content rule on the certificate. 
Applicable information on the date and place of testing, and the third 
party conformity assessment body that conducted testing, must be 
provided for the testing conducted on lead in paint. For lead content 
testing, however, the certifier must state on the certificate that it 
is relying on Sec.  1500.91 to meet the requirement.
13. Duplicative Testing Not Required--Proposed Sec.  1110.11(d)
    Finally, proposed Sec.  1110.11(d) is a new section of the rule 
that would explain that ``[a]lthough certificates must list each 
applicable rule, ban, standard, or regulation separately, finished 
product certifiers are not required to conduct duplicative third party 
testing for any rule that refers to or incorporates fully another 
applicable consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, 
or regulation under any law enforced by the Commission.'' It has come 
to the attention of the Commission that some standards, such as some of 
the durable infant and toddler standards, may fully incorporate or 
refer to an existing mandatory rule for children's products, such as 
the rule on lead in paint, codified at 16 CFR part 1303, and the rule 
on small parts, codified at 16 CFR part 1501. Some testing laboratories 
have advised their clients that such testing must be conducted twice; 
once as a standalone requirement and once as part of another, larger 
standard. This is not the position of the Commission. Although each 
applicable standard must be listed on the certificate, a certifier may 
certify compliance to both the standalone rule and the rule as 
incorporated into another standard, by testing it once as part of the 
larger standard where it is incorporated. For example, the mandatory 
standard for toddler beds, codified at 16 CFR part 1217, incorporates 
the Commission's standard for lead in paint (16 CFR part 1303) and for 
small parts (16 CFR part 1501). A certificate for a toddler bed must 
list all three mandatory standards, but may rely on the lead in paint 
and small parts testing conducted as part of the testing for the 
toddler bed standard to meet the requirements for 16 CFR parts 1303 and 
1501.

G. When must certificates be made available?--Proposed Sec.  1110.13

    Existing Sec.  1110.13 states the requirement in section 14(g)(3) 
of the CPSA that certificates required by section 14(a) ``accompany'' 
each product or product shipment and be ``furnished to each distributor 
and retailer of the product in question.'' Existing Sec.  1110.13 
states that an electronic certificate satisfies the ``accompany'' 
requirement if the certificate is identified by a unique identifier and 
can be accessed via a World Wide Web URL or other electronic means, 
provided the URL or other electronic means and the unique identifier 
are created in advance and are available, along with access to the 
electronic certificate itself, to the Commission or to the Customs 
authorities as soon as the product or shipment itself is available for 
inspection. The existing section also states that an electronic 
certificate satisfies the ``furnish'' requirement if the distributor(s) 
and retailer(s) of the product are provided a reasonable means to 
access the certificate and it further provides that ``[a]n electronic 
certificate shall have a means to verify the date of its creation or 
last modification.''
    Proposed Sec.  1110.13 would modify the existing section in several 
ways, and incorporate the concept of availability in existing Sec.  
1110.7(c). Unlike the current provision, proposed Sec.  1110.13 would 
not be limited to requirements for electronic certificates because 
requirements for electronic certificates generally have been moved to 
proposed Sec.  1110.9(c). Accordingly, proposed Sec.  1110.13 would set 
forth requirements for when certificates must accompany regulated 
products, and when they must be made available to CPSC and furnished to 
retailers or distributors.
    The proposed rule would describe requirements for when a 
certificate must accompany a finished product or finished product 
shipment that is required to be certified pursuant to Sec.  1110.5. It 
would require that such certificates be issued by a finished product 
certifier and state that only finished products would be required to be 
accompanied by a certificate. The Commission would limit the 
requirement for products to be accompanied by a certificate to finished 
products because component part certification is voluntary, and not all 
component parts are certified. Component part certificates must be 
maintained as supporting documentation, as described in the 1109 rule, 
if such component part certificates are being relied upon by a required 
finished product certifier to issue a finished product certificate.

[[Page 28089]]

1. Accompanying Certificates for Imported Products--Proposed Sec.  
1110.13(a)(1)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(1) would require that for finished 
products that are manufactured outside the United States and are 
imported for consumption or warehousing, the importer must file the 
required GCC or CPC electronically with the CBP at the time of filing 
the CBP entry or at the time of filing the entry and entry summary, if 
both are filed together. Such a change would aid the Commission in 
enforcing the requirement to certify regulated products that require a 
certificate; and, if the certificate were required to be filed with CBP 
in the form of data elements, would aid the Commission to search the 
data elements on a certificate by uploading the information into a 
database. A database containing certificate information would enhance 
the Commission's ability to target shipments for inspection and track 
the accuracy of certificates. Because the proposed rule would require 
filing certificates electronically with CBP, the certificate, of 
necessity, would be available to the Commission and to CBP upon import; 
accordingly, the ``accompany'' requirement does not need to be restated 
as in the existing version of Sec.  1110.13(a)(1).
    Note that the requirements for certificates filed electronically 
with CBP in proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(1) would be specifically excluded 
from electronic certificate requirements for all other purposes as 
described in proposed Sec.  1110.9(c). The Commission would leave the 
technical requirements for filing certificates electronically with CBP 
broad, to accommodate CBP's system resources. The Commission's ultimate 
goal would be to require filing of certificates with CBP in the form of 
data elements so that certificate contents can be uploaded into a 
database for targeting purposes. However, we realize that such a 
requirement may require software upgrades by CBP, CPSC, and 
stakeholders that must be completed in stages. Additionally, CPSC 
requires the assistance and cooperation of CBP to implement and 
maintain the receipt of certificates in an electronic format, and the 
CPSC must be mindful of resource limitations and stakeholder 
adjustments in implementing this new requirement. Initially, if the 
Commission requires electronic filing of certificates at the point of 
entry, we would likely allow such filing of certificates in two ways: 
(1) Inserting an electronic copy of the certificate with the entry, 
such as a pdf file of the document; or (2) uploading the 10 required 
data points on a certificate into CBP's designated system of record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Electronic filing of entries is required by CBP rule, 
titled, Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements 
commonly known as ``10+2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We welcome comments on the resources required to file the 
certificates electronically with CBP. Stakeholders are encouraged to 
comment on the format for filing certificates with CBP, including the 
two formats discussed (pdf format versus data elements format). The 
Commission is requesting comment on an additional option for filing 
electronic certificates at an earlier point in the import process, at 
manifest, in section III.2 of this preamble.
2. Accompanying Certificates for Products Made in the United States--
Proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(2)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(2) would require that in the case of 
finished products manufactured in the United States, certificates shall 
not be filed with CPSC. Instead, the ``accompany'' requirement is met 
if a finished product certifier, as defined in proposed Sec.  
1110.3(11), makes a certificate available for inspection by CPSC on or 
before the date the finished product is distributed in commerce. 
Pursuant to proposed Sec.  1110.9(b), this may be accomplished, for 
example, by placing a copy of the certificate in the shipping container 
with the product, or by meeting the requirements for an electronic 
certificate. Unlike imported products, we do not want certificates for 
products made in the United States to be filed with the government as a 
matter of course. We do not have the infrastructure in place to 
accommodate or review certificates for all regulated products made in 
the United States. Enforcement of these certificates will continue to 
be based on Commission resources and targeting efforts.
3. Accompanying Certificates for Imported Products Delivered Directly 
to Consumers in the United States--Proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(3)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.13(a)(3) would require that in the case of 
finished products that are manufactured outside the United States and 
are imported for consumption or warehousing, that are delivered 
directly to consumers in the United States, the foreign manufacturer or 
the importer, as provided in Sec.  1110.7(a), has the option to either 
file the required GCC or CPC electronically with the CBP as provided 
for in paragraph (1), or may make the certificate available for 
inspection by CPSC on or before the date the finished product is 
distributed in commerce as provided in paragraph (2). Whether the 
certificates are filed with CBP depends on whether formal entry is 
made. If no formal entry is made for these products with CBP, then the 
certificate must still be made available to the Commission, either in 
hard copy or electronically, as set forth in Sec.  1110.9, on or before 
the products are distributed into United States commerce.
4. Furnishing Certificates--Proposed Sec.  1110.13(b)
    Existing Sec.  1110.13(b) states that an electronic certificate 
must have a means to verify the date of its creation or the last 
modification. The proposed rule would delete this provision because 
proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(2) would require the certificate to state the 
date of initial certification. Proposed Sec.  1110.13(b) would state 
the statutory requirement in section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA that a copy 
of the certificate shall be furnished to each distributor or retailer 
of the product. The proposed rule would clarify who must provide such a 
certificate (a ``finished product certifier,'' which is defined in 
Sec.  1110.3(11) as a party that is required to issue a finished 
product certificate pursuant to Sec.  1110.7), and for what types of 
products (finished products).
5. Availability of Certificates--Proposed Sec.  1110.13(c)
    Proposed Sec.  1110.13(c) is a new section that would state the 
requirement contained in sections 14(g)(3) and (g)(4) of the CPSA, that 
certificates must be provided to the Commission and to CBP upon 
request. The proposed rule would state: ``Certifiers must make 
certificates available for inspection immediately upon request by CPSC 
or CBP.'' This provision would apply to all types of certifiers, to all 
types of certificates (GCCs, CPCs, and component part), and at any time 
after a product is offered for import or distributed in commerce. The 
Commission interprets the word ``immediately'' consistent with other 
CPSC rules, to mean ``within 24 hours.'' However, we would expect that 
GCCs and CPCs would be made available to CPSC in a very short time, 
either at the time of request, or shortly afterward, because finished 
products are required to be accompanied by a certificate that is 
generated before importation or distribution in commerce, and must be 
either in hard copy with the product, or electronically available, as 
described in proposed Sec.  1110.9(c).

[[Page 28090]]

H. Who is responsible for the information in a certificate?--Proposed 
Sec.  1110.15

    Existing Sec.  1110.15 states: ``Any entity or entities may 
maintain an electronic certificate platform and may enter the requisite 
data. However, the entity or entities required by CPSA section 14(a) to 
issue the certificate remain legally responsible for the accuracy and 
completeness of the certificate information required by statute and its 
availability in timely fashion.'' This provision was intended to allow 
third parties to assist with electronic certificate maintenance, while 
ensuring that the party certifying the product remained responsible for 
its contents.
    Proposed Sec.  1110.15 would maintain this concept but would 
broaden it to include component part certifiers by using the term 
``certifiers'' in the first sentence. Certifiers may have any entity 
maintain an electronic certificate platform, or enter the requisite 
data, but the certifier would remain responsible for the contents of a 
certificate. The description of the certifier's responsibility with 
regard to certificate content would be broadened in the proposed rule 
to include its validity, accuracy, completeness, and availability, as 
applicable.

I. What recordkeeping requirements apply to certificates?--Sec.  
1110.17

    Proposed Sec.  1110.17 would be a new provision intended to 
summarize the existing recordkeeping requirements that apply to 
certificates. The requirement to create and maintain certificates based 
on third party testing of children's products arises from Sec.  1107.26 
of the Testing Rule. Recordkeeping for component part certificates, and 
reliance on another party's certificate or testing to certify a 
finished product, arises out of Sec. Sec.  1109.5(g) and 1109.5(j) of 
the Component Part Rule. To assist stakeholders in understanding the 
various recordkeeping provisions that apply to certificates, proposed 
Sec.  1110.17 restates such requirements.
    While some consumer product safety rules, and other similar rules, 
bans, standards, or regulations, may already have a recordkeeping 
requirement; other regulations may not be subject to a recordkeeping 
provision. For example, the Commission's safety standard for bicycle 
helmets (16 CFR part 1203) contains a recordkeeping provision, but the 
safety standard for swimming pool slides (16 CFR part 1207) does not. 
For all GCCs, regardless of whether there are underlying record keeping 
requirements or not, the proposed rule states that certifiers of GCCs 
must maintain the certificate and supporting test records where 
required for at least 5 years. Maintenance of such records, for 
example, may aid both the certifier and the Commission in the event of 
an investigation or product recall.

J. What requirements apply to component part certificates?--Sec.  
1110.19

    Proposed Sec.  1110.19 would be a new provision to explain which 
requirements in part 1110 apply to component part certificates. It 
would state that component part certificates are voluntary and that 
component parts of consumer products would not be required to be 
accompanied by a certificate, nor would such certificates need to be 
furnished to retailers and distributors, as described in proposed Sec.  
1110.13(b). CPSC also would not want component part certificates to be 
filed with CBP upon importation of component parts. Instead, certifiers 
of component parts would need to meet the requirements in the Component 
Part Rule, and component part certificates would also need to meet the 
form, content, and availability requirements described in the proposed 
rule in sections 1110.9, 1110.11, 1110.13(c), 1110.15, and 1110.17.

