76832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1102 

Publicly Available Consumer Product 

Safety Information Database 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘Commission,’’ ‘‘CPSC,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is issuing a final rule that would 

establish a Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database 

(‘‘Database’’). Section 212 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) amended the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) 

to require the Commission to establish 

and maintain a publicly available, 

searchable database on the safety of 

consumer products, and other products 

or substances regulated by the 

Commission. The final rule interprets 

various statutory requirements 

pertaining to the information to be 

included in the Database and also 

establishes provisions regarding 

submitting reports of harm; providing 

notice of reports of harm to 

manufacturers; publishing reports of 

harm and manufacturer comments in 

the Database; and dealing with 

confidential and materially inaccurate 

information. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective January 10, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Kelsey James, Director, 

Information Technology Policy and 

Planning, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7213; mjames@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 212 of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to establish and maintain a 

product safety information database that 

is available to the public. Specifically, 

section 212 of the CPSIA amended the 

CPSA to create a new section 6A of the 

CPSA, titled ‘‘Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database.’’ Section 6A(a)(1) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to establish 

and maintain a database on the safety of 

consumer products, and other products 

or substances regulated by the 

Commission. The Database must be 

publicly available, searchable, and 

accessible through the Commission’s 

Web site. Section 6A of the CPSA sets 

forth specific content, procedures, and 

search requirements for the publicly 

available database. On May 24, 2010, we 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking at 75 FR 29156, which set 

forth the Commission’s proposed 

interpretation and implementation of 

the Database provisions of section 6A of 

the CPSA. The comment period on the 

proposed rule ended on July 23, 2010. 

After reviewing and considering 

significant issues raised by the 

comments, the Commission is now 

promulgating a final rule on the 

statutory requirements of section 6A. 

For several decades, the Commission 

has gathered and maintained a database 

of consumer complaints, known as 

consumer product incident reports. 

Such incident reports describe safetyrelated incidents involving the use of 

consumer products that fall within the 

scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

Pursuant to section 5(a) of the CPSA, the 

Commission collects information related 

to the causes and prevention of death, 

injury, and illness associated with 

consumer products. The Commission 

conducts studies and investigations of 

deaths, injuries, diseases, other health 

impairments, and economic losses 

resulting from accidents involving 

consumer products. In addition, 

pursuant to section 5(b) of the CPSA, 

the Commission may conduct research, 

studies, and investigations on the safety 

of consumer products and on improving 

the safety of such products. Currently, 

the Commission obtains information 

about product-related deaths, injuries, 

and illnesses from a variety of sources, 

including newspapers, death 

certificates, consumer complaints, and 

hospital emergency rooms. In addition, 

the Commission receives information 

from the public through its Internet Web 

site via forms reporting on productrelated injuries or incidents. 

To date, the data that the Commission 

collects and maintains on product safety 

have not been immediately available 

and searchable by the public. Before the 

CPSIA’s enactment, the CPSA required 

that the Commission follow the notice 

provisions of section 6 of the CPSA 

before publicly disclosing any 

information that allowed the public to 

readily ascertain the identity of a 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 

consumer product. Section 6 of the 

CPSA contains requirements for giving 

notice of such information to the 

manufacturer or private labeler and 

providing them with an opportunity to 

comment on the information prior to 

public disclosure. Section 6 of the CPSA 

also requires the Commission to take 

reasonable steps to assure that 

disclosure of such information is 

accurate, fair in the circumstances, and 

reasonably related to effectuating the 

purposes of the CPSA. The Commission 

has applied the requirements in section 

6 of the CPSA to Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) requests as 

well. See Consumer Product Safety 

Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, 447 

U.S. 102 (1980). The Commission issued 

regulations interpreting section 6 notice 

requirements at 16 CFR part 1101. Thus, 

consumers currently have access to 

incident data through reports and 

studies published by the Commission or 

through information provided in 

response to FOIA requests. 

Section 6A of the CPSA creates a new 

disclosure requirement with respect to 

product safety-related incident reports, 

referred to as ‘‘reports of harm’’ in both 

the statute and the proposed rule. 

Specifically, section 6A of the CPSA 

excludes any incident report submitted 

for inclusion in the Database from the 

notice requirements of section 6(a) and 

(b) of the CPSA. Instead, section 6A of 

the CPSA sets up a new framework for 

collecting reports of harm, transmitting 

them to the manufacturer and private 

labeler for comment, and then posting 

them on a Database that is accessible on 

the Commission’s Web site. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

provided the public with an opportunity 

to understand how the Commission is 

intending to implement the new 

procedures in section 6A of the CPSA, 

and to provide comment. Prior to 

issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, 

however, the Commission provided 

stakeholders with information about 

Database implementation, as well as 

offered several opportunities for 

stakeholder input and comment, all of 

which were discussed in the preamble 

to the proposed rule at 75 FR 29156–57. 

Prior Commission activities related to 

the Database include: Providing a 

detailed implementation plan to 

Congress; holding a public hearing on 

Database implementation; holding a 

public workshop, which sought 

comments on Database implementation; 

attending and speaking about the 

Database at various conferences; and 

creating the http:// 

www.saferproducts.gov Web site, where 

updates on implementation of the 

Database are provided. Information on 

all of these Commission activities and 

public comments are available on the 

CPSC Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

about/cpsia/sect212.html. 

We received 37 comments on the 

proposed rule. After reviewing the 

comments, the Commission made 

several changes to the final rule, all of 

which are discussed in detail in section 

III below. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76833 

II. Statutory Authority 

The Commission is issuing this rule 

pursuant to section 3 of the CPSIA 

which provides the Commission 

authority to issue regulations, as 

necessary, to implement the CPSIA. 

III. Description of the Final Rule, 

Comments on the Proposed Rule, and 

the Commission’s Responses 

The final rule establishes a new 16 

CFR part 1102, ‘‘Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database.’’ The new part consists of four 

subparts: 

Subpart A—Background and 

Definitions; 

Subpart B—Content Requirements; 

Subpart C—Procedural Requirements; 

Subpart D—Notice and Disclosure 

Requirements. 

Below, we describe and explain each 

subpart and section of the final rule, as 

well as describe and respond to 

significant issues raised by the 

comments on the proposed rule (75 FR 

29156, May 24, 2010) pertaining to each 

section. In addition to comments on 

each of the subparts of the final rule, we 

have added a section ‘‘E’’ below to 

address Database implementation 

comments that are not directly related to 

a section of the proposed rule. To make 

it easier to identify comments and the 

Commission’s responses, the word 

‘‘Comment’’ will appear in italics before 

each comment description, and the 

word ‘‘Response’’ will appear in italics 

before the Commission’s response. We 

have grouped comments based on the 

section of the proposed rule to which 

they pertain and their similarity, and we 

have numbered the comments to help 

distinguish between different comment 

themes. The number assigned to each 

comment summary is for organizational 

purposes only and does not signify the 

comment’s value, importance, or order 

in which it was received. 

A. Proposed Subpart A—Background 

and Definitions 

1. Proposed § 1102.2—Purpose 

Proposed § 1102.2 would describe the 

purpose for a new 16 CFR part 1102 

titled ‘‘Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database,’’ 

which is to set forth the Commission’s 

interpretation, policy, and procedures to 

establish and maintain such Database. 

We have finalized this section and 

made one clarification, which is to add 

the words ‘‘Publicly Available’’ to the 

full name of the Database. 

2. Proposed § 1102.4—Scope 

Proposed § 1102.4 would describe the 

scope of the rule to include the content, 

procedure, notice, and disclosure 

requirements for all information 

published in the Database. 

We received one comment related to 

this section. The section has been 

finalized with one correction, which is 

to add the words ‘‘Publicly Available’’ to 

the full name of the Database. 

Comment 1—One commenter states 

that incident reports involving over-thecounter drugs and dietary supplements 

should not be included in the Database 

because food and drugs are regulated 

and monitored by the U.S. Food and 

Drug Administration (‘‘FDA’’). The 

commenter notes that the Commission 

has regulatory authority only over 

product packaging, and asserts that 

consumers will inadvertently submit 

drug or supplement safety information 

to the Commission rather than to the 

manufacturer or the FDA. If the 

Commission includes complaints 

regarding product packaging in the 

Database, the commenter states that the 

Commission should not only instruct 

consumers that only product packaging 

complaints can be reported in the 

Database, but should also regularly 

monitor the Database to ensure that 

complaints involve only products over 

which the Commission has jurisdiction. 

Response—Section 1102.10(d)(1) of 

the final rule states that to be included 

in the Database, a report of harm must, 

‘‘at a minimum, include a word or 

phrase sufficient to distinguish the 

product as a consumer product, a 

component part of a consumer product, 

or a product or substance regulated by 

the Commission.’’ A report of harm that 

does not identify a product or substance 

over which the Commission has 

jurisdiction will not be included in the 

Database. Every report of harm will be 

reviewed to ensure that the minimum 

requirements for publication are met 

before being published in the Database. 

Also, as with our current online 

incident report form, the Database will 

describe the products that are not 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction, 

including food and drugs. This 

information will include links to the 

appropriate government agencies that 

do have jurisdiction. We have no 

intention of including reports of harm 

solely involving products or substances 

not within our jurisdiction, but will 

include all products and substances that 

do fall within our jurisdiction, 

including complaints about drug 

product packaging. 

3. Proposed § 1102.6—Definitions 

Proposed § 1102.6 would define 

certain terms related to the 

establishment and maintenance of the 

Database. 

a. Proposed § 1102.6(a)—Terms Defined 

in § 3 of the CPSA Apply to the 

Database Rule 

Proposed § 1102.6(a) would explain 

that, except as provided in proposed 

§ 1102.6(b), the definitions set forth in 

section 3 of the CPSA apply to the 

Database rule. For example, section 

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

‘‘manufacturer’’ as ‘‘any person who 

manufactures or imports a consumer 

product.’’ Because section 3(a)(11) of the 

CPSA defines ‘‘manufacturer,’’ any 

reference to ‘‘manufacturer’’ in proposed 

part 1102 would have the same 

meaning. 

One comment was received related to 

this section, which we have finalized 

without change. 

Comment 2—One commenter states 

that the term ‘‘private labeler’’ should be 

defined in § 1102.6 of the final rule. 

Response—Section 3(a)(12) of the 

CPSA defines ‘‘private labeler’’ as ‘‘an 

owner of a brand or trademark on the 

label of a consumer product which bears 

a private label.’’ Because the CPSA 

defines ‘‘private labeler,’’ there is no 

need to include such a definition in the 

final rule. 

b. Proposed § 1102.6(b)—Terms Defined 

Relevant to § 1102 

Proposed § 1102.6(b) would define 

certain terms or, in some cases, interpret 

terms already defined in section 3 of the 

CPSA. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(1) would define 

‘‘additional information’’ as any 

information that the Commission 

determines is in the public interest to 

include in the Consumer Product Safety 

Information Database. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

with one change, which is to add 

‘‘Publicly Available’’ to the full name of 

the Database. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(2) would define 

‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’ as meaning the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

without change. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(3) would define 

‘‘consumer product’’ as having the same 

meaning as defined in section 3(a)(5) of 

the CPSA, but would further explain 

that ‘‘consumer product’’ includes any 

other products or substances regulated 

by the Commission. This further 

clarification is based on the statutory 

requirement in section 6A(b)(1)(A) of 

the CPSA for submission of reports of 

harm relating to the use of consumer 

products and other products or 

substances regulated by the 

Commission. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and, for clarity, we have 

added ‘‘under any other act it 

administers’’ to the end of the definition. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(4) would define 

‘‘Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database,’’ which is also referred to as 

the ‘‘Database,’’ as the database on the 

safety of consumer products required to 

be established and maintained by the 

Commission as described in section 6A 

of the CPSA. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition. However, on our own 

initiative, we did incorporate the 

shortened name of ‘‘Database’’ in the 

final rule and added the words ‘‘Publicly 

Available’’ to the full name of the 

Database. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(5) would define 

‘‘harm’’ as any injury, illness, or death, 

or any risk of injury, illness, or death, 

as determined by the Commission. This 

definition is taken from section 6A(g) of 

the CPSA, which states that ‘‘[i]n this 

section, the term ‘harm’ means (1) 

injury, illness, or death; or (2) risk of 

injury, illness, or death, as determined 

by the Commission.’’ 

We received several comments related 

to this definition which did not lead us 

to make any changes. However, we are 

changing this definition to be consistent 

with the statutory language. 

Comment 3—Some commenters 

would remove from the definition of a 

report of harm the terms ‘‘or any risk of 

injury, illness, or death as determined 

by the Commission, relating to the use 

of a consumer product.’’ The 

commenters argued that such a 

determination requires an arbitrary 

assessment that would require 

Commission resources to determine 

whether the report of harm represents a 

legitimate risk. According to these 

commenters, reports of harm addressing 

risks should come from the Commission 

in recall notices only, not from the 

general public. 

Response—Section 6A(g) of the CPSA 

defines ‘‘harm,’’ as used in this section 

of the statute, as ‘‘(1) injury, illness, or 

death; or (2) risk of injury, illness, or 

death, as determined by the 

Commission.’’ Because the definition of 

‘‘harm’’ is dictated by Congress in the 

statute, and Congress has plainly 

expressed its intent in the statute that 

the Database include reports of harm 

involving risks of harm, we will not 

remove this phrase from the definition 

of a report of harm. Moreover, the 

Database is meant to help us in our 

mission to protect the public against 

unreasonable risks of injury associated 

with the use of consumer products. Use 

of agency resources to assess risks is 

essential to our mission. While 

submitters must describe an illness, 

injury, or death, or risk of illness, injury, 

or death on the incident report form, 

each report of harm will be reviewed 

before publication to ensure that it 

meets the minimum requirements for 

publication set forth in § 1102.10(d). 

Comment 4—Some commenters 

propose that ‘‘any risk of injury’’ be 

defined narrowly to account for the 

level of risk or the potential for injury 

to exclude reports of harm that ‘‘have 

near zero risk of causing injury.’’ These 

commenters would strike the term ‘‘any’’ 

and replace it with a phrase such as 

‘‘substantial risk of serious injury,’’ 

which they state has historically been 

used by the Commission. 

Response—We disagree with the 

commenters because they would have 

us interpret the statute in an 

unnecessarily narrow manner. However, 

we have stricken the word ‘‘any’’ and 

changed the comma to a semicolon after 

the first occurrence of the word ‘‘death’’ 

to make the definition consistent with 

the statutory language. Section 3(a)(14) 

of the CPSA already defines ‘‘risk of 

injury’’ as ‘‘a risk of death, personal 

injury, or serious or frequent illness.’’ 

We also decline to use the phrase 

‘‘substantial risk of serious injury’’ to 

qualify the types of harm or risk of harm 

that may be placed into the Database. 

Such phrase is used once in 16 CFR 

1115.13(c) to describe a firm’s initial 

obligation to report hazards under 

section 15(b) of the CPSA. It applies to 

manufacturers, importers, retailers, and 

distributors who have received 

information that reasonably supports 

the conclusion that one of the factors in 

section 15(b) of the CPSA has been met. 

The phrase has no relevance to the types 

of information included in a report of 

harm. 

Comment 5—One commenter states 

that the Commission should establish 

criteria for making determinations about 

risks of harm, arguing that speculative 

assertions or unsubstantiated opinions 

that a consumer could have been 

injured, without any supporting factual 

information indicating a nexus between 

the product or incident and a 

discernable and credible risk of injury, 

cannot provide the CPSC with the 

necessary basis for making the required 

determination to include these reports 

in the Database. 

Response—The Commission has 

many years of experience categorizing 

harm or hazards and their risks related 

to the use of a consumer product based 

on a reported incident scenario. We will 

continue to rely on our expertise to 

review reports of harm submitted for 

inclusion in the Database and will 

determine whether the minimum 

requirements for publication are met. 

Comment 6—One commenter states 

that the proposed rule does not 

delineate how the Commission will 

determine ‘‘harm’’ or ‘‘report of harm,’’ 

and it does not define ‘‘risk.’’ 

Response—Section 6A(g) of the CPSA 

defines ‘‘harm,’’ and we will adhere to 

this definition. We have maintained a 

database on injuries and risks of injury 

associated with the use of consumer 

products for many years, and will use 

our experience in reviewing reports of 

harm to ensure that the minimum 

requirements for inclusion in the 

Database are met. ‘‘Risk,’’ by itself, is not 

defined in the proposed rule or in the 

CPSA, but section 3(a)(14) of the CPSA 

defines ‘‘risk of injury’’ as ‘‘a risk of 

death, personal injury, or serious or 

frequent illness.’’ 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(6) would define 

‘‘mandatory recall notice’’ as any notice 

to the public ordered by the 

Commission pursuant to section 15(c) of 

the CPSA. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

with one grammatical change. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(7) would define 

‘‘manufacturer comment’’ as a comment 

made by a manufacturer or private 

labeler in response to a report of harm 

transmitted by the CPSC to the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

without change. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(8) would define 

‘‘report of harm’’ as any information 

submitted to the Commission through 

the manner described in § 1102.10(b) 

regarding an incident concerning any 

injury, illness, or death, or any risk of 

injury, illness, or death as determined 

by the Commission relating to the use of 

the consumer product. 

We received comments regarding the 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ used in the 

proposed rule. As noted above in 

response to Comments 3 through 6, we 

are making minor modifications to the 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ as contained in 

section 6A(g) of the CPSA. Thus, we 

have finalized the definition of ‘‘report 

of harm’’ with one grammatical change, 

changing ‘‘an injury’’ to ‘‘any injury.’’ We 

also changed the comma to a semicolon 

after the first occurrence of the word 

‘‘death’’ and inserted a comma after the 

second occurrence of the word ‘‘death’’ 

to ensure that the definition in the final 

rule is more consistent with the 

definition of ‘‘harm’’ in the statute. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(9) would define 

‘‘submitter of a report of harm’’ as any 

person or entity that submits a report of 

harm. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76835 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

without change. 

Section 1102.6(b)(10) of the proposed 

rule would define ‘‘voluntary recall 

notice’’ to mean any notice to the public 

by the Commission relating to a 

voluntary corrective action, including a 

voluntary recall of a consumer product 

taken by a manufacturer in consultation 

with the Commission. 

No comments were received related to 

this definition, and we have finalized it 

without change. 

Comment 7—One commenter objects 

to use of the term ‘‘victim’’ in the 

proposed rule. The commenter states 

that the use of such a term implies a 

criminal or civil wrong, and suggests 

use of the word ‘‘consumer’’ as a more 

neutral term. 

Response—We will not remove the 

term ‘‘victim’’ in the final rule, but agree 

that the term may be confusing to some 

without further clarification. We have 

used the term ‘‘victim’’ for many years to 

describe persons actually suffering a 

harm or risk of harm related to the use 

of a consumer product as compared to 

others who simply may have purchased 

or observed the product being used. The 

term ‘‘victim’’ is used on the current 

incident reporting form to collect 

information about the individual who 

was injured or exposed to a possible 

product related hazard. In the context of 

that form, the use of the term ‘‘victim’’ 

does not imply a criminal or a civil 

wrong. Thus, for purposes of this rule, 

‘‘victim’’ continues to refer to any 

individual exposed to harm or risk of 

harm related to a possible product 

related hazard, and the term does not 

imply that the product caused an 

incident. 

B. Proposed Subpart B—Content 

Requirements 

1. Proposed § 1102.10—Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.10 would explain the 

requirements for reports of harm to be 

included in the Database. 

a. Proposed § 1102.10(a)—Who May 

Submit 

Proposed § 1102.10(a) would identify 

the category of submitters specified in 

section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA and 

further clarify the persons who may fall 

within each of the identified groups. 

The list of persons under each category 

is not exclusive, and the proposed lists 

are intended to provide a greater 

understanding of the type of person or 

entity that could fall within each 

category of submitter. 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(1) would state 

that the term ‘‘consumers’’ includes not 

only users of consumer products, but 

also family members, relatives, parents, 

guardians, friends, and observers of a 

consumer product being used. 

We received one comment related to 

this section, and other comments 

relating to the definitions under 

proposed § 1102.10(a) resulting in a 

revision to the definition of ‘‘consumers’’ 

as described in response to Comment 8 

through 17. 

Comment 8—Several commenters 

state that the interpretation of 

‘‘consumer’’ should not be so broad as to 

include those persons who were not 

injured by the product or who are not 

reliable reporters of the incident, such 

as those persons lacking firsthand 

knowledge of the product, its 

manufacturer, or the injury. The 

commenters also state that the proposed 

interpretation of ‘‘consumer’’ expands 

the potential for inaccurate information 

in the Database and goes beyond a 

reasonable interpretation of the term. 

Some commenters note, however, that 

information from these sources could be 

collected for the Commission’s use, but 

should not be included in the Database. 

Response—The plain statutory 

language does not require a submitter of 

a report of harm to have ‘‘firsthand 

knowledge.’’ We have chosen an 

interpretation of ‘‘consumer’’ that 

comports with our experience in 

maintaining a database of consumer 

product incident reports. Historically, 

we have received reports of harm from 

any and all consumers in order to 

protect individuals who may use or 

enjoy consumer goods. Currently, 

parents, guardians, and family members 

are a major and important source of 

information collected for the most 

vulnerable segments of the population. 

In the most basic example, if the user of 

a consumer product is killed or 

seriously injured in the incident, or is 

an infant, he or she will be unable to 

enter the incident report. Parents, for 

example, may enter information related 

to consumer products used by their 

children, regardless of whether they 

personally witnessed the incident or 

purchased the product. Other 

consumers may possess important 

product safety information and, as a 

practical matter, the Commission does 

not have the resources to ascertain 

whether every submitter of a report of 

harm has firsthand knowledge or 

actually used the product. Therefore, 

following our current practice of 

receiving reports of harm from any and 

all consumers serves the purpose and 

intent of the Database and of our 

primary statutory mission, which is to 

protect consumers from unsafe 

products. Furthermore, a manufacturer 

is free to post a comment indicating 

whether they know if the submitter had 

firsthand knowledge or not. For these 

reasons, we disagree that inclusion of 

inaccurate information will necessarily 

result from our definition of 

‘‘consumer.’’ Moreover, everyone who 

submits reports of harm to the Database 

is legally obligated to provide truthful 

and accurate information as evidenced 

by their verification that they have done 

so. 

We also note that reports of harm 

received from individuals in some of the 

other statutory categories, such as other 

government agencies, health care 

professionals, and public safety entities, 

will likely lack firsthand knowledge 

about an incident. For example, a 

physician who treats an individual who 

was injured by a consumer product is 

unlikely to have witnessed how or when 

the injury occurred, but the statute 

permits the physician to submit a report 

of harm. If we find that false and 

fraudulent reports are being submitted 

for inclusion in the Database, we will 

consider what legal actions to take to 

address the problem and proceed 

accordingly. 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(2) would state 

that the definition of ‘‘local, state, or 

federal government agencies’’ includes, 

but is not limited to, local government 

agencies, school systems, social 

services, child protective services, state 

attorneys general, state agencies, and all 

executive and independent federal 

agencies as defined in Title 5 of the 

United States Code. 

No comments were received on this 

provision, and we have finalized it with 

only typographical changes. 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(3) would state 

that the definition of ‘‘health care 

professionals’’ includes, but is not 

limited to, medical examiners, coroners, 

physicians, nurses, physician’s 

assistants, hospitals, chiropractors, and 

acupuncturists. 

No comments were received on this 

provision, and we have finalized it with 

one grammatical change. 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(4) would state 

that the definition of ‘‘child service 

providers’’ includes, but is not limited 

to, day care centers, day care providers, 

pre-kindergarten school, and child care 

providers. 

No comments were received on this 

provision, and we have finalized it with 

minor modifications changing ‘‘day 

care’’ to ‘‘child care.’’ 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(5) would state 

that the definition of ‘‘public safety 

entities’’ includes, but is not limited to, 

police, fire, ambulance, emergency 

medical services, federal, state, and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

local law enforcement entities, and 

other public safety officials. 

No comments were received on this 

provision, and we have finalized it with 

one change for clarity. In response to 

comments relating to the definitions 

under proposed § 1102.10(a)(6), we 

added ‘‘and professionals, including 

consumer advocates and individuals 

who work for nongovernmental 

organizations, consumer advocates, 

consumer advocacy organizations, and 

trade associations so long as they have 

a public safety purpose’’ to the end of 

the definition. 

Proposed § 1102.10(a)(6) would add 

‘‘Others’’ to the list of submitters. The 

‘‘Others’’ category is intended to include 

those persons who may not fit clearly 

within an identified category, but who 

may otherwise file a report as a 

‘‘consumer.’’ The ‘‘Others’’ category 

would include, but is not limited to, 

attorneys, professional engineers, 

investigators, nongovernmental 

organizations, consumer advocates, 

consumer advocacy organizations, and 

trade associations. 

We received several comments on 

proposed § 1102.10(a)(6). Many 

commenters misinterpreted the proposal 

as an expansion of the list of people 

who can submit reports. This was not 

the intention. The proposal states, the 

five statutory categories of submitters 

are quite broad and, given that breadth, 

we had concluded that the list was 

intended to be nonrestrictive. See 75 FR 

at 29162. Currently, persons listed as 

examples under ‘‘Others’’ file reports of 

harm with us using our online incident 

reporting form by self-reporting as 

‘‘consumers.’’ However, anyone can be 

classified as a consumer even if they are 

also acting as a doctor, lawyer, 

investigator, consumer advocate, or 

trade complainant. Moreover, many 

individuals who report to us work for 

organizations with a public health and 

safety purpose and, thus may be 

included under the category ‘‘public 

safety entity.’’ Since most if not all of the 

people listed in the ‘‘Others’’ category 

can fit in the categories Congress listed, 

we have deleted reference to ‘‘Others’’ in 

response to the comments. 

Comment 9—Some commenters state 

that adding ‘‘Others’’ is contrary to the 

plain meaning of the statute. The 

commenters argue that section 

6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA expressly limits 

who may submit reports, so the 

Commission is acting outside its 

authority by adding an ‘‘Others’’ 

category. 

Response—Congress listed five broad 

categories of submitters and we have the 

authority to interpret these categories. 

As discussed above, the term 

‘‘consumer’’ is quite broad, and we have 

consistently interpreted it in this 

rulemaking to include any and all 

consumers. This interpretation 

comports with our mission to protect 

individuals who may use or enjoy 

consumer products. Most of the persons 

and entities captured in the ‘‘Others’’ 

category are covered by the five broad 

categories of submitter listed in the 

statute. We have decided to delete the 

reference to ‘‘Others.’’ 

Comment 10—Some commenters 

argue that section 6A(b)(2)(B) of the 

CPSA, which establishes the minimum 

requirements for reports of harm to be 

included in the Database, uses the 

phrase ‘‘at a minimum’’ to set a floor to 

which the Commission may add 

requirements. Because this ‘‘at a 

minimum’’ language is missing from 

section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA, the 

commenters claim that we cannot add 

‘‘Others’’ as a category of submitters. 

Response—The five categories of 

submitters set forth in section 

6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA are so broad 

that they include most submitters, 

eliminating the need to state that these 

categories are ‘‘at a minimum.’’ 

Nevertheless, the category of ‘‘Others’’ 

will be deleted. 

Comment 11—Some commenters state 

that adding an ‘‘Others’’ category 

contradicts existing regulations that 

require incident reports to be verified by 

those with personal or firsthand 

knowledge. The commenters argue that 

including reports from those without 

such knowledge would reduce the 

Database to a blog consisting of hearsay 

reports from people without personal 

knowledge who have a vested interest in 

increasing the number and severity of 

negative reports. The commenters state 

that there is no indication that Congress 

intended to override the Commission’s 

long-standing requirements for 

verification of information it intends to 

make public. 

Response—Congress provided a clear 

indication that the requirement in 

section 6(b) to take reasonable steps to 

assure accuracy does not apply to 

reports of harm included in the 

Database. Section 6A(f)(1) of the CPSA 

specifically provides that the provisions 

of sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA do 

not apply to reports of harm. Instead, 

verification is required for reports of 

harm as described in section 6A(b)(B)(v) 

of the CPSA, where a person submitting 

a report must verify that it is ‘‘true and 

accurate to the best of the person’s 

knowledge.’’ This requirement is set 

forth in § 1102.10(d)(7) of the final rule. 

Moreover, Congress intended for the 

Database to include reports by those 

without ‘‘firsthand knowledge’’ or 

‘‘personal knowledge,’’ as the statute 

expressly allows reports of harm to be 

submitted by those unlikely to have 

personal knowledge, such as other 

government agencies and public safety 

entities. However, Congress 

implemented three mechanisms to help 

control inaccuracies: The ability of the 

manufacturer to comment as set forth in 

section 6A(c)(2)(A) of the CPSA; the 

ability to remove material inaccuracies 

as set forth in section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA; and the disclaimer requirement 

provided in section 6A(b)(5) of the 

CPSA. 

Comment 12—Some commenters state 

that, other than consumers, the other 

categories of submitters listed in 

sections 6A(b)(1)(A)(2) through 

(b)(1)(A)(5) of the CPSA have various 

legal obligations to accurately and 

objectively record and report safety 

incidents, injuries, and suspected child 

abuse as part of their professional 

responsibilities. The commenters claim 

that adding an ‘‘Others’’ category will 

increase inaccurate reports of harm 

being entered into the Database and will 

also increase the possibility of 

duplicative reports being entered about 

the same incident. 

Response—Everyone who reports 

information to the Database, whether a 

consumer, governmental entity, health 

care professional, child care provider or 

public safety entity, has a legal 

obligation to provide accurate 

information and will be required to 

verify that they have done so. For 

example, attorneys are subject to 

numerous ethical obligations and are 

likely to have a legal obligation to 

submit a report of harm if the client 

directs them to do so. As another 

example, 18 U.S.C. 1001 makes the 

knowing and willful submission of a 

materially false, fictitious or fraudulent 

report to a government agency criminal. 

In our experience, the category of 

submitter is more indicative of the type 

of detail that can be provided about an 

incident, rather than the quality or 

veracity of the data entered. Moreover, 

nothing in section 6A of the CPSA 

dictates that the individual who enters 

reports of harm be someone who 

purchased or used a product or who has 

a legal responsibility to report safety 

incidents to another government agency. 

Such a limitation would not serve the 

purpose of the Database. For these 

reasons and because the categories of 

‘‘consumer’’ and ‘‘public safety entity’’ 

include most of the persons and entities 

listed in the proposed rule as reporting 

under the ‘‘Others’’ category, the 

commenters’ concerns are unpersuasive. 

With regard to duplicative reports, we 

note that the statutory list of submitters 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76837 

allows for the submission of multiple 

reports of harm about the same incident 

because a consumer can submit a report 

as well as their health professional. In 

the Joint Explanatory Statement of the 

Committee of Conference on the CPSIA, 

the Conferees recognized the value of 

possible multiple reports regarding the 

same incident because they ‘‘could 

provide different relevant details and 

that information from those reports 

could be helpful to the public.’’ The 

Database system software is designed to 

look for potential duplicates and 

multiple reports and to display them to 

staff. Commission staff will review 

potential duplicate and multiple reports 

and ‘‘associate’’ them, where 

appropriate, so that all reports on one 

incident will be reflected. As explained 

more fully below under § 1102.10(d), we 

are adding one more required field: 

‘‘Incident date’’ so that Database users 

are provided a date, or approximate 

date, of the incident. We are also 

clarifying the field, ‘‘Category of 

submitter,’’ by separating it from the 

verification requirement and displaying 

it in the Database as another required 

field so that Database users can see the 

category of submitter of the report of 

harm. We already had required this field 

in the NPR, but now we are separating 

it from the required verification. Such 

information should make the 

perspective of the submitter transparent 

and assist the agency in locating 

duplicate reports. 

Comment 13—Some commenters state 

that adding an ‘‘Others’’ category of 

submitter is unreasonable and contrary 

to sound public policy. The commenters 

claim that the Database’s purpose is to 

advance public safety by better 

informing consumers of potential 

product hazards, and that Congress 

selected reporters who contribute to this 

purpose—‘‘those who use or observe the 

use of the consumer product (and thus 

the resulting harm or risk of harm) and 

those who may be involved in treating 

or responding to the harm.’’ Congress 

chose to exclude those persons who 

may be commercially or financially 

motivated to submit reports of harm. 

Response—Having decided that the 

five statutory categories of submitters 

include most of those individuals who 

had previously been included in the 

‘‘Others’’ category, these persons shall be 

permitted to submit reports to the 

Database. The purpose of the Database 

is to provide timely access to safetyrelated consumer product incidents. 

The timeliness of the data release is a 

crucial aspect of the Database. Congress 

has expressed a public policy favoring 

prompt disclosure of these incidents in 

the interest of public safety. Indeed, 

Congress would not have us refuse to 

publish reports of harm involving 

deaths and serious injuries simply 

because the report was submitted by the 

consumer’s counsel or the consumer’s 

survivors. Accordingly, our evaluation 

of what is ‘‘unreasonable and contrary to 

sound public policy’’ differs from the 

commenters’ evaluation. Our goal is to 

provide the public with timely product 

safety information, which would not be 

served by excluding valid reports of 

harm based on criteria that have little or 

nothing to do with the quality or 

validity of a report. 

Nothing in the statute states that 

product safety information can come 

only from those who ‘‘use or observe the 

use’’ of the consumer product, and/or 

those who may be involved ‘‘in treating 

or responding’’ to the harm. Creating an 

artificial limitation that is not present in 

the statute would conflict with our 

experience in maintaining a database on 

the safety of consumer products. As 

explained above, not all submitters will 

personally use the consumer product or 

view the incident; however, that does 

not make their report invalid (i.e., 

parents of minor children, relatives of 

victims who died or were seriously 

injured as a result of the incident, 

friends and family of elderly or disabled 

persons, and attorneys whose clients 

were killed or seriously injured may 

also submit reports). Persons included 

in the ‘‘Others’’ category may not have 

viewed the incident, but still may have 

a distinct, educated, and valuable 

understanding of the facts, either 

learned from the victim, or derived from 

investigation and analysis. Moreover, as 

a practical matter, the Commission 

cannot research every submission to the 

Database to determine who submitted it, 

whether they used or observed the use 

of the product, or whether they have 

some other bias or financial interest. 

The fact that a submitter may have a 

professional interest in the report does 

not negate the truth of the report. If the 

Commission determines that a report is 

false, it will be removed or corrected. If 

the Commission determines that false 

incident reports are being filed, we will 

consider what legal actions to take to 

address the problem and proceed 

accordingly. 

Comment 14—Some commenters say 

that limiting submitters to the five 

statutorily enumerated categories is 

supported by the legislative history of 

section 6A of the CPSA. The 

commenters state that the House and 

Senate versions of the bill were different 

regarding who could submit reports of 

harm. The Senate version originally 

permitted ‘‘other nongovernmental 

sources’’ to submit reports of harm for 

inclusion in the Database, but this 

version was not incorporated into the 

final bill. Thus, the commenters suggest 

that the removal of this provision 

indicates the intent to exclude ‘‘Others’’ 

from submitting reports of harm. 

Response—We have previously noted 

the breadth of the entities listed in the 

statute that can file a report of harm and 

our conclusion that the list is intended 

to be nonrestrictive. 75 FR at 29162. The 

original Senate version of the bill also 

stated that health care professionals 

include ‘‘physicians, hospitals, and 

coroners’’ and that public safety entities 

include ‘‘police and fire fighters.’’ All of 

these entities were removed in the final 

legislation. Nevertheless, we are 

unwilling to interpret section 6A of the 

CPSA as prohibiting physicians, 

hospitals, coroners, police, and fire 

fighters from submitting reports of 

harm. Having decided to remove the 

‘‘Others’’ category, we conclude this 

comment is now moot. 

Comment 15—Some commenters state 

that if the Commission intends to use 

section 6A(b)(3) of the CPSA [pertaining 

to additional information] to add reports 

of harm from ‘‘Others’’ to the Database, 

then the Commission must find that 

inclusion of those reports of harm are 

‘‘in the public interest,’’ and that the 

reports must also meet the requirements 

of sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. 

Adding an ‘‘Others’’ category under 

section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA, the 

commenters allege, improperly evades 

the requirements for including 

additional information under section 

6A(b)(3) of the CPSA, and makes that 

section superfluous. 

Response—We interpret section 

6A(b)(3) of the CPSA to mean that, in 

addition to the information required to 

be in the Database, including reports of 

harm, manufacturer comments, and 

recall notices, any additional categories 

of information must be in the public 

interest and subject to sections 6(a) and 

(b) of the CPSA. This interpretation is 

set forth in § 1102.16, which includes 

other categories of information in the 

Database other than reports of harm, 

manufacturer comments, and recall 

notices. Our interpretation is that 

additional information does not refer to 

reports of harm because all reports of 

harm meeting the minimum 

requirements for publication already are 

included in the Database. Additional 

categories of information could include, 

for example, internal CPSC reports, such 

as in-depth investigations, and product 

safety assessments. 

Comment 16—Some commenters state 

that if the Commission includes reports 

of harm in the Database submitted by 

those in the proposed ‘‘Others’’ category, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

then the increase in such submissions 

will ‘‘significantly increase the costs and 

burdens on both the Commission and 

manufacturers and distributors of 

consumer products to review, verify, 

and respond to the filings.’’ 

Response—This comment is 

speculative and contrary to our research 

and experience. We review every report 

of harm and send the reports to 

manufacturers for comment under 

section 6(c) of the CPSA. Thus, even if 

we could choose to exclude reports of 

harm from ‘‘Others’’ in the Database, we 

would still collect this information for 

our use, and would still send it to 

manufacturers under section 6(c) of the 

CPSA. Accordingly, we do not believe 

that the submission of reports of harm 

by ‘‘Others’’ would have significantly 

increased costs or burdens, and we will 

receive such reports from most of those 

submitters under one of the five 

enumerated categories in the statute. 

Comment 17—Several commenters 

state that while reports of harm from 

those in an ‘‘Others’’ category may not be 

placed in the Database, the Commission 

may collect and use such reports for 

other hazard analysis purposes. 

Response—As explained above, we 

believe that reports of harm submitted 

by most of those included in the 

‘‘Others’’ category should be included in 

the Database under the five categories 

enumerated by the statute. We do not 

have the authority to exclude valid 

reports of harm from the Database. No 

valid public health and safety reason 

exists to exclude data that meet the 

minimum requirements for inclusion in 

the Database. Such an action would be 

contrary to the purpose and intent of the 

Database. We are focusing on the quality 

of the data submitted, as opposed to 

who submitted the report. Preserving 

reports of harm submitted by consumers 

in the ‘‘Others’’ category strictly for 

Commission use would not serve the 

purpose of timely providing the public 

with access to product safety 

information. 

b. Proposed § 1102.10(b)—Manner of 

Submission 

Proposed § 1102.10(b) would describe 

how a report of harm can be submitted 

for inclusion in the Database. Section 

6A(b)(2)(A) of the CPSA requires that 

the Commission establish electronic, 

telephonic, and paper-based means for 

submitting a report of harm for 

inclusion in the Database. Accordingly, 

proposed § 1102.10(b) would describe 

four methods (Internet, telephone, 

electronic mail, and paper) for 

submitting reports. Proposed 

§ 1102.10(b)(1) also would explain that 

submitters using the Internet will use an 

electronic form specifically developed 

to collect the report of harm in the 

Database. Proposed § 1102.10(b)(2) 

would further explain how submissions 

over the telephone will be accepted. 

Proposed § 1102.10(b)(3) and (b)(4) 

would explain how the Commission 

will deal with email, facsimile, and 

written submissions. Proposed 

§ 1102.10(b)(5) would give the 

Commission the flexibility to provide 

other means of submission if new means 

become available. 

The proposed rule left open for the 

final rule the office names and contact 

information to use for email, facsimile, 

and paper submissions of reports of 

harm. Accordingly, § 1102.10(b) has 

been finalized with several additions. 

First, we included the appropriate office 

names and contact information in 

§ 1102.10(b)(3) and (b)(4). Second, we 

made a grammatical correction to use 

the short name for the Database adopted 

in § 1102.6(b)(4). 

c. Proposed § 1102.10(c)—Size Limits of 

Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.10(c) would impose 

potential size limits on reports of harm 

where the size of such reports of harm, 

including attachments, might negatively 

impact the technological or operational 

performance of the system. 

No comments were received on this 

section, which we have finalized 

without change. 

d. Proposed § 1102.10(d)—Minimum 

Requirements for Publication 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(1) through 

(d)(6) would describe the minimum 

requirements for publication of reports 

of harm in the Database. The proposal 

would identify the minimum required 

categories of information stated in 

sections 6A(b)(2)(B)(i) through (v) of the 

CPSA, and further elaborate on the type 

of information included under each 

category. 

We received several comments 

generally related to the minimum 

requirements for publication, which 

resulted in no substantive changes to 

the final rule. On our own initiative, 

however, we have made a grammatical 

correction to the full name of the 

Database and added the words ‘‘Publicly 

Available’’ to the full name of the 

Database. 

Comment 18—One commenter states 

that the Commission should remind 

submitters to only file reports of harm 

for incidents of which they have 

firsthand knowledge, and actively 

should discourage complaints based on 

hearsay. 

Response—For the reasons set forth in 

response to Comment 8 above, we will 

not restrict submissions of reports of 

harm for inclusion in the Database to 

only those who have firsthand 

knowledge. Reports of harm that meet 

the statutory minimum requirements for 

inclusion, and the requirements as set 

forth in § 1102.10(d) of the final rule, 

will be included in the Database. 

Comment 19—Some commenters 

suggest that the final rule impose a time 

limit on when reports of harm may be 

included in the Database, to exclude old 

or stale data. Several commenters 

suggest a time limit of one year from the 

incident date, claiming that over time, 

data becomes inherently suspect. 

Response—As a matter of statutory 

interpretation, we have decided to allow 

submitters to enter reports of harm 

about product related incidents 

regardless of when the incident 

occurred because Congress imposed no 

limitation in section 6A of the CPSA. 