III. Request for Comments

    The Commission encourages stakeholders to comment on all sections 
of the proposed amendments to 16 CFR part 1110, and specifically 
request comment on the following additional issues. Comments should be 
submitted in accordance with the instructions in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this notice.
    1. The Commission is considering requiring certificates to state 
not only the place of manufacture in proposed Sec.  1110.11(a)(7), but 
also to identify the name of the manufacturer, including foreign 
manufacturers. Stakeholders have argued in other contexts that the name 
of a foreign manufacturer is proprietary. This information, however, 
would be useful to the Commission and distributors in recall 
situations, and it would also be useful to the Commission for 
enforcement purposes. Investigating facts and limiting recalls would be 
enhanced, and thus, enforcement would be enhanced. We welcome comments 
on the nature of the information, whether, why, and how it may be 
confidential, and how the information being available outside the 
Commission advances, or does not advance, safety. The Commission is 
also interested in ideas that would allow manufacturers to be named on 
a certificate for disclosure to the Commission, but would protect their 
name from others, should it be an issue. The Commission, for example, 
could allow a private labeler or distributor to redact the name of a 
foreign manufacturer or supplier, as long as this information is 
readily available to CPSC. What reasons are there for retailers or 
others to know the names of suppliers on a certificate, if the CPSC has 
ready access to this information?
    2. The Commission is also considering allowing, but not requiring, 
certificates to be filed electronically with CBP in advance of filing 
an entry, such as at the time of manifest. We welcome stakeholder input 
on this concept.
    3. Proposed Sec.  1110.5 states that finished products subject to a 
ban enforced by the Commission, which are imported for consumption or 
warehousing or are distributed in commerce, must be accompanied by a 
GCC or CPC. The Commission has provided guidance regarding which bans 
require certification because we recognize it may be difficult at times 
to distinguish those bans that ban an entire product category leaving 
no products left to certify. Some bans enforced by the Commission apply 
to multiple products or more than one product category. For example, 
when the ban on products containing soluble cyanide salts, (16 CFR 
1500.17(a)(5)) was first established in 1972, it was known that cyanide 
salts were used in different products or product categories such as 
soldering solutions, coin cleaning solutions, and some silver polishes. 
The banning rule excludes unavoidable manufacturing residues of cyanide 
salts in other chemicals that under reasonable and foreseeable 
conditions of use will not result in a concentration of cyanide greater 
than 25 part per million. The Commission seeks comments from 
stakeholders regarding the current use of cyanide salts in consumer 
products as it considers its guidance as to whether manufacturers must 
issue a GCC to show compliance with the ban on soluble cyanide salts.
    4. When the Commission originally issued part 1110 in 2008, it did 
so as a direct final rule and without performing a Paperwork Reduction 
Act analysis. Therefore, the Commission seeks comments now from the 
public on ways that the economic burden of part 1110 could be reduced, 
consistent with the Commission's underlying obligation to enforce 15 
U.S.C. 2063.
    5. The Commission has proposed language at Sec.  1110.5 that 
identifies the products subject to a ban that would be required to 
provide certificates under this rule. Table A in section II.C of this 
preamble provides the agency staff's

[[Page 28091]]

assessment identifying which banning rules apply to products that would 
require a certificate. The Commission seeks comments regarding Table A.
    6. Although the Commission believes that the recordkeeping 
provision to harmonize the time period for keeping GCCs and CPCs will 
not present any significant compliance challenges, we seek comments on 
whether any recordkeeping provisions contained in a specific CPSC rule 
will present difficult or unusual compliance challenges due to the 
unique recordkeeping requirements of the specific rule.
    7. Proposed Sec.  1110.9(c) states that an electronic certificate 
can meet the requirements of the relevant provisions if it is 
identified prominently by a unique identifier and can be accessed via a 
World Wide Web uniform resource locature (URL) or other electronic 
means by the Commission (and others) without password protection. The 
Commission seeks comments on ways to make that information available 
only to the agency, CBP, distributors, and retailers.

IV. Environmental Impact

    Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have 
little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and 
environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually 
required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The certificate requirements in the 
proposed rule are not expected to have an adverse impact on the 
environment, and fall within the categorical exclusion in 16 CFR 
1021.5(c)(2) for product certification rules. Accordingly, an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is not 
required.

V. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption)

    Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996) requires agencies to state 
in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. 
The proposed rule would be issued under the authority of the CPSA and 
the CPSIA. The CPSA provision on preemption appears at section 26 of 
the CPSA. The CPSIA provision on preemption appears at section 231 of 
the CPSIA. The preemptive effect of this rule would be determined in an 
appropriate proceeding by a court of competent jurisdiction.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that proposed rules 
be reviewed for the potential economic impact on small entities, 
including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA requires agencies to 
prepare and make available for public comment an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), describing the impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities and identifying impact-reducing alternatives. In 
addition, the IRFA must contain a description of any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule that would minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. This section 
summarizes CPSC staff's initial regulatory flexibility analysis for the 
proposed rule amending 16 CFR part 1110.

A. Reasons for Agency Action and Objective of the Proposed Rule

    The proposed revisions to 16 CFR Part 1110: Certificates of 
Compliance are needed to add definitions, clarify language, and make 
the requirements consistent with new regulations, Testing and Labeling 
Pertaining to Certification (16 CFR part 1107) and Conditions and 
Requirements for Relying on Component Part Testing or Certification, or 
Another Party's Finished Product Testing or Certification, to Meet 
Testing and Certification Requirements (16 CFR part 1109). The proposed 
rule would also implement part of section 14(g) of the CPSA by 
requiring that importers of regulated finished products file the 
required certificate electronically with CBP.
    More specifically, the proposed rule revises the existing 
regulation by adding 13 new definitions. The new definitions clarify 
the three different types of certificates of compliance: General 
Conformity Certificates, Children's Product Certificates, and component 
part certificates. The definitions also clarify the types of products 
that can be certified as either finished products or component parts. 
The proposed rule clarifies when certificates are required to accompany 
a finished product, who must certify a finished product, as well as the 
form and content requirements for certificates. Among these 
clarifications is new language holding foreign manufacturers 
responsible for certification of products delivered directly to 
consumers in the United States, such as products purchased through an 
Internet Web site, unless private labelers certify the products. The 
proposed rule revises the certificate requirement for domestically 
manufactured products to require a private labeler to certify a 
privately labeled product, unless a domestic manufacturer certifies the 
product. Finally, the proposed rule requires importers of regulated 
finished products manufactured outside of the United States to file the 
required certificate electronically with CBP at the time of filing the 
CBP entry or at the time of filing the entry and entry summary, if both 
are filed together.

B. Small Entities Subject to the Proposed Rule

    The proposed revisions to part 1110 will apply to importers and 
domestic manufacturers, and will be extended to include private 
labelers for privately labeled domestic products (unless certificates 
are provided by manufacturers). It is difficult to know the number of 
small businesses that would, with certainty, be affected by the rule. 
Research of CBP data by CPSC staff found that during 2009, there were 
231,094 distinct importers of products categorized in import codes 
likely to include products under CPSC's jurisdiction. The great 
majority of these firms (perhaps 90 percent or more) are likely to be 
small businesses under U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) size 
standards for manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers. On the basis of 
this information, each year as many as 210,000 small businesses might 
import products under CPSC jurisdiction that would make them subject to 
the proposed rule. However, firms that only import consumer products 
that are not subject to product safety rules requiring certification 
would not be affected by the electronic filing requirement.
    In most cases, domestic manufacturers will continue to have the 
responsibility of providing certificates for products subject to a 
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA or other laws enforced by 
the Commission. According to Census of Manufactures data for 2007, 
about 104,000 companies manufactured products in the North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes that are likely to have 
included products under CPSC jurisdiction.\2\ Although more than 90 
percent of these firms (i.e., close to 100,000) are considered small 
businesses under SBA guidelines, a significant percentage probably are 
not engaged in manufacturing products that are subject to a product 
safety rule. Still, tens of thousands of small manufacturers currently 
are responsible for providing certificates. Under the proposed rule, 
some of the burden of providing certificates could be transferred to 
small private labelers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Manufacturing: 
Industry Series: Detailed Statistics by Industry for the United 
States: 2007. https://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_31I1&prodType=table.

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

[[Page 28092]]

C. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the 
Proposed Rule

    The proposed revisions to part 1110 include the imposition of the 
new reporting requirement on importers of regulated finished products 
to file certificates of compliance (General Conformity Certificates or 
Children's Product Certificates) electronically with CBP at the time of 
filing the CBP entry or at the time of filing the entry and entry 
summary, if both are filed together. This electronic filing requirement 
would be in addition to other electronic importer security filing 
requirements already imposed by CBP. It is important to note that many 
importers, including those that are small businesses, already make 
electronic certificates available under the existing part 1110, to 
satisfy the requirement that certificates accompany products, are 
furnished to distributors and retailers, and are available to the CPSC 
``as soon as the product or shipment is available for inspection.'' 
Thus, for these firms, the incremental requirement would simply call 
for these certificates also to be provided electronically to the CBP.
    Because the proposed requirement for electronic filing of 
certificates for imported products does not specify how that is to be 
accomplished, importers will have some flexibility in their method of 
compliance. For example, the preamble of the proposed rule discusses 
that certificates could be maintained as pdf files, or certificates 
could be provided in the form of data elements and uploaded to CBP's 
system of records. Importers relying on paper certificates of 
compliance for distributors and retailers would have to create 
electronic certificates; however, these firms are likely to have the 
necessary office equipment and personnel to create and transmit these 
certificates electronically. Since 2010, small businesses that import 
merchandise (including products under CPSC jurisdiction) by ocean 
vessel have been required to file information related to the shipments 
electronically with CBP no later than 24 hours prior to the ship's 
arrival at a U.S. port, pursuant to CBP's rule titled, Importer 
Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements (commonly known as 
``10+2''). Small importers often hire Customs brokers licensed by CBP 
to handle the procedures that must be followed to import goods; the 
proposed requirement of electronic filing of certificates will likely 
be added to the duties performed by these brokers.
    Based on the current business practices of small businesses that 
import consumer products, the incremental costs of the requirement to 
file an electronic certificate of compliance should be minor. If 
electronic filing costs are similar to typical fees reportedly charged 
by Customs brokers for filing the required Importer Security Filing 
data elements, they might be $25 or less, per filing. CBP estimated 
that ``in 2005, more than 70 to 85 percent of all importers imported 
fewer than 12 shipments.'' \3\ Assuming this applies to importers of 
consumer products, annual incremental costs of electronic filing of 
certificates of compliance could be less than $275 for most small 
businesses that import products that require certificates of 
compliance. This estimate is based on the assumption that one 
certificate of conformance would be required per shipment. If multiple 
certificates are required per shipment, costs could be higher. As noted 
by CBP in its assessment of costs of security filing requirements, some 
small importers of consumer products subject to electronic filing of 
certificates under part 1110 could choose to file the certificates 
electronically themselves with CBP, if their own filing costs are lower 
than fees charged by brokers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier 
Requirements, Interim final rule. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 
228, November 25, 2008, p. 11765. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-27048.pdf.
    \4\ Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Importer Security Filing 
and Additional Carrier Requirements: Regulatory Assessment and Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Interim Final Rule, November 
6, 2008, p. 4-7 (97 of 266). Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/cargo_security/carriers/security_filing/ra.ctt/ra.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another proposed revision to part 1110 revises the requirement for 
certification of domestically manufactured products to require that 
privately labeled products be certified by the private labeler, unless 
the domestic manufacturer issues a certificate. This amendment would 
result in a shift in the obligation to provide certificates from some 
small manufacturers to some small private labelers. However, these 
small private labelers can choose to continue to rely on the 
certificates that the manufacturers are currently required to provide, 
or they can use such certificates as a basis for issuing their own 
certificates. Moreover, the revisions would grant private labelers the 
authority to issue certificates, which some may prefer. While some 
private labelers may experience some impact, this impact should not be 
significant because it is expected that some manufacturers will 
continue to issue certificates as they are now legally required to do.

D. Other Federal Rules

    For small businesses importing consumer products by containerized 
shipping vessel, this electronic filing requirement would be in 
addition to other electronic importer security filing requirements 
already imposed by CBP. Since 2010, small businesses that import 
merchandise (including products under CPSC jurisdiction) by ocean 
vessel have been required to file information related to the shipments 
electronically with CBP no later than 24 hours prior to the ship's 
arrival at a U.S. port. One of the elements required to be filed under 
the CBP's rule (Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier 
Requirements, or ``10+2 rule'') is the name and address of the 
manufacturer or supplier of the finished goods in the country or 
origin, although alternative forms of manufacturer identification, such 
as identification numbers, are also acceptable. This CBP element is 
similar, but not identical, to the required information on date and 
place of manufacture required by certificates of compliance.

E. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    One alternative to the proposed rule would be allowing, rather than 
requiring certificates for imported products to be filed at entry. If 
this alternative were to be adopted, the certificate would still have 
to be available for inspection upon request, as it is now. Allowing, 
instead of requiring certificates to be filed electronically at entry 
would reduce the burden on small businesses, but it might not enhance 
the Commission's ability to target shipments for inspection and to 
track the accuracy of certificates.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule to amend 16 CFR part 1110 would create a new 5-
year recordkeeping retention burden for GCCs and would also create a 
new reporting requirement by mandating that certificates for imported 
products be filed electronically with CBP. Accordingly, this proposed 
rule contains information collection requirements that are subject to 
public comment and review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
    In addition to the new recordkeeping and reporting burden 
associated with the proposed rule, our burden estimates presented below 
provide additional estimates to cover categories of burdens omitted in 
previous information

[[Page 28093]]

collections. The existing 1110 rule was issued by direct final rule in 
November 2008, and implemented the requirements in sections 14(a) and 
(g) of the CPSA to issue certificates for regulated products. For over 
four years now, regulated entities have incurred the costs associated 
with complying with these statutory requirements. Because a burden 
analysis for the creation and disclosure of certificates was not 
conducted in 2008, we provide here an estimated burden of $118,166,724 
for those statutory requirements imposed by existing 16 CFR 1110 for 
costs associated with documenting test results, creating GCCs, and 
disclosing GCCs to third parties. We note these costs are separate from 
the $56,118,876 in estimated costs associated with filing GCCs with CBP 
and retaining GCCs and supporting test records for at least five years 
as required by this proposed amendment to 16 CFR 1110.
    The recordkeeping burden analysis for the creation and maintenance 
of certificates based on third party testing of regulated children's 
products, CPCs, was set forth in 2011, in the Testing Rule and the 
Component Part Rule, culminating in a collection of information titled, 
Third Party Testing of Children's Products. That analysis did not cover 
third party disclosure of certificates for regulated children's 
products. Therefore, we provide here an estimated burden of $14,936,000 
for third party disclosure of certificates for regulated children's 
products as required by 16 CFR 1107. We note this cost is separate from 
the $18,700,000 in estimated costs associated with filing CPCs with CBP 
as required by this proposed amendment to 16 CFR 1110.
    Pursuant to section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA, non-children's products 
that are subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or 
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other law enforced 
by the Commission, must be certified as compliant with such rules, 
bans, standards or regulations. Certificates must meet the content, 
form, and availability requirements in the 1110 rule. For non-
children's products that are required to be certified, the CPSC intends 
to create a new collection of information to estimate the burden of: 
recording test results or other information to support GCCs; creating 
GCCs; disclosing certificates to retailers or distributors, CPSC, and 
CBP; and maintaining GCCs and supporting test records for 5 years. Some 
of the applicable underlying rules already have certificate and 
recordkeeping requirements that have previously been described in an 
information collection request to OMB, but many do not. In addition to 
recordkeeping requirements in an underlying rule, the proposed rule 
would require that GCCs and supporting test records be maintained for 
at least 5 years.
    Even where some rules have certificate requirements, such 
certificate requirements are not uniform and do not meet the minimum 
certificate content requirements set forth in section 14(g) of the 
CPSA, as implemented in the 1110 rule. Pursuant to section 14(g) of the 
CPSA, each certificate must accompany the applicable product or product 
shipment, be furnished to each distributor or retailer of the product, 
and furnished to CPSC, upon request. Additionally, each certificate 
must identify: The issuer of the certificate; any third party 
conformity assessment body that performed testing on which the 
certificate relies; the date and place of manufacture; the date and 
place of testing; each party's name, full mailing address, telephone 
number; and contact information for the individual responsible for 
maintaining records of test results. Thus, the certificate requirement 
in section 14(g) of the CPSA, as implemented in the 1110 rule, may be 
seen as an additional requirement for rules that require an on-product 
certificate, such as 16 CFR part 1205, Safety Standard for Walk-Behind 
Power Lawn Mowers. The statutory certificate requirement also may be 
seen as adding content requirements to the certificates described in 
rules that already require a certificate, such as 16 CFR part 1204, 
Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station 
Antennas.
    The recordkeeping burden for the creation and maintenance of 
certificates required by sections 14(a) and (g) of the CPSA for 
children's products is already described in the collection of 
information on Third Party Testing of Children's Products. We propose 
to amend the collection of information on Third Party Testing of 
Children's Products to estimate the increase in burden for third party 
disclosure of CPCs to retailers, distributors, and to CBP, as set forth 
in the proposed rule.
    We invite comments on: (1) Whether the amendment to the collection 
of information on Third Party Testing of Children's Products, and the 
new collection of information on Certification of Non-Children's 
Products, are necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's 
functions, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
method and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when 
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
    Title: Non-Children's Products--Certification of Non-Children's 
Products.
    Children's Products--Amendment to collection on Third Party Testing 
of Children's Products (OMB control number 3041-0159).
    Description: We would create a new collection of information for 
regulated non-children's products describing the annual reporting 
burden to: document test results or other information on which a 
certificate is based; create GCCs; furnish GCCs to retailers or 
distributors, the CPSC, and CBP; file certificates for imported 
products electronically with CBP; and maintain GCCs and supporting test 
records for 5 years. We would also amend the collection of information 
related to Third Party Testing of Children's Products to estimate the 
increase in the annual reporting burden for certifiers of children's 
products to furnish CPCs to retailers and distributors, and for 
importers of children's products to file electronic CPCs with CBP.
    The burden analysis for GCCs is comprehensive: it includes not only 
the new burdens associated with the proposed rule but also covers 
burdens not accounted for in previous rulemakings or in burden analysis 
submissions to OMB. As noted above, the proposed rule includes a new 
disclosure requirement for finished products manufactured outside the 
United States. When products manufactured outside the United States are 
imported for consumption or warehousing, the importer would be required 
to file either a CPC or GCC electronically with the CBP at the time of 
filing the CBP entry or the time of filing the entry and entry summary, 
if both are filed together. Such a requirement would implement section 
14(g)(4) of the CPSA, which states that the Commission, in consultation 
with the Commissioner of Customs, may, by rule, provide for the 
electronic filing of certificates up to 24 hours before arrival of an 
imported product. All other burdens for GCCs are due to the statutory 
requirements for certificates, as set forth in the direct final rule 
for part 1110 issued in November 2008.
    The burden estimates provided below are broken into four main 
categories:

[[Page 28094]]

Creating GCCs for Non-Children's Products; Furnishing Certificates to 
Third Parties; Filing Certificates for Imported Products with CBP; and 
Maintaining GCCs and Test Records. These estimates reflect the burden 
to the finished product certifier only. We have made no attempt to 
estimate the additional burden, if any, to the federal government. Our 
estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing each collection of information.
    Description of the Respondents: Finished product certifiers of 
products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or 
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other law enforced 
by the Commission, which are imported for consumption or warehousing, 
or are distributed in commerce.

Estimate of the Burden

A. Creating GCCs for Non-Children's Products

    The estimates provided are intended to reflect the recordkeeping 
burden per product per year. In the collection of information for 
children's products, we estimated that the recordkeeping burden was 
about 3 to 5 hours per product, per year, on average. For non-
children's products, we generally estimate that the recordkeeping 
burden to create GCCs and to document testing or other information on 
which the certificate is based is about 1.5 hours per product per year. 
This estimate reflects the fact that non-children's products are 
subject to fewer product safety rules than are children's products. 
Moreover, although some non-children's products manufacturers use third 
party testing, non-children's products are not subject to mandatory 
third party certification, material change, and periodic testing. The 
1.5 hours per product estimate is consistent with comments that were 
received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
Testing Rule. However, where we have information for specific products 
or rules that deviate from the general estimate, we use the more 
specific information.
    Like children's products, great diversity exists among regulated 
non-children's products. Thus, certifiers of non-children's products 
have significant flexibility in procedures for testing and certifying 
their products. Although each regulated product must have a GCC, the 
reasonable testing program that generates test results or other 
information upon which a GCC relies may vary greatly. For example, the 
criteria for meeting the requirements of 16 CFR part 1202, Safety 
Standard for Matchbooks, can likely be met out of a quality assurance 
or quality management program, in contrast to the specific testing 
program that is required in 16 CFR part 1209, Interim Safety Standard 
for Cellulose Insulation. For this reason, as with children's products, 
we do not have a strong basis for estimating the recordkeeping burden 
based on specific records for each product or rule.
    For each product or rule where no certificate or other 
recordkeeping requirement is currently in place, or where we have not 
previously provided an estimate of the recordkeeping burden to OMB, we 
estimate the burden to document testing or other information on which 
the certificate is based and to create GCCs to generally be 1.5 hours 
on average per product. For rules that already have a certificate 
requirement based on a testing program, we use estimates of less than 
1.5 hours, generally 15 to 30 minutes per product, to create the GCC 
required by part 1110. The reduced burden for these rules reflects the 
fact that the recordkeeping burden associated with just creating a GCC 
in the required format should be less than the burden associated with 
both documenting the results of a reasonable testing program and 
creating a GCC.
    We further note that in many, if not most cases, these records 
might be prepared several times a year per product. Thus, even if 
completing the required records for a single set of tests or preparing 
one GCC might seem to take only a few minutes, if multiple batches are 
certified annually, or the product is manufactured at more than one 
location, then the total burden during the year will be higher.
1. Glazing Materials (16 CFR part 1201)
    Glazing materials used in or intended for use in doors and storm 
doors (including combination doors), bathtub doors and enclosures, 
shower doors and enclosures, and patio type sliding glass doors, are 
subject to the safety standard for architectural glazing materials (16 
CFR part 1201). Part 1201 requires that manufacturers and private 
labelers of glazing materials certify their products in accordance with 
the requirements of section 14 of the CPSA. Although the Commission has 
previously submitted recordkeeping burden estimates to OMB, OMB 
approval of this collection of information expired in 1985. 
Accordingly, we will estimate the burden of creating GCCs for 
compliance with part 1201, as well as documenting test results 
demonstrating compliance.
    The Glass Association of North America reports that it has about 
400 members that are engaged in the manufacture, fabrication, and 
installation of glass and glazing products for residential and 
commercial applications.\5\ The Safety Glass Certification Council 
(SGCC) maintains a third party certification program for glass and 
glazing products. SGCC states that it has certified 1,726 individual 
products from 262 individual participant manufacturers. SGCC believes 
that its members represent about 70 percent of the square footage of 
safety glazing materials.\6\ Based on the SGCC figures, their 262 
industry participants each have an average of just over six products. 
The estimates below are based on the assumption that the firms that do 
not participate in the SGCC program have the same number of products. 
We are estimating that it takes about 1.5 hours per product to document 
test results and to create GCCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Public comment from the Glass Association of North America 
submitted in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking on the 
testing and certification rule (16 CFR part 1107).
    \6\ Information from SGCC provided to Robert Squibb on January 
28, 2013.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          400              2,400               1.5             3,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Matchbooks (16 CFR part 1202)
    Matchbooks are subject to the safety standard for matchbooks (16 
CFR part 1202). Although the Commission has submitted previously 
recordkeeping burden estimates to OMB, OMB approval of this collection 
of information expired in 1982.
    Part 1202 is relatively straightforward, in that compliance to the 
standard can be determined by simply examining several samples of the 
product to

[[Page 28095]]

ensure, for example, that the friction plate is on the outside back 
cover of the matchbook and that no match head is bridged, split or 
crumbling. Although the time spent keeping records of compliance for 
each batch or lot is probably low, multiple batches or lots of each 
product are likely manufactured annually.
    According to one source, four matchbook manufacturers operate in 
the United States.\7\ Although the printed covers might include a wide 
variety of designs, depending upon the customers, matchbooks generally 
come in just a few sizes, such as 20 strike, 30 strike, or 40 strike. 
We assume for purposes of this analysis that certification is based on 
the broader category of matchbook size, and not each individual 
matchbook cover design. Based on this assumption, each manufacturer 
would be certifying 3 different products or models annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Information about the industry was obtained from a Web site 
called, ``The Matchcover Vault,'' which is a site aimed at 
collectors of matchbook covers. The specific URL for the industry 
information is https://matchpro.org/Matchindustryhistory.html 
(accessed on 01/16/2013).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            4                 12               1.5                18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Bicycle Helmets (16 CFR Part 1203)
    Bicycle helmets are subject to the safety standard for bicycle 
helmets (16 CFR part 1203). CPSC has provided some estimates of the 
recordkeeping burden to OMB in an earlier submission, which includes 
records for a reasonable testing program, the requirement to place a 
certification label on bicycle helmets, and a 3-year minimum record 
retention period. A GCC that meets the requirements specified in 
section 14(g) of the CPSA and the 1110 rule is now additionally 
required. Although it could take as little as 10 minutes to prepare a 
GCC for a given model of bicycle helmet, it is likely that models will 
be recertified several times during a year.
    The most recent submission to OMB regarding bicycle helmets 
estimates that there are about 30 manufacturers and about 200 models of 
bicycle helmets. If we assume that about 17.5 percent of the models are 
intended for children aged 12 years or younger (based on the percentage 
of such children in the population), we can assume that about 165 of 
the models are not intended for children and require a GCC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           30                165               0.5                83
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Omnidirectional Citizens Band Base Station Antennas (16 CFR part 
1204)
    Omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas are subject to 
a product safety standard that is intended to reduce electrocution 
hazards associated with the antennas (16 CFR part 1204). Part 1204 
requires specific types of testing, certificates, and certain records 
to be maintained for 3 years. An estimate of the burden for these 
requirements has previously been detailed in a submission to OMB. The 
content of the certificate required in part 1204, however, does not 
contain all of the information required by section 14(g) of the CPSA 
and the 1110 rule. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the increased 
burden of creating GCCs with all of the required information.
    One approach to estimating this burden is to assume that it takes 
about half an hour to prepare a GCC with the required information. Each 
certificate might take less time to prepare, but there could be 
multiple batches or lots of product in a given year that must be 
certified.
    The existing PRA submission indicates that five firms manufacture 
these products. A Google search indicated that each firm might have 
more than one model, but only one company appeared to have more than 
three models. Thus, we estimate that each firm has three models.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            5                 15               0.5                 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Walk-Behind Power Lawn Mowers (16 CFR part 1205)
    Walk behind power lawn mowers are subject to the safety standard 
for walk-behind power lawn mowers (16 CFR part 1205). Part 1205 
prescribes certain testing and recordkeeping requirements, including 
records of a reasonable testing program and certificates which are on-
product labels. Such labels do not require the same content information 
required by section 14(g) of the CPSA and the 1110 rule. Burden 
estimates for part 1205 have been submitted to OMB previously. Thus, 
here we estimate only the increased burden of creating GCCs with all of 
the required information.
    According to the existing PRA submission for part 1205, 1 hour per 
production day, per manufacturer, is added to the recordkeeping and 
testing burden to collect the information required for the certificate 
and to place it on the label. Our existing OMB submission for part 1205 
assumes 130 production days a year. Thus, we assumed that each day's 
production will be certified individually or that there are multiple 
batches, and therefore, that multiple certificates will be issued for 
each model annually. We will use the same methodology to estimate the 
increased burden of creating the required GCC here. Accordingly, we 
assume 1 hour per day, per manufacturer to create the required GCCs for 
130 production days out of the year. The existing PRA submission 
estimates that there are 20 manufacturers of walk-behind lawn mowers. 
If each manufacturer is in production 130 days per year and requires 1 
hour per day for recordkeeping, then the annual burden per manufacturer 
will be 130 hours, or