Because many consumer products have 

a long use period, and many consumer 

products are purchased second hand or 

used rather than new, it is important to 

collect and maintain information on 

these products over time. Moreover, in 

our experience, consumers sometimes 

fail to submit a report of harm until after 

a recall is announced in the media. 

Regardless of the date of occurrence and 

the date of entry, all reports of harm 

must meet the minimum requirements 

for inclusion in the Database as set forth 

in section 6A of the CPSA and 

§ 1102.10(d) of the final rule. Moreover, 

as set forth in response to Comment 30 

below, the Commission has decided to 

require the incident date, or an 

approximate incident date, to include a 

report of harm in the Database. Users 

can determine for themselves what 

weight to accord an incident that is 

entered long after the date of 

occurrence. If a manufacturer or private 

labeler believes that the date of the 

incident is relevant to users of the 

Database, it may highlight this fact in its 

comment to the report of harm. 

Comment 20—Several commenters 

note that the proposed rule does not 

indicate how long reports of harm and 

associated comments will remain in the 

Database. The commenters state that the 

final rule should impose a time limit 

after which information will be removed 

from the Database to ensure that the 

information remains helpful. The 

commenters also state that unless data 

has a time limit or sunset period, the 

Database may become overloaded with 

outdated information. The commenters 

suggest that if no recall occurs within 

one year of a report being entered, then 

the information should be removed but 

remain available through a FOIA 

request. Alternatively, the commenters 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76839 

suggest that the Commission could tag 

information as ‘‘active reports’’ and 

‘‘resolved reports.’’ 

Response—Setting a time limit or 

expiration date for reports of harm and 

related comments is inconsistent with 

the purpose of the Database. Certain 

hazard patterns may not emerge from 

the data within a specific time limit. 

Many consumer products have a long 

use period, and many consumer 

products are purchased used. 

Accordingly, it is important to collect 

and maintain information on products 

over time. 

Moreover, there is no easy way to 

determine across all industries and all 

products when data about products may 

lose importance. For example, durable 

infant products, which may be 

purchased used, may become the 

subject of incident reports years after a 

product was purchased or even recalled. 

We have several examples of children 

being seriously injured by products that 

were recalled for the defect many years 

before. Consumers should have access 

to all data that the Commission has on 

file when they research recalls and 

reports of harm made about consumer 

products in the Database. As for the 

suggestion of making information 

available through FOIA, we believe that 

such a change would be contrary to the 

purpose and intent of the Database and 

would compel us to allocate resources 

to respond to FOIA requests concerning 

data that should be made available in 

the Database. Finally, as set forth in 

§ 1102.10(i) of the final rule, all reports 

of harm submitted to the Commission 

become official records of the 

Commission in accordance with 16 CFR 

§ 1015.1 and will be treated in 

accordance with that regulation, which 

defines agency records for purposes of 

the FOIA. 

Comment 21—Several commenters 

state that the minimum information 

required to submit a report of harm for 

inclusion in the Database in 

§ 1102.10(d) is not detailed enough to 

allow those reviewing the report to 

understand the incident adequately, to 

weed out duplicate reports, and to 

promote investment in the report and 

Commission activities by the submitter. 

One commenter states that, without 

more detailed information, 

manufacturers will not be able to 

respond meaningfully to reports of 

harm, which will mean that the 

Database contains inaccurate 

information about their products. Thus, 

in cases where the incident details are 

insufficient to make a determination of 

why an event occurred, one commenter 

believes that the Commission should 

not publish the report in the Database. 

Response—We decline to amend the 

rule as suggested by the commenters. 

Determining why an incident occurred 

can sometimes be a time-consuming 

process; yet section 6A of the CPSA 

established procedural requirements 

that are measured in days. Congress is 

requiring us to create an ‘‘incident’’ 

database of ‘‘reports of harm,’’ not 

causation determinations. Section 6A of 

the CPSA requires reports of harm to be 

posted in the Database quickly. Thus, 

we cannot refrain from processing or 

publishing reports of harm to determine 

why an incident occurred. 

In response to comments on the 

proposed rule, however, we are 

clarifying that one additional minimum 

field requirement was added in the 

proposed rule, and has been maintained 

in the final rule, the ‘‘Category of 

submitter.’’ We have considered 

comments on this issue, as described 

below, and decided to display this field 

in the Database. Also, in response to 

comments, we have decided to require 

an additional field ‘‘Incident date’’ for 

inclusion in the Database. These two 

additional field requirements will assist 

users in distinguishing duplicate or 

multiple reports and in determining 

what, if any, weight to give a particular 

report of harm. Moreover, these two 

additional pieces of information should 

be readily available and typically 

known by submitters of a report about 

a consumer product. On balance, those 

additional requirements should not 

deter a submitter from entering a 

legitimate report of harm. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(1), 

‘‘Description of the consumer product,’’ 

would require a word or phrase 

sufficient to distinguish a product 

identified in a report of harm as a 

consumer product, a component of a 

consumer product, or a product or 

substance regulated by the Commission. 

This description could include the 

name (including the brand name) of the 

product. Other information, such as 

where the product was purchased, price 

paid, model, serial number, date of 

manufacture (if known), date code, or 

retailer, is identified as information that 

would be helpful to the description of 

a consumer product, but not required. 

We received several comments about 

this section of the proposed rule, and for 

clarity we have finalized the rule with 

grammatical changes to reflect the 

original intent of the provision that 

certain information in the description of 

the consumer product will be optional. 

Comment 22—Some commenters state 

that the proposed rule does not require 

a product name, model number, 

manufacture date, date code, date of 

purchase, or other descriptive 

information about a product. The 

commenters assert that the statute 

requires that the Database be searchable 

by date, product description, model 

name, and manufacturer’s name to the 

extent practicable; therefore, at a 

minimum, a report of harm must 

contain a model number and a product 

name. Some commenters state that poor 

product identification will make it 

impossible for a manufacturer to 

comment, and that requiring that the 

information be included will make the 

Database more useful and less 

misleading. 

Response—We agree that the more 

information included about a product, 

the easier it will be for the Commission 

and Database users to identify the 

product. Accordingly, the Database will 

prompt submitters for additional 

information about the product at issue, 

including, for example, product brand, 

model number, serial number, and date 

of manufacture. We encourage 

submitters to enter additional, helpful 

information for product identification in 

their reports of harm; however, we will 

not require submitters to provide all of 

the information suggested by the 

commenters. We have amended 

§ 1102.10(d)(1) to reflect this position. 

Requiring too much detail about a 

product may deter individuals from 

submitting reports. In addition, we note 

that section 6A(b)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA 

states that reports that provide a 

‘‘description of the consumer product’’ 

meet the statutory minimum for product 

identification. We will review each 

report of harm to ensure that a 

consumer product over which the 

Commission has jurisdiction is 

identified. Section 1102.10(d)(1) states 

that ‘‘the description of the consumer 

product must, at a minimum, include a 

word or phrase sufficient to distinguish 

the product as a consumer product, a 

component part of a consumer product, 

or a product or substance regulated by 

the Commission.’’ Thus, if we cannot 

identify a consumer product over which 

we have jurisdiction based on 

information in the report of harm, then 

the report will not meet the minimum 

requirements for publication. 

As for the commenters’ argument 

regarding the searchability of the 

Database, section 6A(b)(4) of the CPSA 

does not set forth minimum field 

requirements; rather it describes how 

users must be able to access data that 

already exists within the Database. In 

addition, section 6A(b)(4) of the CPSA 

requires that the Commission 

‘‘categorize the information available in 

the Database in a manner consistent 

with the public interest and in such 

manner as it determines to facilitate 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

easy use by consumers and shall ensure, 

to the extent practicable, that the 

Database is sortable and accessible by 

* * * (B) the name of the consumer 

product * * *; [and] (C) the model 

name * * *.’’ (emphasis added). We 

interpret this language to mean that 

when a report of harm contains 

information such as a model number, it 

should be ‘‘sortable and accessible’’ by 

such information. Thus, if a report of 

harm contains a model name or number, 

users will be able to search and sort 

based on this information. 

Comment 23—Some commenters state 

that the description of a consumer 

product should be detailed enough so 

that the CPSC, the manufacturer, and a 

user of the Database will be able to 

identify the product. 

Response—We agree that a 

description of the consumer product 

should be detailed enough to identify 

the product. Section 1102.10(d)(1) states 

that ‘‘the description of the consumer 

product must, at a minimum, include a 

word or phrase sufficient to distinguish 

the product as a consumer product, a 

component part of a consumer product, 

or a product or substance regulated by 

the Commission.’’ Each report of harm 

will be reviewed before entry into the 

Database. 

Comment 24—Some commenters ask 

us to clarify: (1) What information is 

required for a sufficient product 

description, and (2) how the staff will 

determine what the product is, and 

whether to post the report of harm in 

the Database. 

Response—Section 1102.10(d)(1) 

establishes the minimum requirements 

for a description of the consumer 

product, and is consistent with section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA, which 

simply requires that the report of harm 

contain ‘‘a description of the consumer 

product (or other product or substance 

regulated by the Commission) * * *.’’ 

We will review each report of harm 

before entry into the Database. If we 

cannot distinguish the item described in 

a report of harm as a consumer product 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction, 

then the report of harm will not satisfy 

the minimum requirements for 

inclusion in the Database. 

Comment 25—Several commenters 

state that a product UPC Code should be 

required for entry into the Database. 

Another commenter suggested using 

Global Trade Item Numbers. 

Response—We are interested in 

refining the ability of the Database to 

identify consumer products using these 

automatic identification technologies 

and our information technology staff 

currently is evaluating automatic 

identification technologies for use in 

future software versions of the Database. 

The rule is drafted broadly enough to 

enable such future operational change. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(2) titled 

‘‘Identity of the manufacturer or private 

labeler,’’ would describe that a report of 

harm must name a manufacturer or 

private labeler for the report to be 

published. 

One comment related to this section 

of the rule was received, which resulted 

in no changes to the final rule. However, 

on our own initiative, we clarified in the 

second sentence of the description that 

additional contact information may be 

provided for a manufacturer or private 

labeler, but is not required. Accordingly, 

the second sentence now states: ‘‘In 

addition to a firm name, identification 

of a manufacturer or private labeler may 

include, but is not limited to, a mailing 

address, phone number, or electronic 

mail address.’’ 

Comment 26—One commenter would 

require submitters to include 

traceability information in a report of 

harm. If the traceability information 

does not match to the stated importer, 

manufacturer, or retailer records, the 

name of that entity should not appear in 

the Database without further 

investigation and proof that the subject 

product belongs to the named firm, the 

commenter argued. 

Response—We interpret this comment 

to mean that if a consumer product 

cannot be verified as belonging to a 

particular manufacturer or private 

labeler, then the name of such entity 

should not be included in the Database. 

Section 6A of the CPSA requires that if 

a report of harm meets all of the 

minimum requirements for publication, 

including identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler, it must 

be transmitted to the manufacturer or 

private labeler identified. Such 

manufacturer or private labeler may 

comment on the report of harm, 

including identifying materially 

inaccurate information. If the product 

does not belong to the identified 

manufacturer or private labeler, the 

manufacturer or private labeler should 

inform us immediately, and if we are 

unable to determine the true identity of 

the manufacturer or private labeler, the 

report of harm will not be published in 

the Database. 

The incident report form allows 

submitters to include additional details 

to help identify the consumer product. 

For example, the incident report form 

also asks the submitter for a description 

of the product (prompting for product 

name), brand name, model name or 

number, serial number, and 

manufacturer date code. The form also 

allows the submitter to upload photos or 

other attachments that may help us or 

the manufacturer or private labeler to 

identify the product. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(3) titled 

‘‘Description of the harm,’’ would 

explain the requirements for describing 

a harm for a report of harm to be 

included in the Database. ‘‘Harm’’ as 

provided in section 6A(g) of the CPSA 

and in § 1102.6(b)(5), is an illness, 

injury, or death, or a risk of illness, 

injury, or death. The proposed rule 

contained a nonexclusive list of 

examples of the types of harm that 

could be included. Additionally, this 

section would explain that reports of 

harm, which relate solely to cost or 

quality of a product, without identifying 

any discernable bodily harm or risk of 

bodily harm, would not constitute 

‘‘harm’’ for purposes of this part. A 

description of harm may include 

additional information, such as the 

severity of the injury. 

We received several comments on this 

section of the proposed rule. We have 

finalized this section of the rule with 

corrections. We removed part of a 

sentence stating that the date on which 

the incident occurred is an example of 

the type of description that may be 

entered. We removed this language 

because ‘‘incident date,’’ or an 

approximation of the incident date, is 

now a required field, as described in 

response to Comment 30 below. In 

addition, the rule has been revised to 

conform to the definition of ‘‘harm’’ in 

the statute. 

Comment 27—Some commenters 

would remove the terms ‘‘risk of bodily 

harm’’ and ‘‘risk of injury’’ from 

§ 1102.10(d)(3), and anywhere else in 

the proposed rule, because ‘‘[t]his 

database must be based on concrete 

instances and not on issues or injuries 

that may (or may not) occur.’’ 

Response—Section 6A(g) of the CPSA 

defines ‘‘harm’’ as used in this section of 

the statute as ‘‘(1) injury, illness, or 

death; or (2) risk of injury, illness, or 

death, as determined by the 

Commission’’ (emphasis added). 

Because Congress intended that risks of 

harm be included in the Database, we 

decline to revise the rule as suggested 

by the commenters. The Database is 

meant to help the Commission protect 

the public against unreasonable risks of 

injury associated with the use of 

consumer products. Submitters must 

describe an illness, injury, or death, or 

risk of illness, injury, or death on the 

incident report form. We will review 

each report of harm before publishing it 

in the Database to ensure that it meets 

the minimum requirements for 

publication. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76841 

Comment 28—Some commenters state 

that the severity of risk, meaning 

whether and what type of medical 

treatment was sought, should be a 

required field on a report of harm if the 

report of harm is to be included in the 

Database. The commenters argue that, 

without knowing the severity of the risk, 

the public, the Commission, or a 

manufacturer cannot judge the 

magnitude of the risk presented and, in 

turn, assess the appropriate response to 

that risk. 

Response—Consistent with section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(iii) of the CPSA, the final 

rules require the submitter to enter a 

description of the harm, which means 

the identification of a discernable 

illness, injury, or death, or risk of 

illness, injury, or death related to the 

use of a consumer product. While we 

agree that understanding whether 

medical treatment was sought is useful 

in determining the severity of a harm or 

risk of harm, the statute, by referring to 

risk of injury, illness, or death in 

defining ‘‘harm,’’ does not require injury, 

illness, or death to have occurred. 

Accordingly, we will not require 

specific information about whether 

medical treatment was sought for a 

report of harm to be included in the 

Database. The incident report form, 

however, will allow for entry of such 

information. 

Comment 29—Several commenters 

would define an incident causing harm 

more explicitly in § 1102.10(d)(3) by 

excluding reports of harm that relate 

solely to the cost, quality, customer 

satisfaction, or warranty disputes, or 

those that fail to state any discernable 

bodily harm or risk of bodily harm. The 

commenters state that Commission staff 

should review reports of harm and 

exclude those that do not address a 

safety issue so that the Commission and 

industry can focus on reports containing 

actual or potential harm. One 

commenter would limit harm to include 

both an actual incident and an injury as 

set forth in 16 CFR 1117.3 (which 

pertains to reporting requirements for 

choking incidents involving marbles, 

small balls, latex balloons, and other 

small parts). 

Response—The proposed rule already 

would exclude reports relating solely to 

cost or quality. We agree that a report 

of harm that identifies only quality or 

cost issues and does not identify a 

bodily harm or risk of bodily harm does 

not meet the minimum requirements for 

inclusion in the Database. ‘‘Harm’’ is 

defined in § 1102.6(b)(5), consistent 

with section 6A of the CPSA, as ‘‘injury, 

illness or death; or risk of injury, illness 

or death, as determined by the 

Commission.’’ Thus, reports of harm 

containing no discernable injury, 

illness, or death, or risk thereof, will not 

meet the minimum requirements for 

inclusion in the Database. Therefore, 

§ 1102.10(d)(3) continues to state that 

‘‘Incident reports that relate solely to the 

cost or quality of a consumer product, 

with no discernable bodily harm or risk 

of bodily harm, do not constitute ‘harm’ 

for purposes of this part.’’ 

We will not make the reporting 

requirements in 16 CFR 1117.3 for 

choking incidents involving marbles, 

small balls, latex balloons, and other 

small parts applicable to reports of harm 

for inclusion in the Database. Section 

1117.3 creates a reporting requirement 

for firms that become aware of both an 

incident and, as a result of the incident, 

that a child died, suffered a serious 

injury, ceased breathing for any length 

of time, or was treated by a medical 

professional. In contrast, section 6A of 

the CPSA, through the definition of 

‘‘harm’’ in section 6A(g) of the CPSA, 

covers a broader range of adverse 

events. The statute goes beyond ‘‘injury, 

illness, or death’’ (terms that would 

seem to encompass the events in 

§ 1117.3) by adding ‘‘risk of injury, 

illness, or death * * *.’’ Thus, imposing 

the reporting requirement in § 1117.3 

onto § 1102.10(d) would be inconsistent 

with section 6A of the CPSA. 

Comment 30—Several commenters 

would make the date of the incident a 

required field to help develop a 

response, minimize duplication, and 

reduce the likelihood of counterfeit 

reports being added to the database. For 

the same reasons, some commenters 

also would require the location of the 

incident to be noted. The commenters 

state that the burden on submitters is 

low, while manufacturers have only 10 

days to respond. Accordingly, the 

commenters assert that requiring this 

information will help screen out 

duplicate reports. 

Response—We agree that requiring 

the date of the incident or the 

approximate date of an incident to be 

included will help in associating reports 

of harm submitted concerning the same 

incident, without deterring submission 

of reports. The incident date, or an 

approximation, should be information 

that is readily known and, on balance, 

likely will be helpful to the 

Commission, Database users, and those 

who investigate incidents. For example, 

the incident date will help us locate and 

associate multiple reports of harm 

submitted about the same incident. 

Reports of harm submitted by different 

persons about the same incident will 

not be deleted, but will be associated so 

that Database users can discern that 

only one incident occurred, for 

example, as opposed to two or three if 

several reports are filed concerning the 

same incident. Gathering information 

from different sources may assist the 

Commission and other users in 

understanding the nature of the 

incident, the product involved, and any 

injuries sustained. Additionally, 

because we will not restrict reports of 

harm to recent incidents, the ability to 

display both an incident date and the 

report filing date will help users assess 

that report. Accordingly, we have 

revised § 1102.10(d)(4) to require an 

‘‘Incident date,’’ or an approximation, to 

be entered to display a report of harm 

in the Database. 

As for the location of the incident, the 

form allows, but does not require, 

submitters to enter the location of the 

incident. Information regarding the 

location of the incident is not critical to 

product or hazard identification. 

Nevertheless, because the incident date 

and incident location fields are located 

adjacently on the form, we anticipate 

that submitters will be sufficiently 

prompted to include such information. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(4) titled 

‘‘Contact information’’ would require a 

submitter of a report of harm to provide 

his or her first and last name and a 

mailing address for the report to be 

published. Submitters also may provide 

other contact information, such as an 

email address or a telephone number, 

but such information is not required in 

order to publish the report. 

We received several comments on this 

section, which we have finalized 

without substantive modification. 

‘‘Contact information’’ has been 

renumbered in the final rule to 

§ 1102.10(d)(6) to accommodate the 

addition of ‘‘Incident date’’ and 

‘‘Category of submitter.’’ 

Comment 31—Several commenters 

address reports of harm by anonymous 

submitters. Some commenters state that 

we should not include these reports of 

harm in the Database. Some commenters 

state that we should not maintain 

anonymous reports for Commission use 

because veracity and trustworthiness are 

at issue and that such reports should not 

be used for compliance or enforcement 

proceedings because firms have no 

opportunity to investigate or refute the 

claims. 

Response—Reports of harm submitted 

anonymously do not meet the minimum 

requirements for inclusion in the 

Database and will be excluded. Section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the CPSA requires that 

the report contain ‘‘contact information 

for the person submitting the report’’; 

therefore, an anonymous report would 

not satisfy this statutory requirement. 

Although the submitter’s contact 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

information will not be published in the 

Database, it must be included for the 

report of harm to meet the minimum 

qualifications for inclusion in the 

Database. 

As for our use of anonymous reports, 

the Commission has accepted incident 

reports submitted anonymously for 

many years, and we will not change this 

practice now. Accordingly, we will 

maintain anonymous reports of harm for 

internal use. The Commission is 

concerned with product safety, 

regardless of who submits the 

information to the agency, and we 

cannot assume that anonymous reports 

of harm will not contain real and 

significant product safety issues. While 

it is preferable to have contact 

information to enable us to follow up 

and investigate incident reports with 

greater ease, the absence of contact 

information does not prevent us from 

investigating a consumer product as 

long as the product is identifiable. 

With regard to the use in enforcement 

proceedings of reports submitted 

anonymously, this issue involves the 

Commission’s exercise of enforcement 

power and discretion and our 

consideration of specific facts. Such 

information will continue to be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Comment 32—One commenter states 

that when consent is given, a 

submitter’s contact information should 

be provided to the manufacturer to 

facilitate evaluation of the complaint. 