[[Page 28096]]

2,600 hours for all manufacturers together.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Mfr.        Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           20      .................           130             2,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Swimming Pool Slides (16 CFR part 1207)
    Swimming pool slides are subject to the safety standard for 
swimming pool slides (16 CFR part 1207). Part 1207 includes 
requirements for testing swimming pools slides and for issuing a 
certificate based on a reasonable testing program, but no record 
retention period is provided. The certificate required in the rule 
contains fewer data elements than required by section 14(g) of the CPSA 
and the 1110 rule. We do not appear to have previously reported burden 
estimates for recordkeeping to OMB for part 1207. Therefore, we 
estimate the burden for recording test results for a reasonable testing 
program on which the GCC relies and for creating a GCC.
    A retailer's Web site, which states that it offers swimming pool 
slides from most major manufacturers, has between 100 and 120 different 
models of pool slides. Some slide models appeared to be duplicates, 
however, and some of the products might not actually be covered by the 
standard. Given that the retailer might not offer all models, and 
allowing for duplicates and for the proposition that some products are 
not subject to the standard, we assume that there are a total 120 
models of swimming pool slides.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        a few                120               1.5               180
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Cellulose Insulation (16 CFR part 1209)
    Cellulose insulation is subject to the interim cellulose insulation 
standard (16 CFR part 1209). Part 1209 includes comprehensive testing, 
recordkeeping, and certification requirements, including a 2-year 
record retention period. The certification required in part 1209 is in 
the form of a label on the product, and includes the day, month, and 
year of production. No prior OMB submission exists for this product, 
likely because part 1209 was implemented before enactment of the PRA. 
Therefore, for part 1209, we estimate the burden of documenting test 
results from the testing program required in part 1209, and creating a 
GCC.
    Thirty-six producer members of the Cellulose Insulation 
Manufacturers Association (CIMA) were listed on its Web site 
(www.cellulose.org). Additionally, in 2000, CPSC staff identified a few 
manufacturers that were not members of CIMA, bringing the total 
estimated number of manufacturers to 44. Because the on-product 
certificate requirement in part 1209 requires specification of the 
date, month, and year of manufacture, and because the testing interval 
required in part 1209 must be short enough to demonstrate compliance 
with the standard, testing and certification of cellulose insulation is 
likely to occur several times a year. Thus, the recordkeeping for the 
required reasonable testing program and for certification is likely to 
take several hours each year for each manufacturer. Assuming that each 
manufacturer must issue a new certificate with the date of manufacture, 
that each manufacturer is in production 240 days a year, and that the 
recordkeeping requires 15 minutes per day, then the burden per 
manufacturer per year would be 60 hours.
    The estimate of 44 manufacturers is significantly lower than the 
estimates of the number of firms in the market in the late 1970s. In 
1976, there were 100 manufacturers with 125 plants. In 1978, the 
Federal Trade Commission compiled a list of more than 700 
manufacturers.\8\ If the current estimate of 44 manufacturers is an 
underestimate, or if some manufacturers have more than one plant, the 
total recordkeeping burden would also be underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Robert D. Kurtz, ``Environmental and Economic Impacts of the 
Interim Safety Standard for Cellulosic Insulation,'' U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, Office of Hazard Identification (June 15, 
1978).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Mfr.        Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           44               n.a.                60             2,640
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Cigarette Lighters (16 CFR part 1210) and Multipurpose Lighters (16 
CFR part 1212)
    Cigarette lighters and multipurpose lighters are subject to the 
child-resistance requirements established by 16 CFR parts 1210 and 
1212, respectively. Parts 1210 and 1212 set forth comprehensive 
testing, certification, and recordkeeping requirements, including a 3-
year minimum retention period. Estimates of the recordkeeping burden 
for parts 1210 and 1212 have been submitted to OMB previously. Here, we 
estimate the incremental burden associated with creating a certificate 
containing the information required by section 14(g) of the CPSA and 
the 1110 rule because the certificates provided in parts 1210 and 1212 
require less information.
    Before a manufacturer or importer can distribute a lighter model in 
the United States, it must first file a report with the CPSC. From 
October, 2005 to February 12, 2013, CPSC has accepted 6,667 reports of 
new cigarette or multipurpose lighter models from a total 145 
companies. We believe this is a reasonable estimate for the number of 
lighter models for which GCCs will be required in a given year for the 
following reasons. First, once CPSC accepts a report of a new model, 
the lighter model can continue to be distributed without future 
reports. Second, although only one or two lots of some lighter models 
might be

[[Page 28097]]

manufactured or imported, multiple lots of some lighter models might be 
manufactured in some years. Finally, there are probably some lighter 
models that were reported to CPSC prior to FY 2005, which are still 
being distributed. More than 600 million individual lighters are 
manufactured or imported into the United States annually.
    We estimate the burden to create a GCC to be about 15 minutes per 
model. Once the certificates are modified, the incremental cost of 
including additional data could be negligible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          145              6,667              0.25             1,667
------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Residential Automatic Garage Door Openers (16 CFR part 1211)
    The automatic residential garage door opener standard (16 CFR part 
1211) contains guidance for a reasonable testing program, an on-product 
certificate requirement, and recordkeeping requirements, including a 
minimum 3-year record retention period. The on-product certificate 
required by part 1211 does not contain all of the data elements 
required for a GCC in section 14(g) of the CPSA and the 1110 rule. 
Moreover, an exemption for on-product certificates is provided under 
certain circumstances. An estimate of the recordkeeping burden of the 
rule has been provided to OMB previously. The most recent PRA 
submission to OMB estimates that there are 21 respondents that require 
about 40 hours each for maintaining the records required by the 
regulation. Therefore, here we will estimate only the burden of issuing 
certificates with the required information. We estimate the annual 
burden of creating compliant GCCs, separate from the label, to be about 
30 minutes per model.
    Based on a review of the garage door openers available at some home 
or building supply retailers, each manufacturer could offer a few 
different models (e.g., \1/2\ horsepower, \3/4\ horsepower, with and 
without battery backup). For purposes of these estimates, we assume 
that each manufacturer has about four different models.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           21                 84               0.5                42
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Furniture (16 CFR parts 1303 and 1213)
    General use furniture, which is furniture that is not designed or 
primarily intended for children 12 years of age or younger, is subject 
to the rule banning the use of lead paint in excess of 90 parts per 
million (ppm) (16 CFR part 1303). General use bunk beds are also 
subject to a standard intended to reduce entrapment hazards (16 CFR 
part 1213). Neither of these rules has explicit recordkeeping or 
certification requirements, and no recordkeeping burden estimates have 
previously been submitted to OMB. Furniture subject to parts 1303 and 
1213 must be certified as compliant, based on a test of each product, 
or on a reasonable testing program pursuant to section 14(a)(1) of the 
CPSA.
16 CFR Part 1303--Lead-in-Paint
    When we estimated the recordkeeping burden for testing and 
certification of furniture that would be considered a children's 
product in 16 CFR part 1107, we estimated that there were 54,000 models 
of furniture intended for children 12 years of age or younger. We 
estimated 54,000 models by counting the models of children's furniture 
offered by one large online retailer and estimating that it carried 
only about one-quarter of all the models of furniture available. If we 
assume that 54,000 models represents about 17.5 percent of all 
furniture models intended for children and adults, based on the 
percentage of the U.S. population that is 12 years of age or younger, 
one could infer that approximately 250,000 \9\ furniture models are 
intended for people over 12 years of age. Metal furniture and furniture 
that does not have a paint or coating are not subject to part 1303. 
Unless the bunk bed standard applies, such furniture does not require a 
certificate. We assume that about half of the furniture items might be 
subject to the part 1303 lead-in-paint requirement. Based on a comment 
from a furniture industry trade association, which was submitted in 
response to the proposed Testing Rule, we derived an estimate of 30 to 
45 minutes per model for the recordkeeping associated with a reasonable 
testing program for part 1303.\10\ For purposes of these estimates, we 
have used the low end of this range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The calculation is (54,000/0.175) x 0.825 = 254,571. This 
could be a low estimate because most children's furniture is limited 
to the bedroom furniture category. However, general use furniture 
also includes categories such as ``dining room'' and ``living room'' 
furniture. The estimate in the memorandum has been rounded.
    \10\ To derive the estimate, we had to make assumptions 
concerning the employee compensation and the number of models per 
manufacturer that were not explicitly stated in the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 CFR Part 1213--Bunk Beds
    One large online retailer had about 1,200 items listed under ``bunk 
bed.'' If this retailer carries about one-quarter of all bunk bed 
models, this indicates that there are approximately 4,800 bunk bed 
models available. A review of the first 75 models indicates that about 
12% of the models might be appropriate for people over the age of 12 
years. Accordingly, there may be about 600 general use bunk bed models 
intended for people over the age of 12 years. We estimate the cost to 
document the reasonable testing program for bunk beds and to create a 
certificate to be 1.5 hour per model.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Regulation                              Total models                         Hours/Model                         Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1303........................................                             125,000                                 0.5                              62,500
1213........................................                                 600                                 1.5                                 900
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..................................  ..................................                              63,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 28098]]

11. Consumer Paints and Coatings (16 CFR part 1303)
    In addition to paints and coatings applied to some furniture, 
paints and coatings for consumers' use are also subject to the 90 ppm 
lead limit (16 CFR part 1303). Exemptions to the scope of the paint 
lead limit include: coatings that are not intended for consumer use, 
agricultural and industrial products, mirrors, some metal furniture 
with factory-applied coatings, and artist paints. The recordkeeping 
burden to create GCCs for consumer paints and coatings has not been 
submitted to OMB previously.
    Based on information available from the American Coatings 
Association (https://www.paint.org/about-our-industry/types-of-coatings.html), just over 50 percent of the paints, by value, would be 
subject to part 1303. Products subject to part 1303 include 
architectural coatings and aerosol coatings. Products that are not 
subject to part 1303 include industrial paints, marine paints, 
automotive paints, and industrial maintenance coatings.\11\ The Bureau 
of the Census reports that there are 1,002 manufacturers of paint and 
coatings in the United States.\12\ Based on data from the ACA, we 
assume that half of these manufacturers, 501, create paints and coating 
that are subject to part 1303.\13\ One large manufacturer lists 82 
different consumer products on its Web site. While this estimate might 
not account for all different colors offered by this manufacturer, some 
smaller manufacturers might not have the full range of products that a 
large manufacturer might have. Therefore, we estimate that the average 
number of products, per manufacturer, is 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Technically some industrial coatings might be subject to 
the limits on lead in paint in Part 1303 if they are applied on a 
consumer product. However, in these cases it would be the product 
manufacturer (e.g., furniture or children's product manufacturer) 
that would be responsible for the certification.
    \12\ United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 
2010 County Business Patterns.
    \13\ In fact, many large paint manufacturers manufacture both 
industrial and consumer paints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The testing of paint is reasonably simple; therefore, maintaining 
the records of a reasonable testing program and preparing the required 
certificate should not be overly time consuming. However, each batch is 
probably certified and dated, and multiple batches of each product are 
likely to be produced annually. Accordingly, we assume that 30 minutes, 
per product, to document testing and to create a GCC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          501             41,082               0.5            20,541
------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) (16 CFR part 1420)
    The CPSIA mandated that the Commission adopt the voluntary standard 
for ATVs as a mandatory standard. The mandatory standard for ATVs is 
codified at 16 CFR part 1420. No PRA submission has been made 
previously to OMB regarding part 1420 because that part does not 
contain specific recordkeeping or certification requirements. Pursuant 
to section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA, however, ATV manufacturers and private 
labelers are required to certify that their products meet the 
requirements of part 1420, based on a reasonable testing program or a 
test of each product.
    While ATV testing is likely to take a minimum of several hours and 
could take more than a day, documenting the results of testing will 
likely take less time. We estimate that the burden to document a 
reasonable testing program for ATVs and to create the required GCC will 
be about 1.5 hours. One and a half hours could be a low estimate if 
multiple lots or shipments of ATVs are tested and certified annually. 
Based on information from the Motorcycle Industry Council and Power 
Products Marketing, we estimate that there are 32 manufacturers of ATVs 
that produce a total of 132 general use, non-children's, ATVs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           32                132               1.5               198
------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Pools and Spas (16 CFR part 1450)
    All pool and spa drain covers must meet the requirements of the 
Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which is codified at 16 
CFR part 1450. The Commission has not previously estimated a 
recordkeeping burden associated with testing and certifying drain 
covers subject to part 1450. Accordingly, we estimate the burden to 
document a reasonable testing program for drain covers and to create 
the required GCC. A manufacturer directory, located at 
www.poolspanews.com, listed 12 manufacturers of drain covers. An 
examination of the Web sites of each of the manufacturers indicates a 
total of 136 different drain covers that are advertised as being 
compliant with the VGB requirements. Although this list might not be 
complete, it likely represents most of the industry. We assume that the 
recordkeeping burden to document a reasonable testing program and to 
create the required GCC will be about 1.5 hours per product, per year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           12                136               1.5               204
------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Fireworks Devices (16 CFR part 1507; 16 CFR 1500.17(3) and 
1500.17(8))
    Fireworks that are not banned are subject to requirements set forth 
in 16 CFR part 1507 and sections 1500.17(3), and 1500.17(8). These 
fireworks provisions do not contain specific recordkeeping or 
certification requirements. Thus, the Commission has not provided a 
paperwork burden estimate to OMB previously. Here, we estimate the 
burden to document a

[[Page 28099]]

reasonable testing program for fireworks and to create the required 
GCC.
    Based on its knowledge of the industry, the Office of Compliance 
estimates that 115,000 different lots of fireworks devices are 
certified annually. The recordkeeping burden for documenting the 
testing and creating the GCCs is estimated to be about one hour per 
lot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms            Total lots         Hours/Lot        Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         115,000                 1           115,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Bicycles (16 CFR part 1512)
    Bicycles are subject to the requirements of the safety standard for 
bicycles, which is codified at 16 CFR part 1512. Part 1512 sets forth 
test requirements for bicycles and requires certain instructions and an 
on-product label, but the rule does not provide for specific 
recordkeeping requirements or a record-retention period. Therefore, no 
estimate of the recordkeeping burden has been submitted to OMB 
previously.
    When considering children's bicycles previously for part 1107, we 
estimated that there were approximately 400 models of children's 
bicycles. Assuming that children's bicycles account for 17.5 percent of 
bicycle models, based on the percentage of the population that is 12 
years of age or younger, there are approximately 1,900 \14\ models of 
non-children's bicycles. Based on a review of a database of bicycle 
manufacturers, there may be 150 to 200 bicycle manufacturers whose 
products are sold in the United States. Testing a bicycle to part 1512 
takes about 1 day. However, the time to record test results and to 
create a compliant GCC is likely about 1.5 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ This estimate is rounded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          150              1,900               1.5             2,850
------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Clothing and Apparel (16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611)
    Two standards apply to clothing and apparel that are intended to 
classify fabrics according to their burning rate and prohibit the 
introduction of dangerously flammable goods into commerce: (1) Standard 
for the flammability of clothing textiles (16 CFR part 1610), and (2) 
standard for the flammability of vinyl plastic film (16 CFR part 1611). 
Parts 1610 and 1611 set forth test requirements and recordkeeping 
requirements for issuing guaranties, not certificates. Both rules 
contain a 3-year record retention period. We previously estimated the 
recordkeeping burden for parts 1610 and 1611 to OMB. Although the 
certificate requirement in section 14 may be based on the testing 
required in the rules, creating a GCC is an additional recordkeeping 
burden. Here, we estimate the time required to create the required GCC.
    Certain hats, gloves, footwear, and interlining fabrics are 
excluded from the scope of part 1610, as set forth in Sec.  1610.1(c). 
No certificate is required for apparel that is not subject to part 
1610. Many fabrics are within the scope of part 1610, but are exempt 
from testing because they meet the standard based on construction and 
fabric weight, or fiber content, regardless of construction or fabric 
weight, as set forth in Sec.  1610.1(d). A GCC is required for all 
apparel within the scope of the rule, regardless of whether the fabric 
is exempt from testing. Accordingly, many certificates might state that 
the fabric is in compliance with part 1610 because the fabric meets one 
of the testing exemptions specified in Sec.  1610.1(d).
    The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) estimates that 
there are 20 billion units of clothing sold annually. A representative 
of AAFA estimated that on average each SKU of clothing has only about 
100 units. On the assumption that one SKU is a size and color 
combination of a particular item, and further based on a review of 
several catalogs, we estimate an average of about 30 SKUs per clothing 
item. Based on this assumption, we estimate that approximately 6.7 
million apparel items must be certified annually. We further assume 
that 17.5 percent of the 6.7 million apparel items are intended for 
people 12 years of age or younger (based on their percentage of the 
general population). Thus, we estimate that about 5.5 million apparel 
items require GCCs.
    Given that many clothing items are likely produced seasonally, and 
the total number of units of some apparel items is fairly low, we 
assume that only a few batches of many items will be certified each 
year. Many apparel items will be exempt from testing under part 1610 
based on the exemptions in Sec.  1610.1(d), and other apparel items 
will be certified based on testing, guaranties, or certificates from 
fabric suppliers. Therefore, we assume that the recordkeeping burden 
per apparel item might be as little as 15 minutes. If multiple 
certificates must be issued for some apparel items or models, perhaps 
because different colors or sizes are produced on different dates or at 
different locations, the estimate could be low.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  (thousands)        5.5 million              0.25         1,375,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. Carpets and Rugs (16 CFR parts 1630 and 1631)
    Carpets and rugs are subject to flammability requirements codified 
at 16 CFR parts 1630 and 1631. Parts 1630 and 1631 set forth testing 
and recordkeeping requirements, including a 3-year record retention 
period. However, the recordkeeping requirements apply to persons 
furnishing guaranties, not necessarily to manufacturers and private 
labelers. Although the existing OMB submission on these rules discusses 
the requirement to issue certificates, the burden estimate

[[Page 28100]]

includes the burden associated with third party testing and 
certification of children's products only, and does not consider 
certification of general use carpets and rugs. Accordingly, here we 
provide an estimate for documenting a reasonable testing program and 
for creating the required GCC for non-children's carpets and rugs.
    The existing PRA submission to OMB on carpets and rugs estimates 
that there are 120 firms subject to the information collection 
requirements, and that each of these firms is required to conduct 
between 0 and 200 tests per year. We use the midpoint of 100 tests per 
year per firm for the current burden estimate. The 2010 County Business 
Patterns report from the Census Bureau shows that there are close to 
240 carpet and rug mills. The lower estimate in the PRA submission is 
based on an assumption that only half of the firms would either issue 
guaranties or certify children's products. We estimate that the time to 
create the certificate and the records of the tests on which it is 
based is about 1.5 hours per style. The time to conduct the tests is 
not included in this estimate.
    On the assumption that GCCs for non-children's products could 
simply replace guaranties, one could use most of the assumption in the 
existing PRA submission, but assume that all firms will have to conduct 
testing and issue GCCs. Thus, there would be approximately 240 firms 
conducting about 100 tests annually. However, these estimates are only 
for domestic manufacturers. If there are a significant number of 
carpets and rugs that are imported, these estimates are low.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total styles       Hours/Style       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          240             24,000               1.5            36,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. Mattresses (16 CFR parts 1632 and 1633)
    Mattresses are subject to two flammability standards: (1) a 
smoldering ignition resistance standard codified at 16 CFR part 1632, 
and (2) an open-flame ignition resistance standard codified at 16 CFR 
part 1633. Parts 1632 and 1633 have comprehensive testing and 
recordkeeping requirements, including a 3 year minimum record retention 
requirement. Part 1633 has an on-product certificate requirement. The 
Commission previously provided a burden estimate for the recordkeeping 
requirements in parts 1632 and 1633 to OMB. Accordingly, here we only 
estimate the burden of creating the GCC required by section 14(g) of 
the CPSA and the 1110 rule.
    The burden for all recordkeeping in these two rules except the 
generation of a GCC has already been included in the previous PRA 
submission to OMB. Because the only additional burden is to generate a 
GCC, we estimate this task to take 15 minutes per mattress. Estimates 
of the number of manufacturers and models are taken from the existing 
PRA submission for parts 1632 and 1633.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/Model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          671             13,420              0.25             3,355
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Poison Prevention Packaging Act (16 CFR part 1700)
    The Commission enforces the Poison Prevention Packaging Act (PPPA), 
which requires special packaging for some hazardous products to reduce 
the risk of children under 5 years of age from accidently coming into 
contact with, or ingesting the product, but still allows seniors the 
ability to access their medication. The Commission has promulgated 32 
regulations that require a wide variety of products to be in special 
packaging. Products requiring special packaging include: All oral 
prescription drugs, oral prescription drugs that have been switched 
from requiring a prescription to being available for sale over-the-
counter (OTC), many types of OTC drug products and preparations, some 
personal care products (including baby oil and many mouthwashes), and 
some hazardous household products (including many drain openers, 
furniture polishes, kindling and illuminating preparations, methanol, 
and kerosene). The full list of substances that require special 
packaging is codified at 16 CFR 1700.14.
    The finished product certifier that must issue a GCC is the 
importer or the domestic party that packages a PPPA regulated substance 
in special packaging. Each distinct product subject to the PPPA must be 
covered by a GCC. For example, if a company sells a regulated OTC drug 
in four different types of special packaging, the company might require 
four different GCCs to cover each package type. A GCC is required for 
each type of child-resistant packaging.
    We do not have a comprehensive database of all products, by all 
manufacturers (including but not limited to product manufacturers, 
packagers, package manufactures, and contract repackagers), that 
require special packaging. However, based on knowledge we have gained 
through various actions over the years concerning affected markets, we 
believe there could be more than 1,000 companies that might be 
responsible for issuing a GCC for covered products. The number of 
products that require GCCs may be between 100,000 and 200,000. This 
includes different packages of the same brand of a product packaged by 
one company.
    The child resistance and senior use effectiveness of each special 
package type must be established by testing with panels of children and 
adults according to the protocols codified at 16 CFR Sec.  1700.20. We 
estimate that the record keeping burden associated with the testing is 
about 20 hours per package type based on the burden estimate used for 
the cigarette lighter standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This estimate could be low because the cigarette lighter 
standard does not include an adult use effectiveness protocol. The 
total time to conduct the tests would exceed 90 hours per package 
type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One package might be used for many different products. Therefore, 
the recordkeeping burden could be spread over many different final 
products. A regulatory summary of the PPPA on the CPSC's Web site that 
was prepared by Commission staff states:

    The importer or the domestic party that packages a PPPA 
regulated substance in special packaging must issue the general 
conformity certificate. The child resistance and senior friendly 
testing data (also known as protocol data) obtained in accordance 
with the procedures described under 16 CFR 1700.20 may be used by 
the importer or domestic packager to support its certification. The 
packager can rely upon this data as the basis for the reasonable 
testing program.

[[Page 28101]]

There is no expiration date on these tests and no requirement to 
retest so long as the tests adequately reflect the current packaging 
used.

https://www.cpsc.gov/en/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Statutes/Poison-
Prevention-Packaging-Act/. This means that a manufacturer of a PPPA-
regulated product can rely on test data provided by the package 
manufacturer. Finished product certifiers that rely on another party's 
testing or certification to issue a finished product certificate must 
follow the Component Part Rule, 16 CFR part 1109.
    Furthermore, each package does not have to be retested at regular 
intervals. Testing will generally occur only when a change is made to 
an existing package that could affect its compliance or a new package 
is introduced. Sometimes the manufacturer or packager of the final 
product (i.e., the drug or household substance) will conduct its own 
compliance testing to ensure that its products meet the requirements of 
the PPPA. Likewise, the GCCs might not need to be revised or reissued 
at regular intervals. Manufacturers of a product regulated under the 
PPPA may be able to rely upon the same GCC for a product until it 
changes the package or the certification or testing of the package 
changes.
    We do not have concrete data regarding the average number of 
products for which a typical package is used; nor do we have concrete 
data on how frequently packages are retested, or how often 
manufacturers, importers, or private labelers of the final products 
will issue new GCCs. For purposes of this analysis, however, we are 
assuming that, on average, each different package is used for 100 
different products. We are also assuming that, on average, each package 
is used for 4 years before it is retested because of a material change, 
the manufacturer has substituted a new package, or for any other 
reason. We assume further that the manufacturers, importers, or private 
labelers of the final products, on average, only issue new GCCs for a 
product once every 4 years.
    As noted above, the recordkeeping burden associated with the 
protocol testing of a package is about 20 hours. If each package is 
used for 100 different products, and the testing is conducted, on 
average, every 4 years, then the average recordkeeping burden of the 
testing is about 3 minutes annually, per final regulated consumer 
product (e.g., drug or household product). We believe that it might 
take about 15 minutes to create and maintain the GCC for each consumer 
product regulated under the PPPA. If the GCC is created only once every 
4 years for the average regulated product, then the annual 
recordkeeping burden for creating and maintaining the GCC will be about 
4 minutes. Therefore, on average, the total recordkeeping burden per 
product regulated under the PPPA will be about 7 minutes. This includes 
the time required to create and maintain the records of the protocol 
testing of the packages and the time to create and maintain the GCC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms          Total products    Minutes/product     Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1,000            150,000                 7            17,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These estimates above are probably low, especially if the month and 
date of production must be included on the certificates. If so, at 
least one new certificate would have to be created each year that a 
product is in production, more if the product is in production more 
than 1 month per year. If so, the estimate above would be low, by at 
least a factor of 4.
20. Refrigerators (16 CFR part 1750)
    Refrigerators are subject to the Refrigerator Safety Act. A 
standard to permit the opening of household refrigerator doors from the 
inside is codified at 16 CFR part 1750. Part 1750 contains a test 
procedure but does not contain specific recordkeeping or retention 
requirements. Regardless of the lack of specific recordkeeping 
requirements, it is likely that most manufacturers keep records 
demonstrating compliance with part 1750. Because of the lack of 
recordkeeping requirements in part 1750, we estimate the burden to 
record results of a reasonable testing program and to create a GCC.
    According to the 2010 census, there are 19 manufacturers of 
household refrigerators and freezers. One major manufacturer had 120 
different models of refrigerators listed on a major retailer's Web 
site, including similar models in different capacities. Assuming that 
each model requires testing and certification, there could be as many 
as 2,280 different models of refrigerators that need certification to 
the Refrigerator Safety Act. If the recordkeeping burden is about 1.5 
hours, the total burden for the entire industry would be about 4,200 
hours. The number of models estimated here could be high if some 
smaller manufacturers do not have as many individual models, or if the 
same component part is used on more than one model, and may be 
certified based on the same testing. The number of models estimated 
could be low if some refrigerator manufacturers are not domestic 
companies and are not listed as refrigerator manufacturers in the 2010 
census.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           19              2,280               1.5             3,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Candles with Metal Core Wicks (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13))
    Under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), candles with 
metal core wicks that contain lead content greater than 0.06 percent of 
the weight of the metal core are banned. (16 CFR 1500.17(a)(13)). The 
outer package or wrapper of candles and candle wicks subject to the 
ban, meaning candles with metal core wicks and metal-cored wicks sold 
separately, and shipping cartons, must be labeled ``Conforms to 16 CFR 
1500.17(a)(13).'' When the regulation was initially proposed, the 
proposal contained requirements that would have obligated candle 
manufacturers and importers to test or maintain records of testing 
performed by the supplier of the metal cored wicks and to label each 
shipping container with a statement that the candles conformed to the 
regulation, including a means to identify the test results applicable 
to that shipment of candles. 67 FR 20062, 20069 (Apr. 24, 2002). 
Certification and recordkeeping were dropped from the final rule. 68 FR 
19142 (Apr. 18, 2003). Accordingly, we have not submitted a burden 
analysis