This same commenter states that we 

should require contact information to be 

given to the Commission to prevent 

fraud. 

Response—When a submitter of a 

report of harm gives consent, his or her 

name and contact information will be 

provided to the manufacturer or private 

labeler. This provision, contained in 

§ 1102.20(a)(1), is consistent with 

section 6A(b)(6) of the CPSA. 

Anonymous reports will not meet the 

minimum requirements for inclusion in 

the Database and will be excluded. As 

set forth above, we will continue to 

accept and maintain anonymously 

submitted reports for our own use, and 

we decline to make contact information 

required information for submission of 

such reports to the Commission. 

Comment 33—One commenter 

suggests that we require every submitter 

to provide a phone number, and that 

Commission staff affirm the legitimacy 

of every report filed, and verify the 

contact information submitted in order 

for a report of harm to meet the 

minimum requirements for publication 

in the Database. 

Response—We decline to revise the 

rule as suggested by the commenter. 

Section 6A(b)(5) of the CPSA and 

§ 1102.42 direct us to provide clear and 

conspicuous notice to Database users 

that we do not guarantee the accuracy, 

completeness, or adequacy of the 

contents of the Database, and Section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(v) of the CPSA and 

§ 1102.10(d)(7) specify the form of 

verification required from submitters of 

reports of harm. No additional 

verification is required by the statute 

and would be contrary to the intent of 

6A to provide prompt public release of 

reports of harm that otherwise meet the 

requirements for posting in the 

Database. 

Comment 34—Several commenters 

state that the Database should encourage 

the release of contact information to 

manufacturers to enhance accuracy and 

product safety. One commenter states 

that consent to release contact 

information to manufacturers should be 

required to post a report of harm 

because it is the only way that 

manufacturers can resolve complaints 

and determine whether products are 

counterfeit. Another commenter notes 

that absence of contact information for 

the submitter is a complete bar to a 

manufacturer’s ability to respond to a 

report of harm. 

Response—We will transmit contact 

information to the manufacturer or 

private labeler pursuant to section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(iv) of the CPSA. The statute 

does not permit us to disclose the name, 

address, or other contact information of 

a submitter of a report of harm without 

the submitter’s express written consent. 

Neither transmission of a report of harm 

to a manufacturer or private labeler nor 

publication of a report in the Database 

is conditioned on a submitter agreeing 

to provide contact information to the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

Consequently, we are not amending the 

rule to create such a requirement. We do 

not agree that the absence of contact 

information on a particular report 

prevents a manufacturer from 

commenting on a report of harm. 

Manufacturers may have received 

similar claims from other consumers. In 

fact, manufacturers often receive far 

more incident reports directly from 

consumers than the CPSC receives. In 

those cases, manufacturers and private 

labelers may be able to distinguish 

product issues more quickly than the 

CPSC and may be in a better position 

than the CPSC to respond, regardless of 

whether contact information is 

provided. 

With regard to counterfeit products, 

neither section 6A of the CPSA nor the 

final rule addresses counterfeit 

products. We previously have 

conducted recalls on counterfeit 

products. A product’s status as 

counterfeit does not change the safety 

implications and the potential need to 

remove such a product from the hands 

of consumers. We work with 

manufacturers to ascertain the true 

manufacturer of such counterfeit 

products when there is an issue 

concerning consumer safety. 

Comment 35—One commenter would 

require identification of the victim by 

name for a report of harm to appear in 

the Database, although the information 

would be provided only to the 

Commission and would not be 

published. The commenter explains that 

identifying the victim would allow the 

Commission to cross-check data and 

prevent duplication, especially where 

different people report the same 

incident. The victim’s identification 

would allow the Commission to clarify 

which reports are about the same 

incident if multiple reports are 

submitted. 

Response—Section 6A(b)(2)(B) of the 

CPSA does not require identification of 

the victim by name, and we are not 

revising the rule as suggested by the 

commenter. Although knowing the 

victim’s name would help associate 

reports of harm for the same incident, 

we can appreciate how a submitter 

might consider such information to be 

private. For example, some parents, 

while eager to report an incident and to 

provide details about the injury 

sustained and the age and gender of 

their child, may not want to provide the 

child’s name. Likewise, other 

submitters, such as health care 

professionals or government agencies, 

may want to report details about a 

victim’s injury, age, and gender, but 

may not know the victim’s name or may 

have a legal obligation to keep the 

victim’s name confidential. To help 

identify and associate duplicate reports, 

we have decided to add ‘‘Incident date,’’ 

or an approximation, as a required 

minimum field. Providing such 

information should not be burdensome 

because typically it would be known or 

could be approximated. 

Comment 36—Some commenters 

would require the submitter of a report 

of harm to provide either an e-mail 

address or a phone number as part of 

the required contact information in 

§ 1102.10(d)(4) to allow for timely 

contact of the submitter and verification 

of the report of harm. The commenters 

argue that, without this information, it 

will be impossible for manufacturers to 

have a meaningful chance to verify the 

report of harm within the required 10 

business days. 

Response—Section 6A(b)(6) of the 

CPSA does not require the Commission 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76843 

to release contact information to the 

manufacturer or private labeler unless 

the submitter provides written consent 

to do so. Accordingly, manufacturers 

and private labelers are not entitled to 

verify the report of harm with the 

submitter before they submit comments 

or before the report of harm is posted in 

the Database. We recognize, however, 

that when a submitter does consent to 

release his or her contact information to 

the manufacturer or private labeler, 

having an e-mail address or a phone 

number is the preferred method for 

contacting the submitter because of the 

time limitations imposed by section 6A 

of the CPSA. Thus, when a submitter 

consents to releasing his or her contact 

information to a manufacturer or private 

labeler, the Database will ask, but not 

require, the submitter to provide an 

e-mail address or phone number to 

allow for timely follow up. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(5), entitled 

‘‘Verification,’’ would require submitters 

to verify that they have reviewed the 

report of harm and that the information 

contained in the report is true and 

accurate to the best of the submitters’ 

knowledge, information, and belief. As 

originally proposed, this section also 

required, as part of the verification 

process, that submitters of reports of 

harm indicate into what category they 

fit (i.e., consumer, government agency, 

health care professional). 

We received several comments related 

to this section. We have finalized the 

first two sentences without 

modification. We deleted the last two 

sentences regarding the category of 

submitter, as discussed below in 

response to Comment 40, and this 

section has been renumbered to 

1102.10(d)(7). 

Comment 37—Several commenters 

state that the final rule should require 

submitters to make an affirmation or 

oath regarding the truth of the 

information submitted in order to be 

included in the Database. 

Response—We agree. This is already 

a statutory requirement, and we have 

required this in § 1102.10(d)(7). 

Comment 38—Several commenters 

state that the incident report form 

should include a notation regarding the 

penalties for filing a false report to 

ensure that accurate information is 

submitted. The commenters say that the 

Commission should take an aggressive 

stance to discourage malicious and false 

information from being submitted and 

pursue enforcement actions, including 

seeking monetary penalties. 

Response—If we receive false reports, 

we will take all appropriate actions 

available to remove materially 

inaccurate information from the 

Database and seek appropriate legal 

remedies against those involved. We 

have declined to add a reference about 

penalties because we agree with some of 

our public hearing participants who 

indicated that such a statement could 

chill or intimidate a submitter from 

filing a legitimate report. We reviewed 

other agency databases like Safercar.gov 

and noted that no such statement exists 

on their incident reporting forms. 

Therefore, we determined that to make 

the Database user friendly to all 

submitters of reports of harm, we would 

not include the notation. 

Comment 39—Several commenters 

state that a report to Congress, which 

included a mock up of the incident 

report form, displayed a static, 

noncheckable verification of the report 

of harm. These commenters assert that 

the Database should require consumers 

to make an attestation by clicking on a 

button in the online incident report 

form. One commenter states that 

submitters should be able to ‘‘opt in’’ to 

submitting their contact information to 

the manufacturer or private labeler, and 

that, if they do not agree to provide the 

information, then we should collect 

statistical information on the reasons for 

refusal. 

Response—We agree that submitters 

should be required to affirmatively 

check a box for verification of the report 

of harm. However, the commenters 

appear to have been examining an early 

mockup of Database screens that were 

meant solely as an illustration and not 

an actual representation of the Database. 

Submitters of reports of harm will, in 

fact, be required to select or check a box 

to identify that they are verifying the 

report of harm in the online incident 

report form. Submitters will also be able 

to affirmatively select, or ‘‘opt in,’’ to 

send their contact information to the 

manufacturer. If such an option is not 

selected, however, we will not collect 

statistical information on the reasons for 

refusal. Congress gave submitters the 

option of whether to provide their 

contact information to manufacturers 

and private labelers, and we believe it 

would be an unproductive use of CPSC 

resources to collect data on a submitter’s 

reasons for refusing to submit their 

contact information to manufacturers 

and private labelers. 

Comment 40—One commenter would 

require the category of person 

submitting the report of harm for a 

report to be included in the Database. 

The commenter states that such 

information would provide context for 

database users who may place different 

weight on the report based on this 

information. The commenter adds that it 

is important to distinguish multiple 

reports of harm submitted on the same 

incident and to see the value and insight 

provided by each reporter. 

Response—Proposed § 1102.10(d)(5) 

would include the category of submitter 

as a minimum field requirement. 

Although identification of the category 

of submitter is required information, the 

proposed rule stated that the 

information would not be published in 

the Database. We agree that the category 

of submitter is an important piece of 

information to collect and display so 

that Database users can better 

understand not only who submitted the 

report of harm but also the relationship 

of the submitter to the victim. It is 

especially important to help users 

understand the submitter’s perspective 

when the Database may include 

multiple reports on the same incident. 

Accordingly, to clarify that ‘‘Category of 

submitter’’ is a minimum requirement 

for inclusion of a report of harm in the 

Database, we have revised the final rule 

to create a new § 1102.10(d)(5) titled 

‘‘Category of submitter,’’ and the 

‘‘Verification’’ section previously at 

§ 1102.10(d)(5) has been renumbered as 

§ 1102.10(d)(7). Section 1102.10(d)(5) 

now reads as follows: ‘‘Category of 

submitter. Indication of which category 

the submitter is in (consumer, 

government agency, health care 

professional, etc. * * *) from 

§ 1102.10(a).’’ We have removed similar 

language from the ‘‘Verification’’ section. 

Comment 41—One commenter would 

have us provide the category of 

submitter for a report of harm to 

manufacturers. The commenter notes 

that § 1102.10(d)(5) states that the 

information will be required at 

verification but will not be published in 

the Database. The commenter also 

claims that there is no reason or 

justification for depriving Database 

users of this information. 

Response—As set forth above in 

response to the previous comment, the 

category of submitter remains a required 

field, and has been removed from the 

‘‘Verification’’ section to § 1102.10(d)(5) 

of the final rule. For the reasons 

discussed above, information on the 

category of submitter will be transmitted 

to the manufacturer or private labeler, 

and will be displayed in the Database. 

Comment 42—Some commenters 

suggest using e-mail verification and 

validation to ensure that reports of harm 

are not ‘‘spam’’ (i.e., a form of e-mail 

where the same message is sent in large 

quantities to multiple parties). The 

commenters state that a report of harm 

should not be published unless the 

report can be validated. 

Response—We considered using 

e-mail verification and validation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

technologies, but decided not to 

incorporate these features because we 

did not want to deter submitters by 

creating additional steps, external to the 

incident report form, for them to enter 

a report of harm. However, we have 

incorporated other software design 

features to minimize computergenerated reports of harm, such as 

implementing Completely Automated 

Public Turing test to tell Computers and 

Humans Apart (‘‘CAPTCHA’’) challengeresponse tests. CAPTCHA is a 

technology intended to enable a 

computer system to distinguish between 

humans and computers. The computer 

challenges the user to complete a test 

(such as retyping text that has been 

distorted); a human will be able to 

complete the test, but a computer would 

not. As new technologies become 

available, we will incorporate them 

consistent with industry and federal 

government best practices. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(6) titled 

‘‘Consent’’ would explain that the 

submitter of a report of harm must 

consent to inclusion of the report of 

harm in the Database for the report to 

be published. If no consent is provided 

by the submitter, then the report will 

not be published in the Database. 

Several comments were received, 

resulting in no substantive changes to 

the final rule. We renumbered ‘‘Consent’’ 

in the final rule to § 1102.10(d)(8), to 

accommodate the addition of ‘‘Incident 

date’’ and ‘‘Category of submitter.’’ 

Comment 43—One commenter 

suggests that, on the incident report 

form, the language related to consents 

be consistent and suggests using ‘‘May 

we’’ for the consent to provide contact 

information to manufacturers as well as 

the consent to include the report of 

harm in the Database. The commenter 

states that this language may encourage 

consumers to provide contact 

information to manufacturers to 

enhance consumer safety and would 

allow for proper investigation of the 

complaint. 

Response—The commenter is 

focusing on language contained on a 

draft of the incident report form rather 

than language in the proposed rule 

itself. We agree that it would be 

appropriate to make the language 

consistent for the consents collected 

from submitters of reports of harm; 

therefore, we have changed the language 

on the incident report form so that both 

of the consents collected begin with 

‘‘May we.’’ 

Comment 44—One commenter states 

that the term ‘‘verification’’ implies a 

level of CPSC validation of reports of 

harm that is unlikely to exist and that 

is in contrast to the disclaimer. The 

commenter suggests using the term 

‘‘self-verification.’’ 

Response—Section 6A(b)(2)(B)(v) of 

the CPSA uses the term ‘‘verification’’ to 

explain that the submitter must state 

that the information is true and accurate 

to the best of the person’s knowledge. 

One dictionary definition of ‘‘verify’’ is 

‘‘to confirm or substantiate by oath.’’ See 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/verify. Because the term is 

correctly applied, easy to understand, 

and consistent with section 

6A(b)(2)(B)(v) of the CPSA, we are not 

amending the rule as suggested by the 

comment. 

e. Proposed § 1102.10(e)—Additional 

Information Requested on a Report of 

Harm 

Proposed § 1102.10(e), regarding 

‘‘Additional information requested on a 

report of harm,’’ would describe the 

Commission’s ability to seek other 

categories of voluntary information. In 

the preamble to the proposed rule, we 

invited comment on whether additional 

categories should include demographic 

data, such as race, or additional data 

about the product in question, such as 

whether the product still contained all 

of its original parts, or had been altered 

in any way that was not in accordance 

with a manufacturer’s instructions. 

Several comments were received 

related to this section, which has been 

finalized with a clarification as to the 

appropriate consent for minors. 

Comment 45—One commenter states 

that the Commission should request, but 

not require, the following information 

on a report of harm to substantiate the 

claim: (1) Verification that the label 

instructions were followed; (2) the date 

on which the harm occurred; (3) a brief 

description of the incident, including 

how the product was being used, where 

it was being used, a description of what 

happened, whether other products were 

being used, how much product was 

used over time; and (4) whether the 

manufacturer was contacted before 

submitting the report of harm. 

Response—We will collect more 

information about an incident on a 

report of harm than is minimally 

required to include the report in the 

Database. We will display such 

additional information, if consent is 

provided. For example, the current 

online incident report form asks 

whether the manufacturer has been 

contacted before filing a report of harm. 

We will continue to collect this 

information on the new reporting form. 

Also, as set forth in response to 

Comment 30, we have decided to make 

the incident date, or an approximate 

incident date, required information on a 

report of harm. The detail of an incident 

has been, and will continue to be, 

important information on a report of 

harm. The incident report form will 

have space for a narrative description of 

the incident, with guidance on the types 

of information that should be included. 

Finally, we will not specifically ask 

whether label instructions were read or 

followed because it unnecessarily 

implies that the consumer may be at 

fault. Manufacturers must evaluate 

safety with respect to the intended use, 

as well as the reasonably foreseeable 

misuse of a product. 

Comment 46—One commenter states 

that the Commission should require the 

submitter to retain the product for at 

least one year. 

Response—Currently, we request, but 

do not require, that a submitter retain 

the product for at least 30 days so that 

a CPSC investigator can review and 

inspect the product, if necessary. We 

will continue to advise submitters on 

the new version of the incident report 

form to retain the product for at least 30 

days. We do not believe that section 6A 

of the CPSA gives us the authority to 

impose product retention requirements 

on individuals as a condition of their 

submitting reports of harm to the 

Database. 

f. Proposed § 1102.10(f)—Information 

Not Published 

Proposed § 1102.10(f), ‘‘Information 

not published,’’ would describe the 

information that will not be published 

in the Database, including the name and 

contact information of the submitter of 

a report of harm; the victim’s name and 

contact information (if provided); 

photographs depicting a person or 

injury because of privacy concerns or 

because the Commission has 

determined that they are not in the 

public interest; medical records without 

the consent of the person about whom 

such records pertain (or that person’s 

parent or guardian if the person is a 

minor); confidential information; 

materially inaccurate information; 

reports of harm retracted by submitters 

who indicate in writing to the 

Commission that they supplied 

materially inaccurate information; and/ 

or any other material submitted on or 

with a report of harm that the 

Commission determines is not in the 

public interest to publish. In making 

such a public interest determination, the 

Commission will consider whether the 

information is related to a product 

safety purpose served by the Database, 

including whether the information 

helps Database users to identify a 

consumer product; identify the 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76845 

consumer product; understand the risk 

of harm related to the use of a consumer 

product; or understand the relationship 

between the submitter of a report of 

harm and the victim. 

Several comments were received 

related to this section. We changed 

‘‘materially inaccurate information’’ to 

‘‘information determined to be 

materially inaccurate’’ to be consistent 

with the statute. We have also made two 

grammatical changes, one to (f)(7), 

changing it from ‘‘Submitters of reports 

of harm may retract reports at any time 

***’’ to ‘‘Reports of harm retracted at 

any time by the submitters of those 

reports,’’ and one to (f)(8) deleting the 

words ‘‘to publish.’’ In addition, we 

added language clarifying that the 

Commission will exclude from 

publication in the Database consents 

and verifications associated with the 

submission of a report of harm. This 

change reflects our response to 

comment 65 and is consistent with 

§ 1102.12(e). 

Comment 47—One commenter states 

that § 1102.10(f)(3) should limit 

photographs to pictures of whole 

products, solely for identification 

purposes. The commenter asserts that 

the Commission should prohibit 

photographs of injuries, components, or 

people, and states that such pictures are 

not in the public interest and should not 

be published. 

Response—We agree that, for product 

identification purposes, photographs of 

the whole product are often the most 

useful. However, close-up photographs 

of the product labeling or the defect at 

issue may involve photographing a 

component part of the product. We also 

have jurisdiction over component parts 

of consumer products. Accordingly, we 

are not revising the rule as suggested by 

the commenter. 

Section 1102.10(f)(3) provides that 

photographs that the Commission 

determines are not in the public interest 

will not be published, ‘‘including 

photographs that depict a person or 

injury or constitute an invasion of 

personal privacy based on the Privacy 

Act of 1974, Public Law 93–579 as 

amended.’’ Upon reflection, we will not 

and cannot, prevent submitters from 

uploading photographs and documents 

that may be helpful to the Commission 

in any subsequent investigation, 

including photographs of injuries. 

However, we recognize that some 

photographs may be inappropriate for 

publishing in the Database. Therefore, 

we will review every photograph and 

attachment to determine whether it is 

relevant to the report of harm, violates 

any person’s privacy, and is in the 

public interest to publish. Product 

photographs are likely to always be 

found to be in the public interest to 

display. Photographs from which a 

person can be identified will not be 

published, unless the photograph is 

altered in such a way that it could not 

be used to identify a person. 

Photographs of injuries where a person 

cannot be identified may be published. 

Thus, we changed ‘‘photographs that 

depict a person or injury or constitute 

an invasion of personal privacy’’ to 

‘‘photographs that could be used to 

identify a person or photographs that 

would constitute an invasion of 

personal privacy.’’ This change reflects 

the Commission’s desire to allow 

photographs of injuries to be published, 

including those that depict or represent 

an image of a person, as long as the 

image could not be used by a Database 

user to determine the identity of the 

individual in the picture. The 

Commission will still exercise 

discretion and may decline to post a 

picture it determines is not in the public 

interest because it is too gruesome. 

Comment 48—Some commenters 

approve of the Commission’s use of 

criteria under proposed § 1102.10(f)(8) 

when exercising discretion regarding 

what goes into the Database when it is 

in the ‘‘public interest.’’ The commenters 

state that the proposed criteria will 

ensure that a wide variety of 

information will be published. 

Response—We agree and have 

finalized this section with one 

grammatical change deleting the word 

‘‘determination.’’ 

Comment 49—One commenter states 

that, if the Commission publishes 

attachments to a report of harm, the 

Commission should ensure that a 

submitter’s or a victim’s private 

information is not published in the 

Database. 

Response—Consistent with 

§ 1102.10(f), we will not publish a 

submitter or victim’s name or personally 

identifying information contained in 

any attachment, or any other 

information inconsistent with the 

Privacy Act of 1974, or the public 

interest, without the appropriate legal 

consents. Each attachment will be 

reviewed for content, and if necessary, 

not displayed or will be redacted before 

publication to exclude such 

information. 

Comment 50—Some commenters ask 

whether a submitter can withdraw a 

report of harm. 

Response—As set forth in 

§ 1102.10(f)(7), a submitter may retract a 

report at any time, if he or she indicates, 

in writing, to the Commission that he or 

she supplied materially inaccurate 

information. The reason that we are not 

permitting submitters to freely 

withdraw a report of harm is our 

concern that submitters may be subject 

to external pressure to withdraw reports 

of harm for any number of reasons, 

including settlement agreements with 

manufacturers conditioned on such 

withdrawal. 

g. Proposed § 1102.10(g)—Reports of 

Harm From Persons Under the Age of 18 

Proposed section 1102.10(g), entitled 

‘‘Reports of harm from persons under 

the age of 18,’’ would state that the 

Commission will not accept reports of 

harm submitted by persons under the 

age of 18 years without the consent of 

the parent or guardian of that person. 

The rationale for requiring consent on 

reports by a minor is the fact that age 

of legal consent in many jurisdictions is 

18 years old. Review of a report of harm 

by a parent or guardian will also ensure 

that information about a harm or risk of 

harm is being disclosed publicly with 

the parent’s consent, which addresses 

concerns related to the privacy of such 

information. Further, if a parent or 

guardian reviews the report, consent 

may also improve the accuracy of the 

information that the report contains. 

Two comments were received related 

to this section, which has been finalized 

without change. 

Comment 51—One commenter says 

that the minimum age to submit a report 

of harm should be 18 years old. Reports 

regarding injuries to minors should be 

submitted by a parent or guardian rather 

than the injured minor to ensure a 

degree of maturity in submitters and to 

increase accuracy. 

Response—We agree. l This 

requirement is already contained in 

§ 1102.10(g). No one under 18 may 

submit a report of harm without a 

parent or guardian submitting his or her 

own contact information and approving 

the submission. 

Comment 52—One commenter states 

that the proposed rule does not require 

a reporter to provide his or her age, but 

does restrict those under 18 from 

submitting a report of harm. The 

commenter states that, while the CPSC 

may intend to include this in the 

reporting form, age and consent are 

omitted from § 1102.10(d)(4). 

Response—The language in 

§ 1102.10(g) accurately reflects the 

intended requirement and how the 

information is conveyed on the 

reporting form. Age of the submitter of 

a report of harm is not, and was not 

intended to be, a required field. 

However, submitters will be prompted 

to certify that they are 18 years old or 

older. If they are not, a parent or 

guardian must provide a name and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

complete mailing address, and submit 

the report of harm. A submitter cannot 

complete a report of harm without 

certifying that he or she is 18 years of 

age or older. 

h. Proposed § 1102.10(h)—Incomplete 

Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.10(h) on ‘‘Incomplete 

reports of harm’’ would explain that 

information received related to a report 

of harm that is incomplete because it 

does not meet the requirements for 

submission or publication will be 

maintained for internal use. 

Several comments were received 

related to this section, which has been 

finalized without modification. 

Comment 53—Several commenters 

address incomplete reports of harm in 

proposed § 1102.10(h). The commenters 

claim that incomplete reports of harm 

should not be published in the 

Database. Some commenters suggest 

that consumers be able to return to 

incomplete reports of harm to finish 

them at a later date. The commenters 

also state that the Commission may keep 

incomplete reports of harm for its own 

use, but other commenters state that the 

Commission should not maintain 

incomplete reports of harm for its own 

use. 

Response—The comments raised a 

point of clarification regarding reports 

of harm. An abandoned report of harm 

is a report that may be complete or is 

incomplete but is never ‘‘submitted’’ by 

the consumer by pressing the ‘‘submit’’ 

button in the online form. Abandoned 

reports will not be kept by the 

Commission. In contrast to an 

abandoned report, an incomplete report 

of harm is submitted by pressing the 

‘‘submit’’ button in the online form. 

Incomplete reports of harm are 

considered incomplete reports because 

they do not meet the minimum 

requirements for publication in the 

Database, as set forth in § 1102.10(d), 

and therefore, will not be published in 

the Database. Under section 5(a)(1) of 

the CPSA, we have an obligation to 

‘‘maintain an Injury Information 

Clearinghouse to collect, investigate, 

analyze, and disseminate injury data, 

and information, relating to the causes 

and prevention of death, injury, and 

illness associated with consumer 

products.’’ Because of this mandate, for 

many years we have maintained a 

database on consumer product safety 

incidents, including information 

submitted online. The incident report 

form for reports of harm developed for 

the Database, both online and paper 

formats, will replace the incident report 

form currently in use. Regardless of 

whether reports of harm meet all of the 

requirements for submission into the 

Database, we will continue to maintain 

useful data for internal use under 

section 5(a)(1) of the CPSA as long as 

such information is submitted. A report 

that is not eligible for inclusion in the 

Database may still contain important 

information. For example, some reports 

will not meet publication requirements 

because the submitter failed to enter a 

required field. Other submitters may 

enter all of the substantively required 

fields, but the report may fail to qualify 

for inclusion in the Database because 

the submitter did not consent to 

publication. 

Regarding the ability to save a report 

of harm, submitters who register a 

password will be able to save a report 

of harm, and to return to the report for 

up to 30 days to edit and submit it. 

Once the submitter presses ‘‘submit,’’ the 

report of harm is deemed officially 

submitted. Once the report has been 

submitted, we will review the report to 

determine whether the minimum 

requirements for publication have been 

met. Reports of harm that are not 

submitted within 30 days of initiating 

the report are considered abandoned, 

and will not be maintained by the 

Commission. 

Comment 54—Some commenters ask 

whether we will notify a manufacturer 

if an incomplete report of harm is filed. 

Response—Reports of harm that do 

not meet the minimum qualifications for 

publication in the Database will not be 

sent to the manufacturer or private 

labeler pursuant to section 6A of the 

CPSA. However, such reports of harm 

may be sent to the manufacturer or 

private labeler pursuant to section 6(c) 

of the CPSA. We are currently 

considering whether notices under 

section 6(c) of the CPSA will be sent to 

the manufacturer through the Business 

Portal being developed for notices under 

section 6A of the CPSA. Regardless of 

how they are transmitted, a notice of 

incident report under section 6(c) of the 

CPSA will follow the time frames in 

existence now, and will not be subject 

to the shorter time frames for notices 

under section 6A of the CPSA. 

i. Proposed § 1102.10(i)—Official 

Records of the Commission 

Proposed § 1102.10(i), ‘‘Official 

records of the Commission,’’ would 

explain that reports of harm accepted by 

the Commission become official records 

of the Commission in accordance with 

16 CFR 1015.1, and that alteration (or 

disposition) of these records can only be 

undertaken in accordance with the 

procedures specified in this Part. 

No comments were received related to 

this section, which has been finalized 

with one modification to reflect that 

reports ‘‘submitted to’’ the Commission 

will become official records of the 

Commission. 

2. Proposed § 1102.12—Manufacturer 

Comments 

Proposed § 1102.12 would identify 

the process for who may submit 

manufacturer comments in response to 

receiving a report of harm. 

a. Proposed § 1102.12(a)—Who May 

Submit 

Proposed § 1102.12(a) would state 

that manufacturers or private labelers 

who receive a report of harm from the 

CPSC may submit a comment if the 

report of harm identifies such 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

We received several comments related 

to this section, which has been finalized 

without change. 

Comment 55—One commenter felt 

that industry members, other than those 

specifically identified in the report of 

harm, should be able to submit 

comments on a report of harm. 

According to this commenter, § 1102.16 

authorizes the Commission to include in 

the Database any additional information 

it determines to be in the public 

interest. 

Response—We are not revising the 

proposed rule as suggested by the 

commenter. Section 6A(c)(1) of the 

CPSA contains the procedural 

requirements for transmission of a 

report of harm to a manufacturer or 

private labeler. Transmission is required 

when a report contains the minimum 

requirements for publication, as set 

forth in section 6A(b)(2)(B) and 

§ 1102.10(d) of the final rule. If these 

minimum requirements are satisfied, 

then the statute requires the 

Commission, to the extent practicable, 

to transmit the report to the 

manufacturer or private labeler 

identified in the report. If the 

Commission transmits such report to a 

manufacturer or private labeler pursuant 

to section 6A(c)(1) of the CPSA, the 

manufacturer or private labeler who 

receives the report from the Commission 

may submit comments to the 

Commission on the information 

contained in such report, pursuant to 

section 6A(c)(2) of the CPSA (containing 

the procedural requirements for 

submitting comments in response to a 

report of harm). Therefore, based upon 

a plain reading of the statute, we believe 

that the procedural requirements of 

section 6A(c) of the CPSA, concerning 

both transmission and commenting, are 

unambiguous, and relate only to 

manufacturers or private labelers who 

are identified in a report of harm and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76847 

allowing only that manufacturer or 

private labeler to post a responsive 

comment. 

Comment 56—One commenter 

suggests that the Database present only 

anonymous, aggregated information 

regarding the submitters, but allow the 

named, registered manufacturer to see 

the information on the submitter for 

follow up purposes. The commenter 

states that withholding submitter 

contact information would inhibit 

premature litigation by shielding 

submitters from general searches by 

unsolicited law firms, and at the same 

time allow submitters to seek and retain 

counsel at their own initiative, if 

necessary. 

Response—We agree but for reasons 

other than those offered by the 

commenter. We believe that the statute 

is unambiguous in its exclusion from 

the Database of a submitter’s contact 

information; therefore, we will not make 

a submitter’s contact information 

publicly available in the Database. 

Section 6A(b)(6) of the CPSA expressly 

prohibits the disclosure of the name, 

address, or other contact information of 

any individual or entity that submits a 

report of harm to the Commission. The 

only exception to this is where the 

submitter consents, for verification 

purposes, to provide his or her contact 

information to the manufacturer or 

private labeler identified in the report of 

harm. In such a case, this information 

will be provided to the manufacturer or 

private labeler identified in the report of 

harm. 

Comment 57—One commenter states 

that manufacturers and private labelers 

should have sufficient opportunity to 

comment on reports of harm in the 

Database. The commenter is concerned 

that the private labeler should have the 

opportunity to comment on a report of 

harm, regardless of whether a 

manufacturer identified in such report 

provides comments or not. 

Additionally, this commenter asks for 

additional time to comment on reports 

of harm. 

Response—Where both a 

manufacturer and private labeler are 

identified in a report of harm, we will 

provide the opportunity to comment to 

each. Prior to publication, each entity 

will then have up to 10 days to provide 

comments on the report of harm. If we 

receive comments from both the 

manufacturer and private labeler, along 

with the consent to publish such 

comments, we will publish both 

comments in the Database. If 

transmission is made to both a 

manufacturer and a private labeler, yet 

we only receive comments from one 

entity, along with the consent to publish 

such comments in the Database, we will 

publish those comments in the 

Database. However, we disagree that 

additional time to comment is necessary 

or even permitted under the statute, 

given that simultaneous transmission 

will be made to any identified 

manufacturer or private labeler in a 

report of harm, and the existence of 

unambiguous statutory timeframes for 

transmission of reports of harm and 

publication of such reports to the 

Database. 

Comment 58—One commenter asks 

whether licensors would be considered 

private labelers and, if so, what would 

be the procedure for handling reports of 

harm relating to a consumer product 

with multiple licenses. 

Response—We do not consider 

licensors to be separately addressed by 

the statute, so a licensor must be 

identified as either a private labeler or 

manufacturer in order to receive a report 

of harm for comment. 

b. Proposed § 1102.12(b)—How To 

Submit 

Proposed § 1102.12(b) would provide 

the mechanism by which comments 

would be submitted; it would be via an 

online Business Portal, where the 

manufacturer would be able to register 

to submit comments on a secure, 

nonpublic portal provided through the 

Commission’s Database. The proposal 

also would allow comments to be 

submitted by electronic mail or regular 

mail directed to the Commission’s 

Office of the Secretary. 

Several comments were received 

related to this section, resulting in no 

substantive changes to the final rule. On 

our own initiative, we made two 

corrections in the final rule. We 

corrected an internal citation error in 

§ 1102.12(b)(1), changing the citation 

from § 1102.20(e) to (f), and we updated 

§ 1102.12(b)(2) to include an email 

address for the Office of the Secretary. 

Comment 59—One commenter 

suggests that manufacturers or private 

labelers be allowed to designate more 

than one employee or representative to 

comment on their behalf. 

Response—We have designed the 

Business Portal such that transmission 

of a report of harm will be made to the 

registered account user and additional 

recipients who can receive the 

notification of that transmission. 

Through the Business Portal, we will 

permit businesses to designate multiple 

email recipients, but allow only one 

account holder to submit a response. 

This will enable notification to more 

than one person per account in the 

event that someone is out of the office 

or not available; at the same time it will 

ensure that duplicate or multiple reports 

are not received from the same 

manufacturer/private labeler. 

Comment 60—One commenter 

suggests that manufacturers or private 

labelers be able to group common 

reports of harm found in the Business 

Portal, and provide a single response 

that can be tied to all of such reports of 

harm. 

Response—The ability of a 

manufacturer or private labeler to group 

common reports of harm and provide a 

single response is not currently a design 

feature of the Database software 

program. However, we are currently 

evaluating how this may be 

incorporated into the technology for 

inclusion in a subsequent release of the 

software. The rule is drafted with 

sufficient flexibility to accommodate 

such a future modification without 

requiring revision of the rule. 

C. Proposed § 1102.12(c)—What Must 

Be Submitted 

Proposed § 1102.12(c)(1) through 

(c)(4) would specify that the 

Commission will publish a 

manufacturer’s comments related to a 

report of harm if the comment 

specifically relates to a report of harm; 

contains a unique identifier assigned to 

the report; includes the manufacturer’s 

verification of the truth and accuracy of 

its comment; includes a manufacturer’s 

affirmative request that its comment be 

published; and consents to such 

publication. These requirements must 

be met for the manufacturer’s comment 

to be published in the Database. 

We received no comments on this 

provision. On our own initiative, 

however, we have finalized this section 

with clarifications. Section 1102.12(c) 

has been corrected to state that 

manufacturer comments will be 

published subject to § 1102.24 (on 

confidential information) and § 1102.26 

(on materially inaccurate information). 

In addition, § 1102.12(c)(2) clarifies that 

every report of harm has a unique 

identifier that must be stated by the 

manufacturer or private labeler 

submitting a comment on a report of 

harm. 

d. Proposed § 1102.12(d)—Information 

Published 

Proposed § 1102.12(d) would explain 

that the Commission will publish a 

manufacturer’s comments and the date 

such comments were submitted to the 

CPSC in the Database. 

No comments were received on this 

section of the proposed rule. However, 

on our own initiative, we clarified that 

a manufacturer’s comments will be 

published in the Database subject to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1102.24 (on confidential information) 

and § 1102.26 (on materially inaccurate 

information). 

e. Proposed § 1102.12(e)—Information 

not Published 

Proposed § 1102.12(e) would explain 

that the Commission will not publish 

the actual consents and verifications 

obtained from the manufacturer for such 

publication. 

We received no comments on this 

provision, and have finalized it without 

change. 

3. Proposed § 1102.14—Recall Notices 

Proposed § 1102.14 would state that 

information in a voluntary or mandatory 

recall notice will be made accessible 

and searchable to the public in the 

Database. 

We received one comment on this 

section of the rule, which we have 

finalized without modification. 

Comment 61—One commenter states 

that mixing recall information with 

incident report information may cause 

confusion, and that recall information 

must be clearly identified. 

Response—Including recall 

information in a product search is vital 

to Database users, so that they can 

immediately see whether a product has 

been recalled, in addition to viewing 

reports of harm involving the product. 

Accordingly, the search display screen 

will clearly identify recall information. 

Reports also will be displayed in a 

manner that identifies the nature of 

such information. Both will be clearly 

distinguishable as separate items in the 

Database. 

4. Proposed § 1102.16—Additional 

Information 

Proposed § 1102.16 would state that 

in addition to reports of harm, 

manufacturer comments, and recall 

notices required to be in the Database 

pursuant to section 6A(b)(1) of the 

CPSA, the Database will include any 

additional information that we 

determine is in the public interest, 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. 

Several comments were received 

related to this section, which has been 

finalized without modification. 

Comment 62—One commenter states 

that this provision does not specify who 

may submit the additional information 

that the CPSC decides to include in the 

Database. The commenter states that 

this section provides the ideal location 

for industry members—other than the 

named company or other professional 

organization—to comment on the 

incident or injury. 

Response—Section 6A(b)(3) of the 

CPSA states that, in addition to the 

reports of harm received by the 

Commission, the Database shall include, 

consistent with the requirements of 

Section 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA, any 

additional information that we 

determine to be in the public interest. 

The statute does not require that 

manufacturers or private labelers, other 

than those who are identified in a report 

of harm, be able to submit comments on 

that report of harm. Therefore, we are 

not revising the rule as suggested by the 

commenter. However, where 

information is not contained in a report 

of harm, but is contained in other 

material that we may be reviewing for 

release under the FOIA, we will follow 

the provisions of section 6(a) and (b) of 

the CPSA for any proposed disclosure of 

such information. 

Comment 63—Some commenters say 

that we should act expeditiously to 

include staff reports, research, and other 

relevant information in the Database 

pursuant to section 6A(b)(3) of the 

CPSA and proposed § 1102.16. 

Response—The initial Database 

requirements are set up so that the 

initial Database launch will only 

include the statutorily required 

contents, including reports of harm, 

manufacturer comments, and recall 

information. This provides us with the 

opportunity to observe and analyze the 

operation of the Database, and to assess 

how many reports of harm are actually 

submitted; how many meet minimum 

requirements and are sent to 

manufacturers for comment; and how 

many, and in what time frame, reports 

are posted to the Database. Therefore, 

the decision to include additional 

information in the Database under this 

provision, such as staff research reports, 

reports of epidemiologic in-depth 

investigations, or any other information, 

will be determined based on the 

operational requirements of the 

Database, and after sections 6(a) and (b) 

of the CPSA have been followed. Note, 

however, that many Commission staff 

research and reports are already 

publicly available on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov and 

will continue to be available at this site. 

C. Proposed Subpart C—Procedural 

Requirements 

1. Proposed § 1102.20—Transmission of 

Reports of Harm to Identified 

Manufacturer or Private Labeler 

Proposed § 1102.20 would describe 

the information contained in a report of 

harm that would and would not be 

transmitted to a manufacturer or private 

labeler. 

a. Proposed § 1102.20(a)—Information 

Transmitted 

Proposed § 1102.20(a) would state 

that the name and contact information 

of the submitter of a report of harm, 

photographs, and medical records will 

not be transmitted to the manufacturer 

or private labeler without consent of the 

submitter and any other legally 

responsible person (in the case of 

photographs and medical records). 

We received several comments on this 

section, which resulted in no changes. 

However, on our own initiative, we 

clarified the opening sentence of this 

section to clearly state that 

manufacturers and private labelers will 

receive all information on a report of 

harm, provided that the report meets the 

minimum requirements for publication. 

We also clarified (a)(1) to indicate that 

written consent could be in the form of 

checking a box on a report of harm. We 

also revised the discussion of 

‘‘photographs that will not be 

transmitted’’ to conform the language 

used to the change to 1102.10(f)(3) 

discussed in response to comment 47 

above. 

Comment 64—Some commenters ask 

whether manufacturers will be notified 

when an incomplete report of harm is 

filed. 

Response—Although the comment 

does not explain the reference to 

incomplete reports of harm, we interpret 

the commenter’s statement as asking 

whether manufacturers will be notified 

if an incomplete report of harm is filed. 

Under section 6A(b)(2) of the CPSA, we 

would not notify a manufacturer or 

private labeler if a report of harm does 

not contain the minimum requirements 

for publication as set forth in the statute 

and § 1102.10(d). Therefore, we would 

not transmit such a report to the 

manufacturer or private labeler for 

comment, nor publish such a report in 

the Database. However, under section 

6(c) of the CPSA, the Commission has 

adopted a practice of notifying 

identified manufacturers in incident 

reports that it receives from submitters, 

based on the requirement in section 6(c) 

of the CPSA to ‘‘communicate to the 

extent practicable information as to any 

significant risk of injury associated with 

such product.’’ Therefore, to the extent 

that a specific product and 

manufacturer is identified in an 

incomplete report of harm, we will 

continue to follow the practice of 

notifying the manufacturer pursuant to 

section 6(c) of the CPSA. Although such 

information will not be published in the 

Database, the information will continue 

to be transmitted to the manufacturer for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76849 

possible comment and release under 

section 6(b) of the CPSA. 

Comment 65—One commenter states 

that the consumer’s consent about 

whether his or her contact information 

should be provided to the manufacturer 

should be displayed in the Database. 

The commenter says that providing 

such information is important, and that 

the absence of consent for contact 

information to be transmitted to the 

manufacturer may indicate less 

capability to verify the report. The 

commenter claims that the preamble to 

the proposed rule stated that this 

information would be displayed, but the 

codified text did not. 