[[Page 28102]]

for Sec.  1500.17(a)(13) previously to OMB for review.
    We estimate the recordkeeping burden associated with documenting 
test records and creating GCCs for metal-cored candle wicks to be 40 
hours per firm, based on the analysis presented in the 2002 proposed 
rule on metal-cored candle wicks. The National Candle Association 
states that there are more than 400 commercial, religious, and 
institutional manufacturers of candles in the United States. The 
National Candle Association states that the major manufacturers have 
between 1,000 and 2,000 varieties of candles, which implies that the 
number of varieties offered by the smaller manufacturers would be less. 
In comments submitted in response to the proposed rule on metal-cored 
candle wicks, the National Candle Association estimated that between 10 
to 20 percent of the market used metal-core wicks. If we assume that 
the average candle manufacturer has about 1,000 varieties (to allow for 
the fact that the non-major manufacturers would be expected to have 
fewer varieties than the major manufacturers) and that 15 percent of 
those have metal cores, then the average manufacturer would have 
approximately 150 varieties that would be subject to the regulation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total lines        Hours/firm        Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          400             60,000                40            16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates above assume that all manufacturers of candles use 
metal wicks in some of their products. To the extent that some 
manufacturers do not use metal core wicks at all, these estimates could 
be high. On the other hand, the estimates do not include any importers 
of candles. To the extent that importers of candles use metal-core 
wicks, the estimates above would be low.
22. Ban of Unstable Refuse Bins (16 CFR part 1301)
    The rule banning unstable refuse bins (16 CFR part 1301) applies to 
metal refuse bins having an internal volume of one cubic yard or 
greater, which are produced or distributed for the personal use of 
consumers for in or around a residence, school, in recreation, or 
otherwise. If such a bin will tip when tested according to the method 
described in the rule, it is banned. If it does not tip, it must be so 
certified, based upon a reasonable test program, or a test of each 
product. Although part 1301 contains test criteria, it does not contain 
specific recordkeeping provisions. Accordingly, CPSC has not previously 
submitted a burden estimate to OMB regarding part 1301. A very small 
subset of refuse bins are not subject to the rule. CPSC staff was 
unable to find any metal refuse bin that met the criteria for exclusion 
from part 1301.
    In the course of an Internet search on February 8, 2013, we 
identified 19 suppliers of refuse bins and a total of 358 individual 
bin models that could be used for refuse collection or storage around a 
residence, such as an apartment building, or a school or recreation 
area. Refuse bins that appeared to be intended for industrial or 
nonresidential use, based on CPSC staff's judgment, were not included. 
However, many refuse bins may have both consumer and industrial use. 
Thus, it is possible that some of the suppliers included within this 
count do not sell refuse bins for consumer use. Moreover, we may not 
have discovered all suppliers during the Internet search.
    The test method in part 1301 is fairly straightforward. We estimate 
that the recordkeeping for documenting test results and creating a GCC 
will take an average of 30 minutes per model refuse bin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           19                358               0.5               179
------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. Ban of Lawn Darts (16 CFR part 1306)
    Here, we estimate the burden to document testing and to create a 
GCC for the ban on general use lawn darts in 16 CFR part 1306. We do 
not estimate the burden for lawn darts intended for children, which are 
banned by 16 CFR 1500.18. Recordkeeping related to the creation of 
certificates for children's products is covered in the Testing Rule.
    The purpose of part 1306 is to prohibit the sale of lawn darts that 
have been found to present an unreasonable risk of skull puncture 
injuries to children. The rule also states that ``any lawn dart is a 
banned hazardous product.'' For purposes of these estimates, we have 
counted as lawn darts, products that appear to be intended to be used 
in a similar manner as the banned lawn darts in that they consist of an 
elongated projectile that can be thrown toward a target on the ground 
and that contact the ground tip first. We have attempted to eliminate 
any product that appears to be primarily intended for children. 
Moreover, we have not included games such as horse shoes and ring toss. 
We estimate that the recordkeeping burden for recording test results 
and creating a GCC is about 1.5 hours per product.
    A search of several large Internet retailers on February 13, 2013, 
turned up six products by six different manufacturers that could be 
considered to be lawn darts; although none of the products appeared to 
have sharp tips designed to stick into the ground. Other similar 
products may be available that were not discovered during this Internet 
search. The actual number of lawn dart products available could be 
higher if some of the available products were not found during the 
Internet search. The number of products could be lower if some products 
that were found are intended for children 12 years of age and 
younger.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ One product was found that was obviously intended for 
children under the age of 13 years and is not included in these 
estimates.

[[Page 28103]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            6                  6               1.5                 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. Ban of Artificial Emberizing Materials Containing Asbestos (16 CFR 
part 1305)
    Artificial emberizing materials are used in decorative gas 
fireplace systems to simulate the ashes and embers in wood-burning 
fireplaces. The use of respirable, free-form asbestos in these products 
is banned by 16 CFR part 1305. Not banned are emberizing materials that 
consist of other materials, such as vermiculite, rock wool, mica, or 
synthetic fibers. The emberizing materials that are not banned must be 
certified as not containing respirable, free-form asbestos, based on a 
test of each product or on a reasonable testing program. We estimate 
that the recordkeeping burden for recording test results and creating 
GCCs is about 1.5 hours per product per year.
    Included in these estimates are any materials that are intended for 
use with fireplace logs to simulate ashes or embers. An Internet search 
on November 14, 2013, identified a total of 56 different products, by 
14 different suppliers, that could be used to simulate ashes or embers 
in non-working fireplaces. Because there are likely many products that 
were not identified during this search, this is probably a low 
estimate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           14                 56               1.5                84
------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. Ban of Patching Compounds Containing Respirable Free-Form Asbestos 
(16 CFR part 1304)
    Part 1304 bans any patching compounds to which asbestos has been 
added deliberately as an ingredient or contained in the final product 
as the result of knowingly using a raw material containing asbestos. 
``Patching compounds'' are described as being mixtures of talc, 
pigments, clays, casein, ground marble, mica, or other similar 
materials, and a binding material. Patching compounds are used to 
cover, seal, or mask cracks, joints, holes, and similar openings in the 
trim, walls, and ceilings of building interiors. They are applied in a 
wet form, and after drying, are sanded to a smooth finish. They are 
commonly referred to as ``spackling,'' ``joint compounds,'' and 
``mud.'' In the past, asbestos was sometimes used as the binding 
material.
    Part 1304 does not contain a test method. However, all certifiers 
of patching compounds intended for consumer use must certify that 
asbestos has not been added intentionally as an ingredient, and that 
the final product does not contain asbestos as the result of knowingly 
using a raw material containing asbestos. We estimate that the 
recordkeeping burden to create GCCs will be at least 15 minutes per 
product annually.
    A total of 148 patching compounds by about 35 different 
manufacturers were found during an Internet search on February 21, 
2013. If we failed to identify all patching compounds available, 148 
products would be a low estimate of the total number of patching 
compounds available. Assuming that the time required preparing a GCC 
for each product averaged 15 minutes per year, the total recordkeeping 
burden would be about 37 hours.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Firms           Total models       Hours/model       Total hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           35                148              0.25                37
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Furnishing Certificates to Third Parties

    Section 14(g)(3) of the CPSA, as amended by the CPSIA, requires 
that every certificate required in section 14(a) of the CPSA 
``accompany the applicable product or shipment of products covered by 
the same certificate'' and that ``a copy of the certificate . . . be 
furnished to each distributor or retailer of the product.'' Moreover, 
manufacturers and private labelers must furnish a copy of the 
certificate to the Commission upon request.
    The draft proposed rule continues to allow manufacturers, 
importers, and private labelers flexibility in how to provide 
certificates to retailers or distributors, and to the CPSC. Section 
1110.9 provides that, except for the certificate that is required to be 
filed with CBP for imported products in Sec.  1110.13(a)(1), 
certificates may be provided in hard copy or electronically. Electronic 
certificates are acceptable if they are identified ``prominently on the 
finished product, shipping carton, or invoice by a unique identifier, 
and they can be accessed via'' the Internet or other electronic means. 
The draft proposed rule further states that an electronic certificate 
must be available, without password protection, on or before the date 
the finished product is distributed in commerce. In practice, ``hard 
copy'' certificates are usually in the form of a paper certificate that 
physically accompanies each shipment by being placed in a shipping 
container. Certifiers using electronic certificates often place a Web 
address to access the certificate on the product, shipping carton, or 
invoice.
    We do not have a strong basis for estimating the average third 
party reporting burden per product because the requirement to disclose 
certificates applies to a very diverse group of consumer products and 
manufacturers. Moreover, the reporting burden is most likely related to 
the number of shipments of the product from the manufacturers, 
importers, or private labelers to the distributors or retailers, which 
is information that is not available. For purposes of preparing this 
initial estimate of the third party reporting burden, we are estimating 
that the burden is 15 minutes per product, per year to place a paper 
copy of the certificate in the shipping carton, or provide a Web 
address for certificates on the product, carton, or invoice, and to 
maintain the Web site. We welcome comments on the accuracy of this 
estimate.

[[Page 28104]]

1. Non-children's Products
    As summarized in Table B-1, we estimate that there are about 6 
million \17\ non-children's products for which GCCs are required. Thus, 
we estimate the total burden hours for third party disclosure of GCCs 
to be 1.5 million hours (6,000,000 models x .25 hours = 1.5 million 
burden hours). We are estimating that the cost per hour of the 
recordkeeping and reporting burden is $37.34 \18\ an hour, which 
represents a mixture of professional and administrative staff labor. 
Accordingly, the estimated cost of third party disclosures for GCCs is 
$56,010,000 (1,500,000 burden hours x $37.34 per hour = $56,010,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This estimate is rounded.
    \18\ The hourly compensation rate used is based on the hourly 
compensation rate used for estimating the recordkeeping burden in 
the 1107 and 1109 rules, which relate to the testing and 
certification of children's products and component part testing. In 
order to recognize that both clerical and professional staff could 
be involved in recordkeeping, we assumed that personnel in 
``management, professional, and related occupations'' would be 
responsible for half of the activities involving the recordkeeping 
and that personnel in ``office and administrative support'' 
occupations would be responsible for the other half. We assume that 
the same occupational mix of employees will also be involved in 
performing the tasks necessary to file certificates electronically 
with CBP (as required by the proposed amendments to part 1110). As 
of June 2012 total compensation (i.e. wages and benefits) for these 
occupational categories averaged $37.34 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Children's Products
    The collection of information on Third Party Testing of Children's 
Products currently does not include an estimate for third party 
disclosure of CPCs to retailers, distributors, or the CPSC. In that 
collection, we estimated that there were a total of 1.6 million 
children's products for which CPCs would be required. The number of 
children's products includes 1.3 million apparel and footwear products 
and 0.3 million non-apparel products. If the burden of providing a CPC 
to retailers, distributors, and the CPSC is an estimated 15 minutes per 
product, per year, then the total burden would be approximately 400,000 
hours (1.6 million models x 0.25 hours = 400,000). We propose to amend 
the collection of information on Third Party Testing of Children's 
Products to increase the burden hours by 400,000 to account for third 
party disclosures of CPCs. The estimated cost of third party disclosure 
of CPCs is $14,936,000 (400,000 burden hours x $37.34 per hour = 
$14,936,000).