Response—We are not revising the 

rule as suggested by the commenter. We 

recognize that section 6A(b)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the CPSA requires a report of harm 

submitted for inclusion into the 

Database to include contact information 

for the person submitting the report, and 

that section 6A(b)(3) of the CPSA 

authorizes the Commission to include in 

the Database ‘‘any additional 

information it determines to be in the 

public interest.’’ However, it is difficult 

to see how a submitter’s decision not to 

transmit his or her contact information 

to a manufacturer or private labeler 

could be sufficiently in the public 

interest to display in the Database. 

Submitters may have a variety of 

reasons for withholding their consent to 

transmit contact information, including 

simply an unwillingness to talk to the 

manufacturer. In any case, the 

submitter’s refusal to consent to the 

transmission of his or her contact 

information does not necessarily reflect 

on the accuracy or truthfulness of the 

information presented in the report of 

harm. Given that a submitter’s reasons 

for withholding consent may be varied, 

we do not see any public interest in 

having the Database declare whether the 

submitter of a report of harm consented 

to the transmission of his or her contact 

information to the manufacturer or 

private labeler. Thus, we have chosen 

not to display this information. 

Absence of submitter contact 

information is not a bar to an 

investigation, but we recognize that the 

absence of contact information may 

make it more difficult for firms to 

investigate specific reports of harm. 

However, if a manufacturer or private 

labeler believes that such information 

would have been helpful, it can address 

that fact in a comment on the report of 

harm. 

b. Proposed § 1102.20(b)—Limitation on 

Use of Contact Information 

Proposed § 1102.20(b) would follow 

the statutory limitation in section 

6A(b)(6) of the CPSA on the use of a 

submitter’s contact information by the 

manufacturer or private labeler for 

verification only and no other purpose. 

Proposed § 1102.20(b)(1) through (b)(4) 

would explain that verification could be 

related to the identity of the requester; 

the consumer product, including name, 

serial or model number; the harm or risk 

of harm described in the report of harm; 

and/or a description of the incident 

related to the use of the consumer 

product. 

We have finalized this provision by 

deleting the words ‘‘and/or’’ after 

proposed § 1102.20(b)(3); and adding a 

new (b)(5) Incident Date; and a new 

(b)(6) Category of submitter, consistent 

with the changes to § 1102.10(d) for 

minimum requirements of information 

contained in a report of harm; by 

replacing the words ‘‘is limited to’’ to 

‘‘may include;’’ and making 

typographical changes. 

Comment 66—Some commenters state 

that we should discourage 

manufacturers, retailers, distributors 

and their representatives from harassing 

or intimidating submitters of reports 

because the consumer will suffer harm 

from misuse of the contact information. 

The commenters claim that the 

Commission should set the expectation 

that serious consequences will occur if 

a manufacturer misuses such 

information. In contrast, another 

commenter states that the Commission 

should make the submitter’s name and 

contact information available if 

requested by the manufacturer or 

retailer, and that contact of a consumer 

by a manufacturer should not be 

restricted once the consumer consents. 

Commenters argue that the language is 

inflexible in this sense. 

Response—With regard to the 

comment on making a submitter’s name 

and contact information available if 

requested by a manufacturer or retailer, 

or not restricting contact between a 

manufacturer and submitter after the 

submitter has consented to have his or 

her contact information sent to the 

manufacturer, the commenter may have 

misinterpreted the statute. Section 

6A(b)(6) of the CPSA explicitly 

prohibits us from disclosing a 

submitter’s contact information if the 

submitter has not consented; and, as 

explained immediately above, it also 

declares that the consumer information 

provided to a manufacturer may not be 

used or disseminated to any other party 

for any purpose other than verifying a 

report. We agree that the manufacturer 

can verify any information in the report 

of harm transmitted to them. We have 

revised the rule to ensure consistency 

with the statute. For the same reason, 

however, we are not revising the rule to 

allow manufacturers to use the 

information it receives from the 

consumer for purposes unrelated to 

verifying the report (such as offering a 

remedy to the consumer). However, we 

believe that section 6A(b)(6) of the 

CPSA and the final rule do not prohibit 

a consumer from asking the 

manufacturer to provide a remedy. 

Further, Section 6A(d) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to report to 

Congress annually on the Database. The 

report must include information on the 

Database’s operation, content, 

maintenance, functionality, and cost. 

Therefore, we intend, as part of our 

review of the Database’s operation and 

functionality, to determine if a 

manufacturer or private labeler has 

treated contact information transmitted 

to them according to the verification 

parameters outlined in section 6A(b)(6) 

of the CPSA. Section 6A(b)(6) of the 

CPSA expressly states, in part, that 

‘‘Consumer information provided to a 

manufacturer or private labeler * * * 

may not be used or disseminated to any 

other party for any purpose other than 

verifying a report’’ submitted under 

section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA. 

c. Proposed § 1102.20(c)—Timing 

Proposed § 1102.20(c) would explain 

the timing of the transmission of reports 

of harm to the manufacturer. The 

proposal would identify circumstances 

where transmission of a report of harm 

to the manufacturer within five business 

days may be impracticable. The 

circumstances would include: Where 

the identified manufacturer or private 

labeler is out of business with no 

identifiable successor; the submitter 

misidentified the manufacturer or 

private labeler; the report of harm 

contained inaccurate or insufficient 

information for identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler; or when 

the Commission cannot locate valid 

contact information for a manufacturer 

or private labeler. 

We received no comments on this 

provision. We have finalized this 

section with modification, adding a 

sentence to reiterate that if the 

Commission cannot determine the 

identity of the manufacturer or private 

labeler of a product from the report of 

harm, or otherwise, the report of harm 

will not be included in the Database. We 

have also made typographical changes 

and a grammatical correction to remove 

the additional ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

§ 1102.20(c)(2). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1An e-mail client is software used to manage a 

user’s e-mail. 

d. Proposed § 1102.20(d)—Method of 

Transmission 

Proposed § 1102.20(d) would describe 

a method for transmission of reports of 

harm to a manufacturer or private 

labeler based on registration by the 

manufacturer or private labeler in the 

online Business Portal. The proposal 

would explain that if a manufacturer or 

private labeler has not registered for 

electronic transmission, we will send 

reports of harm through the United 

States mail to its principal place of 

business, unless the Commission selects 

another equally effective method of 

transmission. 

One comment was received related to 

this section, which has been finalized 

without substantive modification. On 

our own initiative, we have corrected an 

erroneous cross reference in this 

provision by changing (e) to (f), and 

finalized this section with that 

typographical change. 

Comment 67—One commenter states 

that the final rule should allow for input 

and comments from licensors so that 

timely and accurate notification can be 

made to the correct product 

manufacturer or product labeler. The 

commenter explains that the proposed 

rule does not account for the fact that 

many consumer products on the market 

are licensed products that are 

manufactured by entities other than the 

brand owner. A licensor owns 

intellectual property, such as characters 

and logos, which it licenses for use on 

consumer products. The commenter 

states that most consumers will 

misidentify a licensor as a manufacturer 

or private labeler, noting that the brand 

owner is not necessarily the product 

manufacturer. The commenter asserts 

that false information will be published 

in the 10 day time frame when licensors 

are incorrectly identified and no 

comment regarding misidentification is 

made in a timely fashion. 

Response—We disagree regarding the 

transmission of reports of harm to 

licensors who do not fall within the 

definition of a ‘‘manufacturer’’ or 

‘‘private labeler’’ as set forth in the 

CPSA. Section 6A(c)(1) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to transmit 

reports of harm that meet the minimum 

requirements for publication to ‘‘the 

manufacturer or private labeler 

identified in the report.’’ Under section 

3(a)(11) of the CPSA, a ‘‘manufacturer’’ 

is defined as ‘‘any person who 

manufactures or imports a consumer 

product.’’ Section 3(a)(12)(A) of the 

CPSA defines a ‘‘private labeler’’ as ‘‘an 

owner of a brand or trademark on the 

label of a consumer product which bears 

a private label.’’ The CPSA further 

clarifies that ‘‘[a] consumer product 

bears a private label if (i) the product (or 

its container) is labeled with the brand 

or trademark of a person other than a 

manufacturer of the product, (ii) the 

person with whose brand or trademark 

the product (or container) is labeled has 

authorized or caused the product to be 

so labeled, and (iii) the brand or 

trademark of a manufacturer of such 

product does not appear on such label.’’ 

Thus, a licensor who meets the 

definition of a manufacturer or private 

labeler may register with the 

Commission to receive notice of reports 

of harm. If a licensor is named by the 

submitter of a report of harm, and the 

named entity appears to be a 

manufacturer or private labeler, it will 

receive notice of a report of harm. 

With regard to the ‘‘wrong’’ firm 

receiving notice of a report of harm, 

firms are free to make their own 

agreements regarding when they must 

inform certain business partners of 

reports of harm. We also encourage 

firms receiving notice of a report of 

harm that incorrectly identifies them as 

the responsible manufacturer or private 

labeler of a product to immediately 

inform the Commission so that we can 

stop the 10 day clock for publication of 

the report in the Database, if 

appropriate. Timing is critical here 

because if the recipient of the report of 

harm is not the manufacturer or private 

labeler, the Commission can decide not 

to post the report either because it is 

materially inaccurate or because it has 

determined that the report of harm is 

missing one of the minimum 

requirements for publication. Given our 

experience with the incident reporting 

system, we recognize that consumers 

may misidentify the product 

manufacturer or private labeler, and 

such claims of material inaccuracy 

generally are resolved quickly and 

easily if the receiving firm provides 

sufficient information. Firms have an 

incentive to immediately report errors to 

prevent reports of harm from being 

published in the Database that 

misidentify them as the manufacturer or 

private labeler. 

e. Proposed § 1102.20(e)—Size Limits of 

Manufacturer Comments 

Proposed § 1102.20(e) would state 

that we may, in our discretion, limit the 

data size of comments, including 

attachments, where such comments and 

attachments may negatively impact the 

technological or operational 

performance of the system. 

No comments were received on this 

section, which has been finalized 

without modification. 

f. Proposed § 1102.20(f)—Manufacturer 

Registrations 

Proposed § 1102.20(f) would describe 

the process of manufacturer registration 

in the Business Portal and would 

require a manufacturer or private labeler 

to provide updated contact information. 

Several comments were received on 

this section, resulting in no changes to 

the final rule. 

Comment 68—One commenter states 

that we should adopt procedures to 

ensure and confirm that the correct 

manufacturer received the report of 

harm and actively promote registration 

by manufacturers. The commenter also 

suggests developing and adopting 

procedures informing unintended 

recipients to notify the CPSC 

immediately to stop the clock so that the 

report of harm does not get posted 

without a chance for the correct 

manufacturer to comment. The 

commenter notes that we should 

develop a procedure to verify that a 

manufacturer is notified and that 

transmitted incident reports are actually 

received by the manufacturer 

verification in the Business Portal. 

Response—A manufacturer or private 

labeler that registers a user account with 

us will receive an email transmission of 

batched reports of harm to its registered 

users and will have user privileges to 

the Web based Business Portal where 

further details of the reports of harm 

will be accessible. Manufacturer or 

private labeler users will be enabled 

through the Business Portal to notify us 

if the product is not their own. 

Manufacturers or private labelers should 

notify us immediately so that we may 

determine disposition of the report of 

harm. Additionally, the manufacturer or 

private labeler may invoke the 

provisions governing materially 

inaccurate information as described in 

§ 1102.26. We cannot identify any 

procedure that would ensure that the 

correct manufacturer or private labeler 

received notice of a report of harm when 

we use an electronic transmission of 

such report. Support of email received 

or read notification depends on the 

email client 1 used by the manufacturer 

or private labeler. Many popular email 

clients do not support this feature. 

There are security and permission 

considerations even for email clients 

that do support this feature. Therefore, 

it is currently not feasible to develop a 

meaningful validation procedure for 

manufacturer or private labeler receipt 

verification for electronically 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76851 

transmitted notifications of a report of 

harm. 

Comment 69—One commenter asks 

whether a foreign corporation can 

register in the Business Portal or 

whether registration would be limited to 

domestic entities only. 

Response—We encourage registration 

by foreign manufacturers and private 

labelers of consumer products. The 

statute does not contain any restrictions 

related to the incorporation status of a 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

Registration by foreign manufacturers 

and private labelers will facilitate 

communication of potentially important 

product safety information to the entity 

with the most knowledge about the 

product identified in a particular report 

of harm. The transmission of reports of 

harm to foreign manufacturers and 

private labelers, combined with the 

resulting opportunity to comment, 

including the opportunity to make a 

claim of inaccurate information in a 

report of harm, will also contribute to 

the accuracy of the information in the 

Database. 

g. Proposed § 1102.20(g)—Manufacturer 

Comments Received After One Year 

Proposed § 1102.20(g) would address 

manufacturer comments received after 

one year, and would explain that a 

manufacturer or private labeler may 

comment on information received about 

a report of harm. The proposal would 

allow the Commission not to publish a 

manufacturer’s comment that is 

received more than one year after 

transmission of the report of harm to the 

manufacturer or private labeler where it 

would not be in the public interest to do 

so. 

We received one comment on this 

section, resulting in a change to the final 

rule deleting the phrase ‘‘received after 

one year’’ from the section heading and 

deleting the words ‘‘if such comment is 

received more than one year after 

transmission of the report of harm to the 

manufacturer or private labeler.’’ 

Comment 70—One commenter states 

that comments should be posted to the 

Database regardless of when we receive 

them. The commenter states that the 

proposed rule contains no explanation 

or justification for a one year time limit 

on comment submissions, and argues 

that the statute requires publication, 

without such a time limitation. The 

commenter adds that many reasons for 

a delay exist, including, for example, 

where an incident is reported and the 

submitter files a lawsuit much later, but 

within a two year statute of limitations. 

During such litigation, a manufacturer 

will gain many facts during the 

discovery period relating to the 

underlying incident report. The 

commenter states that there should be 

no limitation for submission of such 

information. Also, allowing rejection of 

comments after one year under an 

amorphous ‘‘public interest’’ standard 

will lead to arbitrary decisions and be 

contrary to the statute, the commenter 

asserts. 

Response—While there was no 

intention to create the appearance of a 

per se one year limitation on the 

submission of manufacturer and private 

labeler comments in the proposed rule, 

we recognize that many people may 

have reasonably interpreted the 

proposed rule this way. Further, we 

agree with the commenter that 

manufacturer comments relating to a 

report of harm can provide helpful 

information to consumers, no matter 

when they are received and published. 

Accordingly, we have removed any 

language that suggests the Commission 

would not post manufacturer comments 

based upon the submission date of the 

comment. Nevertheless, the 

Commission strongly encourages 

manufacturers and private labelers to 

submit timely comments. The 

Commission reserves the right to 

determine whether it is in the public 

interest to publish a manufacturer 

comment. For example, it may not be in 

the public interest for the Commission 

to publish comments that, in the 

unlikely event, contain language 

reasonably described as lewd, 

lascivious, or obscene. We added 

language to this effect in the final rule. 

2. Proposed § 1102.24—Designation of 

Confidential Information 

Proposed § 1102.24 would address 

‘‘confidential information’’ and would 

set forth criteria that must be followed 

to assert a claim of confidentiality. The 

proposed rule would define when 

claims should be submitted, the 

affirmative statements required to assist 

the Commission in an evaluation of the 

merits of the request, and the procedure 

we will follow for determining whether 

the information claimed is or is not 

confidential. 

a. Proposed § 1102.24(a)—‘‘Confidential 

Information’’ Defined 

Proposed § 1102.24(a) would interpret 

‘‘confidential information’’ in a manner 

similar to its meaning in section 6(a) of 

the CPSA to be information that 

contains or relates to a trade secret or 

other matter referred to in 18 U.S.C. 

1905, or that is subject to 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4). 

We received one comment on this 

section, which we have finalized 

without change. 

Comment 71—One commenter 

cautions about manufacturers and 

others being overbroad with claims of 

confidentiality in order to avoid public 

sharing of safety hazards. 

Response—We must redact those 

portions of a report of harm that contain 

confidential information as described 

under section 6A(c) of the CPSA and 

§ 1102.24. Most information submitted 

in a report of harm is not likely to 

contain confidential information 

because the submitter is likely to be 

someone who is not in a confidential 

relationship with the manufacturer or 

private labeler, or otherwise in a 

position to obtain confidential 

information. Therefore, broad claims of 

confidentiality are unlikely. However, 

for those claims on those portions of 

information that are confidential, we 

will follow section 6A(c)(2)(C) of the 

CPSA, redact the portion of the report 

that is confidential, notify the 

manufacturer, and follow the statutory 

and regulatory requirements for 

publication of the remainder of the 

report. If a claim does not meet the 

standard for confidential information, 

we will notify the claimant of the 

determination that the information is 

not confidential, and follow the 

procedures for publication in the 

Database. Finally, any manufacturer that 

makes a claim of confidentiality must be 

willing to assist in the defense of such 

claim and this should also inhibit 

overuse of confidentiality claims not 

made in good faith. 

b. Proposed § 1102.24(b)—Designation 

of Confidential Information 

Proposed § 1102.24(b) would state 

that a manufacturer may designate 

portions of information contained in a 

report of harm as confidential and 

would describe, at paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(6), the statements required 

to support the claim of confidential 

information. 

We received one comment on this 

provision, which resulted in a change to 

the final rule. In addition, we have 

made typographical changes. 

Comment 72A—One commenter 

noted that because the contact 

information of a submitter of a report of 

harm is not required to be disclosed to 

the manufacturer/private labeler, it may 

be impossible for the manufacturer/ 

private labeler to meet the requirement 

of § 1102.24(b)(4) that requires, as part 

of the designation of confidential 

information, the manufacturer to 

identify its relationship to the victim 

and/or submitter of the report of harm. 

Response—We agree with the 

commenter and have accordingly 

changed this provision to state that this 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

information is required to the extent it 

is known to the manufacturer/private 

labeler. 

c. Proposed § 1102.24(c)—Manner of 

Submission 

Proposed § 1102.24(c) would describe 

the manner of submission where 

confidentiality is asserted for a 

designated portion of a report of harm. 

The proposal would allow submission 

of confidentiality assertions in the same 

manner as manufacturer comments 

described in § 1102.12(b) and would 

require such requests to be 

conspicuously marked. 

We received no comments on this 

provision, and have finalized it without 

change. 

d. Proposed § 1102.24(d)—Timing 

Proposed § 1102.24(d) would explain 

that a request for confidential treatment 

must be received in a timely manner. If 

the request was received in a timely 

manner, the Commission may, in its 

discretion, withhold the report of harm 

from publication in the Database until it 

makes a determination regarding 

confidential treatment. 

We received several comments on this 

section and have clarified Commission 

policy regarding the treatment of a 

request for a designation of confidential 

information. 

Comment 72B—Several commenters 

address the timing of a determination of 

a claim of confidential information in a 

report of harm. One commenter states 

that confidentiality claims should be 

permitted only up until the day the 

report is published in the Database. 

Another commenter states that reports 

identified as confidential should remain 

in the Database while we review such a 

claim. Another commenter states that 

we must make a determination of 

confidential information before posting 

because most reports will not contain 

confidential commercial data and, 

because of the support necessary to 

sustain a confidentiality claim, 

manufacturers are unlikely to abuse 

confidentiality claims. Another 

commenter suggests that we set a time 

limit to determine whether information 

is confidential. One commenter states 

that we should carefully manage 

confidential business information in the 

Database by providing additional 

guidance on the interaction between 

section 6 of the CPSA and 

confidentiality determinations; the 

commenter says we should consider 

options, such as coded identifiers and 

devices, to provide confidential 

business information. Other 

commenters state that protection of 

confidential information is paramount 

and is protected under section 6(a) of 

the CPSA. Some commenters add that 

release of confidential commercial 

information is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1905 and can cause serious 

competitive harm. 

Response—The final rule, at 

§ 1102.24(b), sets forth the process by 

which a manufacturer or private labeler 

identified in a report of harm and who 

receives a report of harm may: (1) 

Review the report for confidential 

information; and (2) ask that we 

designate portions of the report as 

confidential information. Section 

1102.24(b) also describes the 

information that must accompany the 

submission of a claim of confidential 

information and, as stated in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 

29160), the criteria are similar to the 

requirements for submission of 

confidential information under section 

6(a) of the CPSA. Section 6A(c) of the 

CPSA requires the Commission to redact 

portions of reports of harm where such 

portions are claimed as confidential, if 

such information meets the criteria for 

confidential information under 18 

U.S.C. 1905 or is subject to Exemption 

4 under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). This process 

is similar to the practice we currently 

follow for determination of confidential 

information under section 6(a) of the 

CPSA. The operational design of the 

Database Business Portal will allow 

manufacturers to provide designations 

of confidential information to be 

submitted over a secure portal, and will 

allow manufacturers to provide 

comments through a secure portal. 

Therefore, additional coded identifiers 

would not be necessary. The 

Commission anticipates that it will be 

able to resolve most, if not all, 

confidentiality determinations within 

10 days of transmitting the report to the 

manufacturer or private labeler, so long 

as designations of confidentiality have 

been raised in a timely manner. Further, 

as discussed in response to comment 73 

below, the Commission’s experience 

suggests that it is exceedingly rare that 

a report of harm will contain 

confidential or trade secret information. 