C. Filing Certificates for Imported Products With CBP

    Section 14(g)(4) of the CPSA provides that the Commission, by rule, 
in consultation with CBP, may provide for electronic filing of 
certificates for imported products up to 24 hours before arrival of the 
imported product. The draft proposed rule would require that importers 
of regulated finished products file the required GCC or CPC 
electronically with CBP at the time of filing the CBP entry or the time 
of filing the entry and the entry summary, if both are filed together. 
The rule does not specify the electronic format for certificates filed 
with CBP, but we anticipate that importers will be able to file the 
certificate information in the form of data elements or by filing the 
certificate in a PDF format through CBP's system of records. The 
increased time required to file certificates electronically with CBP 
would be attributable to associating the proper certificates to 
individual shipments for import, converting certificates to an 
electronic format, and transmitting the certificates to CBP (or to a 
customs broker, if the importer does not self-file).
1. Non-children's Products
    The initial regulatory flexibility analysis for this draft proposed 
rule cites research of CBP data by CPSC staff, which found that during 
2009, there were 231,094 distinct importers of products categorized in 
import codes likely to include products under the CPSC's 
jurisdiction.\19\ Data on the number of importers of children's versus 
non-children's products is not publicly available. However, based on 
inspection of product trade codes, we know that the number of distinct 
products or models requiring GCCs exceeds the number of children's 
product models requiring CPCs.\20\ Thus, there might be on the order of 
100,000 importers of children's products and 150,000 importers of non-
children's products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Blachere, John, International Trade Specialist, Office of 
Import Surveillance, CPSC. December 8, 2010, email to Charles Smith, 
Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC.
    \20\ A large percentage of these firms (such as importers of 
adult clothing) also would be included in the estimate of importers 
of products requiring CPCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If 150,000 firms import products subject to electronic filing of 
GCCs, and these firms average 20 shipments with products requiring 
certificates, the annual number of electronic filings of GCCs with CBP 
could total 3 million.\21\ According to a customs broker contacted by 
the Directorate for Economic Analysis, all importers might average 
about three product lines per Customs entry. If electronic filing 
requires an average of 30 minutes per shipment, the estimated annual 
incremental burden would be about $56 million, using an estimated 
average employee compensation cost of $37.34 per hour (3 million 
electronic filings x 0.5 hours per filing x $37.34 per hour).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In the paperwork burden analysis for 16 CFR Part 1110, we 
found that there are about 3.75 products requiring GCCs for every 
product requiring a CPC. The estimate of 20 shipments per importer 
was used to generally maintain this relationship between GCCs and 
CPCs. See Robert Franklin, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC. 
Recordkeeping Burden Associated with Direct Final Rule for 16 CFR 
Part 1110 Issued in November 2008 (March 14, 2013).
    \22\ In the paperwork burden analysis for 16 CFR Part 1110, 
third party disclosure was estimated to require about 15 minutes per 
product. In this case, it is reasonable for this estimate to reflect 
efficiency in filing multiple electronic certificates simultaneously 
and with other paperwork required for entry. For this reason, we use 
an estimate of 10 minutes per product rather than 15 minutes per 
product. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Children's Products
    Research of CBP data by CPSC staff found that during 2009, there 
were 231,094 distinct importers of products categorized in import codes 
likely to include products under the CPSC's jurisdiction. Data on the 
number of importers of children's versus non-children's products is not 
publicly available. However, as stated above for non-children's 
products, we know that the number of children's products requiring 
certificates of conformance is substantially lower than the number of 
non-children's products requiring general certificates of conformance. 
Thus, we assume 100,000 importers of children's products in this 
analysis.
    CBP estimated that ``in 2005 more than 70 to 85 percent of all 
importers imported fewer than 12 shipments.'' \23\ Based on this 
information, if 100,000 firms import children's products annually that 
are subject to electronic filing of certificates, and these firms 
average 10 shipments a year, the annual number of electronic filings of 
CPCs with CBP could total 1 million. According to a customs broker 
contacted by the Directorate for Economic Analysis, all importers might 
average about three product lines per Customs entry. If electronic 
filing requires an average of 30 minutes per shipment, total 
incremental costs of recordkeeping for the Testing Rule would be about 
$18.7 million (1 million

[[Page 28105]]

electronic filings x 0.5 hours per filing x $37.34 per hour).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection, Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier 
Requirements, Interim final rule. Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 
228, November 25, 2008, p. 11765. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-27048.pdf.
    \24\ As with non-children's products, it is reasonable for this 
estimate to reflect efficiency in filing multiple electronic 
certificates simultaneously and with other paperwork required for 
entry. For this reason, we use an estimate of 10 minutes per product 
rather than 15 minutes per product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These costs would be in addition to the estimated recordkeeping 
costs already described in the collection of information on Third Party 
Testing of Children's Products as well as the increased burden 
described for third party disclosures to retailers, distributors, and 
the CPSC. Total estimated incremental costs for disclosing CPCs to 
third parties is summarized in Table C-1.

D. Maintaining GCCs and Test Records

    Proposed Sec.  1110.17 would require that GCCs for non-children's 
products and supporting test records be maintained for at least 5 
years. Certifiers may maintain the required records on paper or 
electronically, because the proposed rule would not require any 
particular medium for records. Storing records electronically is the 
less expensive option and consequently, we assume for purposes of this 
analysis that certifiers will choose this option most frequently. 
However, some certifiers may choose to store paper records, so we also 
include an estimate of the burden for storing paper records. For 
purposes of this analysis, we will assume that 90 percent of the 
required records will be maintained electronically, and 10 percent will 
be stored as paper records.
1. Estimated Cost of Storing Required Records on Paper
    Once a paper record is created and is no longer required for 
ongoing reporting or disclosure purposes, the record will be likely 
archived in a warehouse. We reviewed rental prices for a 5' x 5' 
warehouse space in two parts of the country. We chose the 5' x 5' 
warehouse space because it was generally the smallest unit available 
and could be appropriate for a small to medium size company. A large 
company might require more space but probably could obtain a larger 
warehouse space at a lower cost per square foot. The low price was $41/
month and the high price was $80/month, for an estimated average cost 
to rent a warehouse of about $60.50 per month. Therefore, the estimated 
average price of warehouse space for 1 year would be $726 ($60.50 x 12 
months).
    Records are often stored in standard 10'' x 12'' x 15'' archive 
boxes, which can be obtained for about $3.00 each. Our calculations 
show that it would be possible to get about 80 of these boxes into a 5' 
x 5' warehouse space and leave sufficient aisles so that each box could 
be easily accessed if needed. Therefore, the estimated cost of storing 
one box in a warehouse for 1 year would be $12.08 ($726 divided by 80 
boxes = 9.08, plus $3 for the cost of the box).
    We assume for this analysis that a GCC for a product and supporting 
test records require an average of 10 pages. Accordingly, each archive 
box should be able to hold required records for about 375 products. We 
estimate that there are 6 million distinct non-children's product 
varieties that require certification annually (see Table B-1). If all 
GCCs were stored on paper, assuming 6 million GCCs and supporting test 
records would need be to be stored annually, a total of about 16,000 
archive boxes would be needed each year (6 million products divided by 
375 records per box). For purposes of this analysis, however, we assume 
that only 10 percent of the 6 million distinct non-children's product 
varieties will maintain records on paper, or an estimated 600,000 
products, requiring 1,600 archive boxes (600,000 products divided by 
375 product records per box). The estimated cost of storing one archive 
box for a year is $12.08, which includes the cost of the warehouse 
space ($9.08) and the cost of the box ($3.00). Accordingly, the 
estimated cost of storing 1,600 boxes of records for a year is $19,320 
(1,600 boxes x $12.08 per box). On the assumption that at any one time, 
the records associated with 5 years of production or shipments must be 
maintained, the estimated annual cost of storage for 5 years' worth of 
records per product is $96,640 (1,600 boxes x 5 years x $12.08 per 
box).
    In addition to the cost of storing records, labor or other 
personnel costs would be incurred to manage the required records stored 
on paper. Managing records would include the labor time required to box 
up the records for the current year's production or shipments, label 
the boxes, move the boxes to the warehouse, and dispose of records that 
are more than 5 years old. We estimate that about 20 minutes will be 
required to box, label, and place into storage the estimated 1,600 
boxes containing records for the current year's production or 
shipments, and about 10 minutes per box to dispose of the estimated 
1,600 boxes containing records more than 5 years old, or 800 hours per 
year in total. We assume that this work will be done mostly by office 
or administrative workers. In December 2012, the total compensation for 
sales and office workers in private industry was $27.12 per hour.\25\ 
Therefore, the estimated total labor cost per year involved in managing 
required records that are stored on paper would be about $21,696 (800 
hours x $27.12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation, Table 9'' (March 2013). Available at https://www.bls.gov/ncs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above analysis, assuming that 10 percent of the 
estimated 6 million distinct non-children's product varieties that 
require certification annually are stored in paper format, the 
estimated total cost would be $118,336. This estimate includes the cost 
of warehouse space and the archive boxes ($96,640), and the labor 
required to manage and transport the records ($21,696).
2. Estimated Cost of Storing Required Records Electronically
    Storing records electronically is much less expensive than storing 
records in paper format. A 1 terabyte (i.e. 1 million megabytes) hard 
drive can be purchased for about $100, so the cost per megabyte for 
electronic storage is about $0.0001 or about one-hundredth of one cent. 
If the required records (GCC and supporting test records) for each 
product was about 1 megabyte, then the estimated total cost of 
electronically storing the records for 90 percent of the estimated 6 
million distinct non-children's product varieties that require 
certification annually, or 5,400,000 products, would be $540 annually 
($0.0001 x 5,400,000 products). Little, if any, additional labor would 
be required to manage required records stored in an electronic format. 
Therefore, the total cost of storing the required records 
electronically is $540, which is essentially limited to the cost of the 
space on a hard drive.
    The estimated total cost of retaining GCCs and supporting test 
reports for the estimated 6 million distinct non-children's product 
varieties that require certification for 5 years, assuming that 90 
percent of the records are stored electronically and 10 percent of the 
records are stored on paper, is $18,876 annually. Of this, $118,336 is 
associated with storing 10 percent of the records on paper and $540 is 
associated with storing 90 percent of the records electronically.

[[Page 28106]]



Table B-1--Summary of PRA Burden Estimates by Rule for Non-Children's Products That Require a General Conformity
               Certificate (GCC) Attributable To Existing 16 CFR 1110 (November 2008) Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of                        Total estimated
           Product categories              Number of Mfrs.       models*       Hours per model    burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Architectural Glazing Materials.........               400             2,400              1.5              3,600
Matchbooks..............................                 4                12              1.5                 18
Bicycle Helmets.........................                30               165              0.5                 83
CB Band Base Station Antennas...........                 5                15              0.5                  8
Walk Behind Power Mowers................                20                --            130                2,600
Swimming Pool Slides....................                --               120              1.5                180
Cellulose Insulation....................                44                --             60                2,640
Cigarette and Multipurpose Lighters.....               145             6,667              0.25             1,667
Garage Door Openers.....................                21                84              0.5                 42
Furniture (paint).......................                --           125,000              0.5             62,500
Furniture (bunk beds)...................                --               600              1.5                900
Paints and Coatings.....................               501            41,082              0.5             20,541
ATVs....................................                32               132              1.5                198
Pools and Spas (VGB Act)................                12               136              1.5                204
Fireworks Devices.......................                44           115,000              1.0            115,000
Bicycles................................               150             1,900              1.5              2,850
Clothing and Apparel....................            1,000s         5,500,000              0.25         1,375,000
Carpets and Rugs........................               240            24,000              1.5             36,000
Mattresses..............................               671            13,420              0.25             3,355
PPPA....................................             1,000           150,000              0.12            17,500
Refrigerators...........................                19             2,800              1.5              3,420
Candles w/Metal Core Wicks..............               400            60,000             40               16,000
Refuse Bins.............................                19               358              0.50               179
Lawn Darts..............................                 6                 6              1.5                  9
Artificial Emberizing Materials.........                14                56              1.5                 84
Patching Compounds......................                35               148              0.25                37
Burden Hours to Document Test Results     ................  ................  ................         1,664,615
 and Create GCCs........................
Burden Hours for Third Party Disclosure   ................         6,000,000              0.25         1,500,000
 of GCCs................................
Subtotal Burden Hours for GCCs..........  ................  ................  ................         3,164,615
Estimated Cost: 3,164,615 Burden Hours x $37.34 per Burden Hour...............................      $118,166,724
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Estimated number of distinct product varieties that require certification.


 Table B-2--Summary of PRA Burden Estimates for Non-Children's Products
 That Require a General Conformity Certificate (GCC) Attributable to the
  Proposed Amendment To Existing 16 CFR 1110 (March 2013) Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Cost of Retaining GCCs and Supporting Test            $118,876
 Records..............................................
Estimated Average Cost of Filing GCCs for Imports with        56,000,000
 CBP..................................................
GCC Costs Attributable to the Proposed Amendments.....        56,118,876
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table C-1--Summary of PRA Burden Estimates for Third Party Disclosure of
 Children's Product Certificates (CPCs) Attributable To Existing 16 CFR
                    1107 (November 2011) Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Average Cost of Third Party Disclosure of          $14,936,000
 CPCs.................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table C-2--PRA Burden Estimates for Children's Products That Require a
    CPC to be Filed With CBP for Import Attributable to the Proposed
       Amendment To Existing 16 CFR 1110 (March 2013) Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Average Cost of Filing CPCs for Imports with       $18,700,000
 CBP..................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Effective Date

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires that the 
effective date of a rule be at least 30 days after publication of a 
final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission proposes that any final 
rule based on this proposal would become effective 90 days after the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register. Certifiers should not 
require a lengthy period of time to come into compliance with a final 
rule because certificates are already required to be issued, and 
changes to the existing regulation are not extensive but merely 
clarifying expectations in light of new testing regulations. The most 
substantive amendment to the existing

[[Page 28107]]

part 1110 would require that in the case of finished products that are 
manufactured outside the United States and that are imported for 
consumption or warehousing, the importer must file the required GCC or 
CPC electronically with the CBP. Stakeholders should provide 
information and evidence if they believe that implementing such a 
requirement would require longer than 90 days from the issuance of a 
final rule.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1110

    Business and industry, Certificate, Certification, Children, 
Component part certificate, Consumer protection, Imports, Labeling, 
Product testing and certification, Records, Record retention, Regulated 
products.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to 
revise16 CFR part 1110 to read as follows:

PART 1110--CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE

Sec.
1110.1 What is the purpose and scope of this part?
1110.3 What definitions apply to this part?
1110.5 When are certificates required?
1110.7 Who must certify finished products?
1110.9 What form(s) may the certificate take?
1110.11 What must the certificate contain?
1110.13 When must certificates be made available?
1110.15 Who is responsible for the information in a certificate?
1110.17 What recordkeeping requirements apply to certificates?
1110.19 What requirements apply to component part certificates?

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2063, Sec. 3, 102 Pub. L. 110-314, 122 
Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008), Pub. L. 112-28 (2011).


Sec.  1110.1  What is the purpose and scope of this part?

    (a) This part:
    (1) Specifies the entities that must issue certificates for 
finished products in accordance with section 14(a) of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 2063(a);
    (2) Clarifies which provisions of this part apply to component part 
certificates;
    (3) Specifies certificate content, form, and availability 
requirements that must be met to satisfy the requirements of section 14 
of the CPSA; and
    (4) Requires importers to file certificates electronically with CBP 
for imported finished products that are required to be certified.
    (b) This part does not address issues related to type or frequency 
of testing necessary to support a certificate.


Sec.  1110.3  What definitions apply to this part?

    (a) The definitions of section 3 of the CPSA and additional 
definitions in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(CPSIA), Pub. L. 110-314, apply to this part.
    (b) Additionally, the following definitions apply for purposes of 
this part:
    (1) CBP or Customs means United States Customs and Border 
Protection;
    (2) Certificate or certificate of compliance means a certification 
that the finished products or component parts within the scope of the 
certificate comply with the consumer product safety rules under the 
CPSA, or similar rules, bans, standards, or regulations under any other 
law enforced by the Commission, as set forth on the certificate. 
``Certificate'' and ``certificate of compliance'' generally refer to 
all three types of certificates: General Conformity Certificates, 
Children's Product Certificates, and component part certificates;
    (3) Certifier means the party who issues a certificate of 
compliance;
    (4) Children's Product Certificate (CPC) means a certificate of 
compliance for a finished product issued pursuant to section 14(a)(2) 
of the CPSA and part 1107 of this chapter;
    (5) Commission or CPSC means the United States Consumer Product 
Safety Commission;
    (6) Component part means a component part of a consumer product or 
other product or substance regulated by the Commission, as defined in 
Sec.  1109.4(b) of this chapter, that is intended to be used in the 
manufacture or assembly of a finished product, and is not intended for 
sale to, or use by, consumers as a finished product;
    (7) Component part certificate means a certificate of compliance 
for a component part of a consumer product, as defined in paragraph 
(b)(6) of this section;
    (8) Electronic certificate means a set of information available in, 
and accessible by, electronic means that sets forth the information 
required by sections 14(a) and 14(g) of the CPSA, Sec.  1110.11, and 
that meets all other certificate requirements set forth in this part;
    (9) Finished product means a consumer product or other product or 
substance regulated by the Commission that is imported for consumption 
or warehousing or is distributed in commerce. Parts of consumer 
products, including replacement parts, that are imported for 
consumption or warehousing or are distributed in commerce that are 
packaged, sold, or held for sale to, or use by, consumers are 
considered finished products;
    (10) Finished product certificate means a certificate of compliance 
for a finished product, as defined in paragraph (b)(9) of this section. 
There are two types of finished product certificates: Children's 
Product Certificates and General Conformity Certificates;
    (11) Finished product certifier means a party who is required to 
issue a finished product certificate pursuant to Sec.  1110.7;
    (12) General Conformity Certificate (GCC) means a certificate of 
compliance for a finished product issued pursuant to section 14(a)(1) 
of the CPSA; and
    (13) Importer means importer of record as defined under the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1484(a)(2)(B));
    (14) Third party conformity assessment body means a testing 
laboratory whose accreditation has been accepted by the CPSC to conduct 
certification testing on children's products.


Sec.  1110.5  When are certificates required?

    Finished products subject to a consumer product safety rule under 
the CPSA, or similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other 
law enforced by the Commission, which are imported for consumption or 
warehousing or are distributed in commerce, must be accompanied by a 
GCC or a CPC, as applicable.


Sec.  1110.7  Who must certify finished products?

    (a) Imports. Except as otherwise provided in a specific rule, ban, 
standard, or regulation, for a finished product manufactured outside of 
the United States that must be accompanied by a certificate, as set 
forth in Sec.  1110.5, the importer must issue a certificate that meets 
the requirements of this part. However, if a finished product 
manufactured outside the United States is delivered directly to a 
consumer in the United States, such as products purchased through an 
Internet Web site, the foreign manufacturer must issue a certificate 
that meets the requirements of this part, unless the product bears a 
private label. The private labeler must issue a certificate that meets 
the requirements of this part for such products that bear a private 
label and are delivered directly to a consumer in the United States, 
unless the foreign manufacturer issues the certificate.
    (b) Domestic products. Except as otherwise provided in a specific 
rule, ban, standard, or regulation, for a finished product manufactured 
in the United States that must be accompanied

[[Page 28108]]

by a certificate, as set forth in Sec.  1110.5, the manufacturer must 
issue a certificate that meets the requirements of this part. However, 
if a finished product manufactured in the United States is privately 
labeled, the private labeler must issue a certificate that meets the 
requirements of this part, unless the manufacturer issues the 
certificate.


Sec.  1110.9  What form(s) may the certificate take?

    (a) Language. Certificates must be in the English language and may 
also contain the same content in any other language.
    (b) Format. Except as required in Sec.  1110.13(a)(1), certificates 
may be provided in hard copy or electronically.
    (c) Electronic certificates. An electronic certificate meets the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  1110.13(a)(2), 1110.13(a)(3), 1110.13(b), 
and 1110.13(c) if it is identified prominently on the finished product, 
shipping carton, or invoice by a unique identifier and can be accessed 
via a World Wide Web uniform resource locator (URL) or other electronic 
means, provided that the certificate, the URL or other electronic 
means, and the unique identifier are accessible, along with access to 
the electronic certificate itself, without password protection, to the 
Commission, CBP, distributors, and retailers, on or before the date the 
finished product is distributed in commerce.


Sec.  1110.11  What must the certificate contain?

    (a) Content requirements. Each certificate must:
    (1) Identify the component part(s) or finished product(s) covered 
by the certificate and state whether the certificate is for a finished 
product or a component part. A model, style, or other unique identifier 
of the product should be provided, if any, along with a description of 
the finished product or component part. Certifiers may also include an 
identifier, such as a universal product code (UPC), a global trade item 
number (GTIN), or other identifying code that may assist with product 
identification;
    (2) State the date of initial certification of the finished 
product(s) or component part(s) to which the certificate refers;
    (3) Identify the scope of finished product(s) or component part(s) 
for which the certificate applies, such as by a start date, start and 
end date, lot number, starting serial number or serial number range, or 
other means to identify the set of finished product(s) or component 
part(s) that are covered by the certificate;
    (4) State each consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or 
similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any law enforced by 
the Commission, to which the finished product(s) or component part(s) 
are being certified. Finished product certificates must identify 
separately all applicable rules, bans, standards, or regulations. 
Component part certificates must identify all rules, or parts of rules, 
bans, standards, or regulations for which the component part(s) are 
being certified;
    (5) Identify the party certifying compliance of the finished 
product(s) or component part(s), including the party's name, electronic 
mail (email) address, full mailing address, including the street 
address, and telephone number;
    (6) Identify and provide contact information (consisting, at a 
minimum, of the individual's name, email address, full mailing address, 
and telephone number) for the individual:
    (i) Maintaining records of test results on which a GCC is based, 
and records described in Sec. Sec.  1109.5(g) and (j) of this chapter 
(where applicable); or
    (ii) Maintaining records of test results and other records on which 
a CPC is based, as required by Sec.  1107.26, and Sec.  1109.5(g) and 
(j) of this chapter (where applicable); or
    (iii) Maintaining records of test results and other records on 
which a component part certificate is based, as required by Sec.  
1109.5(g) and (j) of this chapter;
    (7) Provide the date (month and year, at a minimum) and place 
(including a street address, city, state or province, and country or 
administrative region) where the finished product(s) or component 
part(s) were manufactured, produced, or assembled;
    (8) Provide the dates and places (including a street address, city, 
state or province, and country or administrative region) where the 
finished product(s) or component part(s) were tested for compliance 
with the rule(s), ban(s), standard(s), or regulation(s) cited in Sec.  
1110.11(a)(4);
    (9) Identify all parties, including third party conformity 
assessment bodies, on whose testing the certificate depends, including 
name, email address, full mailing address, including the street 
address, and telephone number; and
    (10) Include the following attestation:

    I hereby certify that the finished product(s) or component 
part(s) covered by this certificate comply with the rules, bans, 
standards, and regulations stated herein, and that the information 
in this certificate is true and accurate to the best of my 
knowledge, information, and belief. I understand and acknowledge 
that it is a United States federal crime to knowingly and willfully 
make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements, 
representations, or omissions, on this certificate.

    (b) Electronic access to records. In addition to identification of 
the custodian of records, as described in Sec.  1110.11(a)(6), a 
certificate may include a World Wide Web URL, or other electronic 
means, which provides electronic access to the required records.
    (c) Statutory or regulatory testing exclusions: If a certifier is 
claiming a statutory or regulatory testing exclusion to an applicable 
consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, standard, or 
regulation, in addition to listing all applicable rules, bans, 
standards, and regulations as required under Sec.  1110.11(a)(4), a 
certifier shall list all applicable testing exclusions and include on 
the certificate the basis for the statutory or regulatory testing 
exclusion to such regulation, instead of providing the date and place 
where testing was conducted for that regulation in Sec.  1110.11(a)(8).
    (d) Duplicative testing not required. Although certificates must 
list each applicable rule, ban, standard, or regulation separately, 
finished product certifiers are not required to conduct duplicative 
third party testing for any rule that refers to, or incorporates fully, 
another applicable consumer product safety rule or similar rule, ban, 
standard, or regulation under any other law enforced by the Commission.


Sec.  1110.13  When must certificates be made available?

    (a) Accompanying certificates. A certificate issued by a finished 
product certifier must accompany each finished product or finished 
product shipment required to be certified pursuant to Sec.  1110.5 .
    (1) In the case of finished products that are manufactured outside 
the United States and are imported for consumption or warehousing, the 
importer must file the required GCC or CPC electronically with the CBP 
at the time of filing the CBP entry or the time of filing the entry and 
entry summary, if both are filed together.
    (2) In the case of finished products manufactured in the United 
States, certificates shall not be filed with CPSC. A finished product 
certifier, pursuant to Sec.  1110.7(b), must make the required GCC or 
CPC available for inspection by the CPSC on or before the date the 
finished product is distributed in commerce.
    (3) In the case of finished products that are manufactured outside 
the

[[Page 28109]]

United States and are imported for consumption or warehousing, that are 
delivered directly to a consumer in the United States, the foreign 
manufacturer or the private labeler, as set forth in Sec.  1110.7(a), 
must either file the required GCC or CPC electronically with CBP as 
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or make the certificate 
available for inspection by CPSC on or before the date the finished 
product is distributed in commerce, as described in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section.
    (b) Furnishing certificates. A finished product certifier must 
furnish a required GCC or CPC to each distributor or retailer of the 
finished product.
    (c) Availability. Certifiers must make certificates available for 
inspection immediately upon request by CPSC or CBP.


Sec.  1110.15  Who is responsible for the information in a certificate?

    Certifiers may have any entity maintain an electronic certificate 
platform and enter the requisite data. However, the certifier is 
responsible for the information in a certificate, including its 
validity, accuracy, completeness, and availability, as applicable.


Sec.  1110.17  What recordkeeping requirements apply to certificates?

    For CPCs and component part certificates, certifiers must follow 
the recordkeeping provisions contained in Sec. Sec.  1107.26, 
1109.5(g), and 1109.5(j) of this chapter, as applicable. For GCCs, 
certifiers must maintain the certificate and supporting test records 
where required for at least 5 years.


Sec.  1110.19  What requirements apply to component part certificates?

    Pursuant to part 1109 of this chapter, component part certificates 
are voluntary. Accordingly, component parts of consumer products, as 
defined in Sec.  1110.3(b)(6), are not required to be accompanied by a 
certificate, and component part certificates are not required to be 
furnished to retailers and distributors, as described in Sec.  
1110.13(b). Component part certificates shall not be filed with CBP 
upon importation of component parts. Instead, certifiers of component 
parts must meet the requirements in part 1109 of this chapter, and 
component part certificates must also meet the form, content, and 
availability requirements described in Sec. Sec.  1110.9, 1110.11, 
1110.13(c), 1110.15, and 1110.17

    Dated May 7, 2013.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013-11164 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P