If for whatever reason we are unable to 

make a confidentiality determination in 

the time frame specified in the statute, 

we will redact the alleged confidential 

information until such a determination 

is made. The rule specifies that the 

burden of proof concerning confidential 

information is on the manufacturer or 

private labeler. However, because we 

will, as a matter of policy, redact the 

alleged confidential information before 

publication, information that is claimed 

as confidential cannot be displayed, as 

one commenter suggested, during this 

time period when the Commission is 

assessing whether the information meets 

the standard for confidentiality. 

Comment 73—Some commenters 

would have us withhold publication of 

manufacturer requests for confidential 

treatment until we have made a 

determination and set a time limit for 

resolution. 

Response—If we receive a request for 

confidential treatment, we will review it 

and withhold the information if it meets 

the interpretation of confidential 

information. We will follow already 

established procedures for such a 

review, as well as rely on our long 

history in reviewing such information. 

We also will follow the procedure 

specified in section 6A(c)(1)(C) of the 

CPSA for treatment of information we 

deem not confidential, and for notifying 

the manufacturer or private labeler of 

that determination. Section 6A(c)(1)(C) 

directs us to notify the manufacturer 

and include the information in the 

Database. The manufacturer may seek 

action in U.S. District Court for removal 

of such information from the Database. 

With regard to designations of 

confidential information, we already 

have procedures for determining claims 

of confidentiality under section 6(a) of 

the CPSA, and thus, few, if any, 

manufacturers and private labelers have 

contested our determinations. Because 

we already have a process for the 

determination of confidential 

information and have substantial 

experience in making such 

determinations pursuant to section 6(a) 

of the CPSA, and because it is unlikely 

that reports of harm will contain 

confidential information, we have not 

added additional requirements related 

to designations of confidential 

information to the final rule. We expect 

that confidentiality claims that are 

timely submitted to the CPSC will be 

reviewed, and a determination will be 

made, before the report of harm is 

posted. 

e. Proposed § 1102.24(e)—Assistance 

With Defense 

Proposed § 1102.24(e) would explain 

that a request for confidentiality should 

be made only by those who intend, in 

good faith, and so certify in writing, to 

assist in the defense of confidentiality 

by the Commission in any later judicial 

proceeding that could be sought to 

compel disclosure. 

We received no comments on this 

provision, and have finalized it without 

change. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76853 

f. Proposed § 1102.24(f)—Commission 

Determination of Confidentiality 

Proposed § 1102.24(f) would describe 

the procedure for notifying the 

manufacturer or private labeler of a 

determination of a confidentiality 

designation. Proposed § 1102.24(f) 

would state that if a portion of a report 

is deemed confidential, the Commission 

will notify the manufacturer or private 

labeler, redact the information deemed 

confidential, and publish the report of 

harm as redacted in the Database. 

One comment was received regarding 

this section. Typographical changes to 

the final rule were made. 

Comment 74—One commenter states 

that records flagged as confidential 

should remain in the Database during 

the CPSC review period. 

Response—Any request that we 

receive designating a portion of a report 

of harm as confidential will be reviewed 

in accordance with the relevant case 

law, and we will make a determination. 

If the comment is received in a timely 

manner and is substantiated, we will 

make the determination before the 

information is posted in the Database. 

As stated in response to Comment 72, in 

the unlikely event that we are unable to 

make a determination in the time frame 

specified, we will redact the alleged 

confidential information while we 

continue to make a determination. 

g. Proposed § 1102.24(g)—Commission 

Determination of No Confidentiality 

Proposed § 1102.24(g) would state 

that, if a portion of a report is not 

deemed confidential, the Commission 

will notify the manufacturer or private 

labeler of the Commission’s 

determination and will publish the 

report of harm in the Database. 

No comments were received on this 

section of the rule. We have finalized 

with typographical changes. 

h. Proposed § 1102.24(h)—Removal of 

Confidential Information 

Proposed § 1102.24(h) would explain 

that a manufacturer or private labeler 

may sue in the appropriate U.S. District 

Court to seek removal of alleged 

confidential information published in 

the Database. 

No comments were received on this 

section of the proposed rule, and we 

have finalized it without change. 

3. Proposed § 1102.26—Designation of 

Materially Inaccurate Information 

Proposed § 1102.26 would contain the 

definitions and procedures for how 

claims of materially inaccurate 

information in reports of harm and 

manufacturer comments can be asserted 

and how we will evaluate such claims. 

We have changed the heading of this 

section to ‘‘Determination of Materially 

Inaccurate Information.’’ 

a. Proposed § 1102.26(a)—Definition of 

Materially Inaccurate Information 

Proposed § 1102.26(a)(1) would define 

‘‘materially inaccurate information in a 

report of harm’’ as information that is 

false or misleading in a significant and 

relevant way that creates or has the 

potential to create a substantially 

erroneous or substantially mistaken 

belief about information in a report of 

harm. We linked the ‘‘substantially 

erroneous or substantially mistaken’’ 

element to required information in the 

report of harm. 

Several comments were received on 

the definition of materially inaccurate 

information. In response to the 

comments and to clarify our definition, 

we have revised the definition 

consistent with the Commission’s 

original intent. In addition, on our own 

initiative, we have revised the list of 

fields that may contain materially 

inaccurate information in 

§ 1102.26(a)(1) to include the required 

field, ‘‘Incident date.’’ In addition, we 

have made typographical changes. 

Proposed § 1102.26(a)(2) would define 

‘‘materially inaccurate information in a 

manufacturer comment’’ as information 

that is false or misleading in a 

significant and relevant way that creates 

or has the potential to create a 

substantially erroneous or substantially 

mistaken belief about information in a 

manufacturer’s comment. We linked the 

‘‘substantially erroneous or substantially 

mistaken belief’’ element in a 

manufacturer comment to specific 

information set forth in 

§ 1102.26(a)(2)(i) through (v), all of 

which relate to information about the 

product, any Commission investigation, 

the identification of a responsible party, 

and any corrective action or other action 

taken by the manufacturer or private 

labeler of the product. 

Several comments were received on 

the definition of materially inaccurate 

information, resulting in some changes 

to the final rule as described below. In 

addition, we identified the description 

of the product as information upon 

which a claim of material inaccuracy 

could be made. We have also made 

typographical changes. 

Comment 75—Some commenters 

support the proposed definition of 

materially inaccurate information and 

state that it appears to cover material 

information only and not superficial or 

nonsubstantive errors. In contrast, a 

commenter criticizes the definition of 

materially inaccurate information as 

setting too high a standard and states 

that we should adopt a standard of 

reasonableness instead. The commenter 

points to the standard in U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 

cases on misrepresentation and claims 

that the SEC standard focuses on 

whether the misrepresentation misled a 

reasonable investor. 

Response—A definition of materially 

inaccurate information was proposed to 

explain what we view to be material and 

indicate that we were setting a high bar 

as we did not want to waste resources 

disputing nonsubstantive errors in 

Database entries. Black’s Law Dictionary 

defines ‘‘material’’ as ‘‘important’’ and a 

representation ‘‘relating to a matter 

which is so substantial and important as 

to influence a party to whom the 

representation is made’’ and ‘‘of such a 

nature that knowledge of the item 

would affect a person’s decision making 

in a significant way.’’ In response to this 

comment, we are revising the 

definitions of materially inaccurate 

information in a report of harm and a 

manufacturer comment to read 

‘‘information that is false or misleading, 

and which is so substantial and 

important as to affect a reasonable 

consumer’s decision making about the 

product.’’ This incorporates the concepts 

outlined in the proposed definition, 

follows the Black’s Law Dictionary 

meaning of ‘‘material,’’ and captures the 

commenter’s concern about 

‘‘reasonableness’’ by indicating that 

something is material if a reasonable 

consumer using the Database might be 

affected by the false or misleading 

information. 

Comment 76—Several commenters 

object to the particular phrases used in 

the definition. Two commenters claim 

that ‘‘preconditions’’ in the proposed 

definition create the potential to cause 

confusion and inappropriate limitations 

on what can be claimed to be materially 

inaccurate from a report. These 

commenters allege that we just want to 

publish reports of harm and 

manufacturer comments side by side, 

and they argue that this is insufficient 

to avoid reputational harm. The 

commenters state that manufacturers 

have a right not to have inaccurate 

information in a government-sanctioned 

Database. The commenters say that 

preconditions create an inappropriate 

limitation on what can be claimed to be 

materially inaccurate from a report of 

harm. 

Response—We agree that the Database 

should strive for accuracy. However, we 

note that Congress also required a 

disclaimer to be placed on the Database, 

understanding that we would receive 

information that would present 

challenges in terms of content and/or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

descriptions of products. The proposed 

definition of materially inaccurate 

information was designed not only to 

ensure that information that is 

inaccurate and material could be 

claimed and not published, but also to 

ensure that information that was 

inaccurate, but not material (such as a 

non substantive mistake in a report of 

harm), still would be subject to 

manufacturer comment and later 

publication in the Database. For 

example, if a report of harm contains a 

misspelling of the product brand name, 

we would not consider this error as 

materially inaccurate. If, however, it is 

claimed that the report of harm 

misidentifies the product or the 

manufacturer, we would consider such 

errors to be possible evidence of 

material inaccuracy. We are cognizant of 

the issues concerning harm to 

reputation and will review claims of 

material inaccuracy with such concerns 

in mind. 

Comment 77—One commenter would 

have the definition relate to the key 

elements required in the report of harm, 

and states that the definition was correct 

to the extent that it would define 

information as materially inaccurate if it 

is false or misleading in a significant 

and relevant way. The commenter 

would simplify the definition to 

‘‘information that is false or misleading 

in a significant and relevant way.’’ Other 

commenters claim that the definition 

contains redundant words. The 

commenters state that the phrase ‘‘create 

or have the potential to create a 

substantially erroneous or substantially 

mistaken belief in a Database user’’ is 

redundant as compared to ‘‘false or 

misleading in a significant and relevant 

way.’’ The commenters would remove 

the allegedly redundant text, and claim 

it adds no value, and potentially creates 

room for argument and subjective 

interpretation of what a Database user 

may or may not think, especially where 

the CPSC is intent on limiting the scope 

of comments on reports of harm. 

Response—We adopted the referenced 

descriptive words and phrases in the 

definition to give context to evaluating 

the information and to provide 

additional guidance to submitters of 

reports of harm, manufacturers, and 

Database users as to what we mean by 

‘‘materially inaccurate.’’ We view the 

referenced words as descriptive and not 

redundant. They emphasize that the bar 

for determining materially inaccurate 

information is a high one. One aspect of 

the definition focuses on the 

information stating that it must be false 

or misleading. The other aspect of the 

definition focuses on the Database user 

indicating the allegedly inaccurate 

information must have a potential to 

create a substantially erroneous or 

substantially mistaken belief in the 

Database user. We are revising the 

definition in response to comments but 

will still focus on these two aspects of 

materiality which we do not believe to 

be redundant. 

Comment 78—One commenter objects 

to the word ‘‘substantially’’ in the 

definition as an additional, 

unreasonably restrictive criterion with 

no basis in the statute. The commenter 

states that the rule fails to define the 

word and inappropriately narrows the 

types of false or misleading information 

that would be considered materially 

inaccurate. The commenter states that 

the word ‘‘substantially’’ also creates an 

extra step that the CPSC must interpret, 

which will be inherently subjective and 

will lead to arbitrary decisions about 

whether to remove or correct 

information that is concededly false or 

misleading. The commenter also states 

that the rule contains no criteria or 

procedures that spell out how the 

Commission staff will make such 

determinations. The commenter states 

that if the CPSC leaves the word 

‘‘substantially’’ in the rule, we should 

spell out how the evaluation will be 

made and what qualifications CPSC staff 

must possess to be assigned to make 

such determinations. 

Response—Our prior use of the word 

‘‘substantially’’ in the definition of 

materially inaccurate information was 

consistent with the statute’s 

requirement of materiality. ‘‘Substantial’’ 

goes to the element of materiality in a 

Database user’s belief. Black’s Law 

Dictionary defines ‘‘material’’ as 

‘‘important’’ and a representation 

‘‘relating to a matter which is so 

substantial and important as to 

influence a party to whom the 

representation is made’’ and ‘‘of such a 

nature that knowledge of the item 

would affect a person’s decision making 

in a ‘significant’ way.’’ However, our 

revision of the definition addresses the 

commenter’s concern. For example, if 

we receive a report with a date of 

incident identified, and then we receive 

a manufacturer comment that the 

product was not manufactured at the 

time of the date of incident, we believe 

that such a report, if properly 

substantiated, would meet the definition 

of materially inaccurate. With regard to 

staff qualifications to make such 

determinations, we have made 

assessments regarding information 

contained in incident reports since the 

inception of the agency. 

Comment 79—One commenter objects 

to the word ‘‘liability’’ in determining 

whether a manufacturer’s comment is 

materially inaccurate. Proposed 

§ 1102.26(a)(2)(i) would include 

‘‘liability’’ as information that could be 

inaccurate in a manufacturer comment. 

The commenter points out that if the 

information were submitted under 

section 15 of the CPSA and § 1115.12(a), 

a company may deny that the 

information it submits reasonably 

supports the conclusion that its product 

contains a defect that could create a 

substantial product hazard. The 

commenter states that manufacturers 

may wish to make a similar statement in 

response to a report of harm to be 

included in the Database indicating that 

the report does not reasonably support 

the conclusion that the product contains 

a defect. The commenter states that 

proposed § 1102.26(a)(2)(i) could be 

construed as a statement of liability, and 

thus might expose the manufacturer’s 

comment to challenge by the submitter 

or some other interested party as being 

materially inaccurate because the 

product is defective. The commenter 

states that such a scenario would set up 

a ‘‘mini-litigation’’ in which the CPSC 

essentially is being asked to make a 

defect determination regarding the 

product, under the guise of making a 

determination regarding material 

inaccuracy, as opposed to appropriately 

conducting a preliminary investigation 

of the potential product hazard. The 

commenter contends that the Database 

is not the appropriate venue for the 

Commission to make a defect 

determination, and the collateral effect 

would be to complicate material 

inaccuracy determinations regarding 

manufacturer comments. 

Response—The Commission agrees 

that we do not want to set up a ‘‘minilitigation’’ regarding causation when we 

are determining claims of material 

inaccuracy. For this reason, we have 

revised the rule to delete reference to 

the nature, scope or cause of the harm 

and liability. Instead, we have indicated 

that manufacturers can claim material 

inaccuracy regarding the harm or risk of 

harm identified in the report. 

b. Proposed § 1102.26(b)—Request for 

Designation of Materially Inaccurate 

Information 

Proposed § 1102.26(b) would establish 

the procedure for designating materially 

inaccurate information. In the preamble 

to the proposed rule (75 FR at 29161), 

we asked whether this section should 

include a burden of proof requirement 

for materially inaccurate information 

and, if so, what would be the meaning 

of the term, and what standard would be 

imposed under it. 

One comment was received, resulting 

in the addition of a burden of proof 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76855 

requirement for claims of material 

inaccuracy, as set forth in response to 

Comment 80 below. We have made a 

clarification in the heading which now 

reads ‘‘(b) Request for determination of 

materially inaccurate information.’’ 

Comment 80—One commenter states 

that we should impose a burden of proof 

requirement in § 1102.26(b), the same 

way we defined it for making a 

determination and supporting a claim of 

confidential information in § 1102.24(b). 

A requester seeking a designation of 

materially inaccurate information 

should bear the burden of proof on 

defining the information that is 

materially inaccurate and supporting 

the claim. 

Response—We agree that we should 

impose a burden of proof requirement 

for materially inaccurate information, 

similar to how we request designation 

and support for confidential information 

claims. Therefore, we have revised 

§ 1102.26(b) to state that a requester 

seeking removal or correction of alleged 

materially inaccurate information, 

before or after posting in the Database, 

bears the burden of proving that such 

information meets our definition of 

materially inaccurate information and 

that such requester bears the burden of 

supporting the claim of materially 

inaccurate information with 

documentation or other information 

showing that the information meets the 

requirement. 

c. Proposed § 1102.26(c)—Manner of 

Submission—Length of Request and 

Expedited Review 

Proposed § 1102.26(c) would explain 

the manner of submission for 

manufacturers and private labelers and 

all other requesters. The proposal also 

would address the length of the request 

and would allow for expedited review 

of requests that are no more than five 

pages in length, including attachments. 

This provision also would state that, 

regardless of the length, all submissions 

would be reviewed. 

We received several comments on this 

section, which resulted in no changes to 

the final rule. 

Comment 81—One commenter 

suggests that the expedited review 

proposal is inherently flawed and that 

we should rethink this proposal. 

Sections 1102.26(c) and 1102.26(i)(2) of 

the proposed rule provide 

manufacturers and private labelers with 

a short, 10-business-day time frame to 

allege a material inaccuracy, meet the 

burden of proof, and comply with the 

lengthy evidentiary requirement. 

Companies must decide whether to 

provide: (a) Sufficient evidence, which 

may be greater than five pages, and risk 

that the inaccurate report of harm be 

posted before review by the Commission 

staff, or (b) a shortened version of the 

evidence, which meets the five pages or 

less requirement, and then have the 

report of harm reviewed and posted to 

the Database because of insufficient 

evidence of material inaccuracy. 

Response—The provision for 

expedited review is based on the 

statutory time frames in section 6A(c)(3) 

of the CPSA, where we must publish the 

reports of harm not later than the tenth 

business day after transmission of such 

report to the manufacturer or private 

labeler. A determination of material 

inaccuracy is tied to the substance of the 

claim and should be capable of 

expression in five pages. Our experience 

in reviewing comments submitted under 

section 6(b) of the CPSA is that 

manufacturers often repeat comments 

and arguments; this repetition adds to 

the length, but not necessarily to the 

substance, of an argument. We 

emphasize that we will accept any 

length of submission, but that it may be 

more difficult to make the required 

determinations in the time allotted if the 

length and content are voluminous. The 

expedited review procedure is designed 

to give manufacturers a process for 

responding quickly and in a way that 

will allow us to evaluate their claims 

more quickly. Therefore, we are not 

revising this provision. 

Comment 82—One commenter states 

that we should provide for an expedited 

claim review within the 10 day period 

before publication of the report of harm 

in the Database. Another commenter 

states that an expedited review gives the 

CPSC no deadlines to complete such a 

review, and that such a completion time 

should be provided. The commenters 

state that the expedited review 

provision does not ensure that claims of 

material inaccuracy will be resolved 

before the report is published in the 

Database. Another commenter states 

that a five page limit for expedited 

review is unreasonably restrictive 

adding that we did not provide any time 

period for investigating or resolving a 

claim. Another commenter would revise 

the rule so that, where a manufacturer 

limits a claim to 10 pages, including 

attachments, and submits the request 

within five days of receiving the report 

of harm, the CPSC would render a 

decision within five days, before the 

report of harm is posted in the Database. 

Another commenter urges us to 

implement specific procedures for 

handling expedited claims of material 

inaccuracy to resolve them within one 

to three business days before 

publication, and says we should 

prioritize resolution of these claims 

quickly and fairly. 

Response—We will try to decide 

claims of material inaccuracy as 

expeditiously as possible, but it would 

be impractical to revise the rule to 

impose specific time frames on our 

decision making process. The number of 

claims of material inaccuracy and the 

possibility of other priorities that 

demand our attention may affect the 

timing of our decisions. We will use our 

best efforts to review submissions and 

make determinations within the 10- 

business-day time frame, when 

submissions are received timely. But if 

no determination is made by the tenth 

business day, we must post the report of 

harm in the Database pursuant to 

section 6A(c)(3)(A) of the CPSA. Once a 

report of harm has been posted in the 

Database, we will follow the procedures 

set forth in section 6A(c)(4)(B) of the 

CPSA, and § 1102.26(h), for removing 

any material inaccuracies after such a 

determination is made. 

Comment 83—One commenter states 

that proposed § 1102.26(c)(3) would 

allow any person to challenge a 

comment as materially inaccurate, 

including many persons who have no 

relationship to the alleged incident, 

such as class action attorneys, 

competitors, and others who might have 

an inappropriate motive to claim 

materially inaccurate information. The 

commenter states that the Commission 

would be creating a ‘‘free for all’’ 

atmosphere by encouraging such people 

to collaterally battle about issues using 

the CPSC’s Database. The commenter 

states that the proposal would have the 

CPSC serve as referee. The commenter 

states that the value of inviting such 

comments is extraordinarily low; 

therefore, the commenter would have us 

delete the provision. 

Response—Nothing in the statutory 

text allows us to limit who may submit 

a claim of material inaccuracy. 

Accordingly, we will consider any claim 

of material inaccuracy as long as it 

meets the minimum requirements for 

submission of a claim and is 

appropriately supported. 

d. Proposed § 1102.26(d)—Timing of 

Submission 

Proposed § 1102.26(d) would address 

the timing of a request for a 

determination of materially inaccurate 

information and state that, if a request 

was received prior to publication, we 

may withhold the report of harm from 

publication in the Database until we 

make a determination. Absent such a 

determination, the report of harm would 

publish on the tenth business day after 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

we transmitted the report to the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

We received several comments 

regarding this section, which resulted in 

a clarification of the final rule. The 

section previously stated that the 

Commission ‘‘may withhold a report of 

harm from publication in the Database 

until it makes a determination’’ and will 

now read that the Commission ‘‘cannot 

withhold a report of harm from 

publication in the Database until it 

makes a determination.’’ The word 

‘‘generally’’ has also been deleted from 

the next line. 

Comment 84—Several commenters 

note that we did not impose any time 

frame by which our determinations had 

to be made, and that the statute gives us 

seven days to post the determination in 

the Database after we have concluded 

our investigation. Some commenters 

state that, without a time frame 

reference, the determination could take 

forever, so we should either set a 

deadline for determination, or delay the 

posting of reports of harm that are 

challenged until a determination is 

made. The commenters also note that 

the need for an expedited determination 

would be removed if we make a 

determination before posting, or adopt a 

time limit. Other commenters assert that 

we should clarify both the requirement 

for challenging a report as false or 

inaccurate within the response window 

and the process for filing such 

challenges if relevant information 

becomes available beyond the response 

time. Another commenter says that any 

report undergoing a material inaccuracy 

review after publication should be 

identified or marked in the Database so 

that users will be aware that the report 

is undergoing such a review. Other 

commenters suggest that we identify 

and suspend from the 10-day 

publication requirement, any 

information in a report of harm 

identified as materially inaccurate, 

pending investigation by our staff, until 

we have completed the investigation or 

made necessary corrections. 

Response—Section 6A of the CPSA 

allows us to review information alleged 

to be materially inaccurate, both before 

the information is published in the 

Database and after it is published. 

Requests from commenters that we 

suspend the 10-day publication 

requirement and not publish any 

information in a report of harm claimed 

to be materially inaccurate until we 

have completed an investigation caused 

us to re-examine the requirements of the 

statute. The plain language of section 

6A(c)(4)(A) states that if the 

determination that information is 

materially inaccurate has been made 

prior to posting, then the Commission 

must remove, correct, or add 

information to correct the materially 

inaccurate information. Further, read 

together, sections 6A(c)(3)(A) and 

6A(c)(4)(A) of the CPSA require that we 

must publish reports of harm or 

manufacturer comments in the first 

instance, not later than the tenth 

business day after transmission to the 

manufacturer unless we have 

‘‘determined’’ that the information is 

materially inaccurate. The rule has been 

revised to ensure consistency with the 

statute. 

Moreover, section 6A(f) of the CPSA 

states that reports of harm included in 

the Database are not subject to section 

6(b) of the CPSA. Allowing delay of the 

posting of reports of harm beyond the 

tenth business day while the 

Commission considers a claim of 

material inaccuracy would be 

tantamount to reinstating section 6(b) of 

the CPSA with regard to that report of 

harm. Such a result would be 

inconsistent with the statute as Congress 

intentionally excluded reports of harm 

from section 6(b). Additionally, two 

provisions in section 6A contemplate 

that the Database may contain 

materially inaccurate information. 

Section 6A(b)(5) of the CPSA requires a 

disclaimer regarding the accuracy of the 

data. Section 6A(c)(4)(B) of the CPSA 

provides a mechanism for removal of 

information determined to be materially 

inaccurate by the Commission. As 

evidenced by the statute, Congress 

balanced the accuracy of the 

information in the Database with the 

public’s need for more immediate access 

to public safety related data. The better 

reading of Congressional intent is not to 

upset this balance. 

Our timeline for any investigation of 

whether information is materially 

inaccurate once it has been published 

will depend on an evaluation of the 

information claimed to be materially 

inaccurate. We are not adopting an 

arbitrary time frame based on estimates 

of yet unknown information. The 

Commission will endeavor to act on 

such requests in a timely manner. 

We also are not adopting the 

suggestion to delay posting of the 

information, especially if no 

determination can be made from the 

information submitted about a claimed 

material inaccuracy, because section 

6A(c)(4) of the CPSA does not give us 

that option. The final rule builds in a 

process within the confines of the 

statute to address the timing concerns 

expressed by stakeholders. The rule 

creates an electronic process for 

notification of manufacturers and 

private labelers of reports of harm, 

thereby expediting transmission of the 

reports for comment. Recognizing the 

10-day time frame built into the statute, 

by this rule, the Commission has created 

a fast track review system expediting 

review of claims of material 

inaccuracies to ensure that 

manufacturers’ concerns are addressed 

in a timely fashion. While we can 

address manufacturers’ comments 

operationally by building systems such 

as these to ensure a timely comment and 

response process, we cannot ignore the 

timelines built into the statute. Nor 

would we want to do so as the purpose 

of the Database is to provide critical 

safety information to consumers who up 

until now have not had access to 

incident data in a timely manner. If 

information has not been determined to 

be materially inaccurate, it must be 

published in the Database. Finally, the 

statute does not require us to designate 

that any such report is under 

investigation for material inaccuracy, 

and we decline to add such information 

to the Database. 

Comment 85—One commenter states 

that when a prima facie case of 

inaccuracy is made, we should exercise 

our discretion not to publish the report 

of harm pending confirmation of the 

veracity of the claim. 

Response—Section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA requires that if we determine 

information in a report of harm or a 

comment is materially inaccurate prior 

to posting the information in the 

Database, we must take one of three 

specific options to address the material 

inaccuracy. Section 6A(c)(3) of the 

CPSA requires that we publish reports 

of harm (that otherwise meet the 

requirements for publication) not later 

than the tenth business day after the 

date we transmit it to the manufacturer. 

Moreover, section 6A(c)(3) also requires 

publication of manufacturer comments 

upon request. Unless we have 

determined that the information in the 

report of harm or the comment is 

materially inaccurate, we must publish 

the report or comment in the Database. 

The language ‘‘except as provided in 

paragraph 4(A),’’ allows us to withhold 

from publication any information in a 

report of harm or a manufacturer 

comment where we can make that 

determination before posting based on 

the claim submitted. However, absent 

such a determination, we must publish 

a report of harm or manufacturer 

comment. We do not have authority, 

beyond what is specified in the 

referenced statutory provision, to 

withhold from publication a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment absent 

a determination of material inaccuracy. 

We must be provided with legitimate 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76857 

and substantiated information 

supporting such claims and have built 

an expedited review system to respond, 

within the confines of the statute, to our 

stakeholders’ timing concerns. We will 

not withhold from publication any 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment where such claim is 

unsupported. 

e. Proposed § 1102.26(e)—Assistance 

With Defense 

Proposed § 1102.26(e) would explain 

that a manufacturer or private labeler’s 

request for a determination of material 

inaccuracy should be made only by 

those who intend in good faith to assist 

in the defense of the correction of a 

material inaccuracy by the Commission 

in any later judicial proceeding that 

could be sought to compel disclosure. 

This provision is similar to one found 

in the Commission’s FOIA regulations 

concerning the assertion of 

confidentiality. The Commission 

believes that this provision requires 

those seeking a determination that 

information in a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment is materially 

inaccurate to stand behind their 

assertion where the Commission is 

being sued to compel disclosure of such 

information. 

We received no comments on this 

provision, and have finalized it without 

change. 

f. Proposed § 1102.26(f)—Notice 

Proposed § 1102.26(f) would state that 

we will notify the person or firm 

requesting a determination regarding 

materially inaccurate information and 

the method of resolution after resolving 

such a request. 

We received one comment related to 

this section of the proposed rule, but 

have finalized it without modification. 

Comment 86—One commenter states 

that the proposed rule may be fatally 

flawed for not providing adequate 

procedural due process for 

manufacturers and private labelers 

regarding determinations of confidential 

and materially inaccurate information. 

For example, the rule does not specify: 

Who will make initial determinations 

about confidential information and 

materially inaccurate information; 

whether there will be an appeal 

procedure to challenge initial 

determinations, or whether 

manufacturers and private labelers must 

challenge determinations in a U.S. 

District Court; whether an appeal is 

provided, who will make decisions on 

appeal; and whether there will be a 

chance to submit evidence, or make oral 

argument for the record. 

Response—We have not revised the 

rule to add process mechanisms for the 

determination of confidential and 

materially inaccurate information. We 

address the confidentiality requirements 

under that provision. 

First, Congress established a statutory 

scheme that favors disclosure of reports 

of harm over a lengthy review process 

for manufacturers, such as what 

currently exists for FOIA requests and 

the requirements of section 6(b) of the 

CPSA. One purpose of the Database is 

to eliminate that lengthy process, and to 

provide timely consumer access to 

product safety information. Moreover, 

the statute specifically states that 

section 6(b) of the CPSA does not apply 

to the publication of reports of harm in 

the Database. The statute also does not 

require us to provide a formal hearing 

for those contesting our decision with 

regard to confidential and materially 

inaccurate information, and we decline 

to use resources in this manner. 

Second, with regard to claims of 

material inaccuracy, manufacturers and 

private labelers will have an 

opportunity to review a report of harm 

before publication, to comment on the 

report, and to claim that a report 

contains a material inaccuracy. We will 

take claims of material inaccuracy 

seriously, and give proper consideration 

to each claim. If a claim of inaccuracy 

is denied based on the information 

provided, manufacturers and private 

labelers may submit new or additional 

information to establish the claimed 

inaccuracy at any time. 

Finally, with regard to due process, 

the Commission believes strongly in 

maintaining adequate due process 

protections. Due process is a flexible 

concept, depending on the 

circumstances, and essentially requires 

notice and an opportunity to be heard, 

both of which are sufficiently present in 

the final rule. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 

U.S. 319, 333 (1976); Silvernail v. 

County of Kent, 385 F.3d 601, 604 (6th 

Cir. 2004) (‘‘The essential elements of 

due process are notice and an 

opportunity to be heard.’’); United States 

v. Shelton Wholesale, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 

1147, 1151–53 (W.D. Mo. 1999) (holding 

that informal consultations with 

personnel empowered to correct a 

mistake constitutes a due process 

hearing in appropriate circumstances). 

Thus, at this time, we do not think that 

it is necessary to establish additional 

process or appeal procedures in the 

final rule without a statutory obligation 

to do so. 

g. Proposed § 1102.26(g)—Commission 

Determination of Material Inaccuracy 

Before Publication 

Proposed § 1102.26(g) would outline 

the steps we would take if we 

determined that information in a report 

of harm or manufacturer comment is 

materially inaccurate before it is 

published in the Database. Under the 

proposal, we would: (1) Decline to add 

the report of harm or manufacturer 

comment to the Database; (2) correct the 

materially inaccurate information, and if 

the minimum requirements for 

publication, as set forth in 1102.10 and 

1102.12(c) are met, publish the 

corrected report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the Database; 

or (3) add information to the report of 

harm or the manufacturer comment to 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and if the minimum 

requirements for publication, as set 

forth in 1102.10 and 1102.12(c) are met, 

publish the updated report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the Database. 

We received one comment on this 

section, with no resulting changes to the 

rule. However, on our own initiative, we 

have corrected two internal citation 

errors, changing the cite contained in 

§ 1102.26(g)(2) and (g)(3) from 

§ 1102.10(c) to § 1102.10(d). We also 

have reiterated that the Commission 

may make determinations of material 

inaccuracy without the necessity of a 

request from an outside party and have 

changed the word ‘‘may’’ to ‘‘shall’’ prior 

to (1) to be consistent with the statutory 

language. In addition, in 1102.26(g)(1) 

we have changed the language to ensure 

consistency with the statute. We also 

made typographical changes. 

Comment 87—One commenter states 

that if we will not withhold reports with 

pending material inaccuracy claims 

until resolution, we should make a 

determination that if a claim has merit, 

but needs more investigation, we should 

give an additional 10 business days to 

resolve the claim before publishing. 

Response—A determination that a 

claim has merit is not a determination 

of materially inaccurate information. 

Section 6A(c)(4) of the CPSA requires a 

determination of whether there is 

materially inaccurate information to 

resolve the claim. We do not believe 

that section 6A(c)(4) of the CPSA allows 

us to extend the time without making 

such a determination of material 

inaccuracy before publishing in the 

Database. If we determine that the 

information is not materially inaccurate, 

it will be posted in the Database. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

h. Proposed § 1102.26(h)—Commission 

Determination of Material Inaccuracy 

After Publication 

Proposed § 1102.26(h) would address 

a Commission determination where 

information in a report of harm or 

comment has been published and would 

explain that the Commission may, after 

an investigation, determine that 

information in a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment is materially 

inaccurate. The proposal would state 

that the Commission shall, no later than 

seven business days after such 

determination: (1) Remove the report of 

harm or manufacturer comment, 

including any attachments, from the 

Database; (2) correct the materially 

inaccurate information, and if other 

minimum requirements for publication 

are met, maintain the corrected 

comment or report of harm in the 

Database; or (3) add information to the 

report of harm or comment to correct 

the materially inaccurate information, 

and if the minimum requirements for 

publication are met, we would maintain 

the updated comment or report of harm 

in the Database. 

We received several comments on this 

section of the rule, which has been 

finalized without substantive 

modification. However, on our own 

initiative, we have corrected two 

internal citations in § 1102.26(h)(2) and 

(h)(3) from § 1102.10(c) to § 1102.10(d). 

In addition, in 1102.26(h)(1) we have 

changed the language to ensure 

consistency with the statute. We have 

also made typographical changes. 

Comment 88—One commenter asserts 

that the process for subsequent 

correction or cure of materially 

inaccurate information will not serve to 

cure the material misinformation that 

could happen where such information is 

published and later downloaded. The 

commenter states that the issue must be 

resolved first, if submitted timely by the 

manufacturer or private labeler, to 

prevent the Database from being filled 

with inaccurate information. The 

commenter further states that the harm 

resulting from posting inaccurate 

information far outweighs any delay in 

posting for investigation, and that 

rectification after publication may be 

too late to prevent significant brand 

damage. Other commenters state that 

the rule should clarify our discretion to 

delay posting, and further should 

provide that, where a manufacturer has 

demonstrated a good faith process for 

timely investigating reports of harm, we 

should exercise this discretion to delay 

publication of such reports until claims 

of material inaccuracy are resolved. 

Response—Under section 6A(c)(3)(A) 

of the CPSA, we do not have the 

discretion to delay posting reports of 

harm in the Database past the tenth 

business day. We will use our best 

efforts to resolve claims of material 

inaccuracy before publication when 

timely submitted, but absent such 

determination, we will publish the 

report on the tenth business day. 

Congress provided in section 6A(c)(4) of 

the CPSA that we could review the 

claim of material inaccuracy after 

publication, by investigating, and then 

making such a determination. The 

ability to investigate a claim after 

publication is an acknowledgement that 

there may be instances where we need 

to review and investigate the 

publication of materially inaccurate 

information after publication. We 

encourage the submission of timely and 

specific comments that will be posted 

along with the report of harm. In this 

way, the manufacturer has the 

opportunity to address and refute any 

perceived issue relating to brand or 

reputation. 

In addition, section 6A(b)(5) of the 

CPSA addresses the issue of the content 

of the information in the Database, by 

requiring us to provide a clear and 

conspicuous notice to users of the 

Database that we do not guarantee the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

the contents of the Database. Section 

1102.42 declares that this information 

will also appear on all documents that 

are printed from the user interface in the 

Database. Therefore, we cannot create 

procedures to delay publication of 

reports of harm and manufacturer 

comments beyond the parameters set 

forth in section 6A of the CPSA. 

Comment 89—Some commenters 

express concern about potential 

reputational harm resulting from 

publicly viewable reports of harm, 

regardless of the manufacturer’s ability 

to comment on the report. One 

commenter argues that as soon as a 

report of harm is made available for 

public download in the Database, the 

report takes on a ‘‘new, independent 

existence with no restriction to 

guarantee it will not reappear in some 

other forum,’’ even if the report was later 

removed from the Database because it 

contained inaccurate information. 

Another commenter is concerned about 

the reputational harm caused to a 

licensor when the licensor is neither the 

manufacturer nor the private labeler 

and, therefore, does not have the 

opportunity to submit a comment prior 

to the publication of a (materially 

inaccurate) report of harm in the 

Database. The commenter’s concern is 

that it would be difficult to ‘‘unring the 

bell’’ once materially inaccurate 

information in a report of harm is 

published in the Database, and this 

concern is compounded by the fact that 

the Database is operated by the Federal 

Government. 

Response—Proposed § 1102.26(b) 

would allow any person or entity 

reviewing a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment, either before or 

after publication in the Database, to 

request that the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment, or portions of 

such report of harm or manufacturer 

comment, be excluded from the 

Database or corrected by the 

Commission, because it contains 

materially inaccurate information. 

Because the commenters appear to be 

concerned about inaccurate information 

in reports of harm, we also note that 

§ 1102.26(a) would define materially 

inaccurate information in a report of 

harm, confining it to four categories of 

information: (1) Identification of a 

consumer product; (2) identification of 

a manufacturer or private labeler; 

(3) description of the harm or risk of 

harm related to the use of the consumer 

product; and (4) incident date. In many 

instances, a manufacturer or private 

labeler should be able to identify 

quickly whether inaccurate information 

in a report of harm exists with respect 

to any of these categories. 

As an additional matter, we will 

provide expedited review of claims of 

materially inaccurate information in a 

report of harm, where the manufacturer 

or private labeler files such request 

within the page limits specified by 

proposed § 1102.26(c)(1). In such cases, 

we will attempt, where practicable, to 

expedite the determination of a claim of 

material inaccuracy before publication 

of the report of harm in the Database. 

Even if a report of harm is published in 

the Database, if we have determined that 

materially inaccurate information is 

contained in such report, we will make 

any necessary correction, exclusion, or 

addition in no more than seven business 

days having made such determination. 

With regard to licensors that do not 

receive notification of a report of harm, 

as we stated earlier in response to 

Comment 67, firms are free to make 

their own agreements regarding when 

they must inform certain business 

partners of reports of harm. 

Finally, we note the disclaimer that 

will appear on any documents that are 

printed from the Database, in addition 

to being posted on every page, including 

the entrance screen, of the Database. 

The statutorily-provided disclaimer 

states that the Commission does not 

guarantee the accuracy, completeness, 

or adequacy of the contents of the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76859 

Database, especially concerning the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

information submitted by persons 

outside of the CPSC. The disclaimer, 

combined with the various measures for 

claiming inaccurate information in a 

report of harm, balances the statutory 

requirements for publication against the 

interest in preventing inaccurate 

information from being published in the 

Database. 

i. Proposed § 1102.26(i)—Commission 

Discretion 

Proposed § 1102.26(i)(1) would state 

that we would exercise our discretion, 

consistent with the statutory 

requirements, to remove, correct, or add 

information to correct materially 

inaccurate information contained in a 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment, and that we favor correction 

and addition to correction, over 

exclusion of entire reports of harm or 

manufacturer comments. 

We received several comments on this 

section, which has been finalized 

without substantive modification. On 

our own initiative, we have corrected an 

internal citation error in § 1102.26(i)(1) 

from § 1102.10(c) to § 1102.10(d) and for 

clarity have changed ‘‘addition to 

correction’’ to ‘‘the addition of 

information to correct.’’ 

Proposed § 1102.26(i)(2) would state 

that if we received a request for 

correction or exclusion of materially 

inaccurate information from a 

manufacturer within the recommended 

five-page limit, we would attempt to 

make an expedited determination of a 

claim of material inaccuracy. The 

proposal would explain that we 

generally would publish reports on the 

tenth business day after transmitting a 

report of harm, where either the 

recommended page limit of comments 

has been exceeded, or where we 

otherwise have been unable to make a 

determination of material inaccuracy 

prior to the statutorily mandated 

publication date. We would make any 

necessary correction, exclusion, or 

addition not later than seven business 

days after making a determination that 

there is materially inaccurate 

information in the report of harm. 

Manufacturer comments would be 

published at the same time as the report 

or harm or as soon thereafter as is 

practicable. 

We received several comments on this 

section, which we have finalized with 

grammatical changes. In addition, we 

have deleted the words ‘‘generally,’’ 

‘‘either the recommended page limit of 

comments has been exceeded or where,’’ 

and ‘‘otherwise.’’ The sentence now 

reads ‘‘the Commission will publish 

reports of harm on the tenth business 

day after transmitting a report of harm 

where the Commission has been unable 

to make a determination regarding a 

claim of material inaccuracy prior to the 

statutorily mandated publication date.’’ 

These changes are consistent with 

changes made to § 1102.26(d) and 

would reconcile these two sections. As 

stated earlier, it reflects our belief that, 

as required by the statute, unless the 

Commission has determined that the 

information in the report of harm or the 

comment is materially inaccurate, we 

must publish the report or comment in 

the Database on the tenth business day 

after transmitting a report of harm. 

Comment 90—One commenter states 

that we should consider creating a more 

expedited process than what we have 

proposed to resolve issues as fully as 

possible before publication. 

Response—The process we have set 

up for expedited review is designed to 

enable us to make the required statutory 

determination of material inaccuracy 

without getting overwhelmed by 

repetitive and duplicative claims. We 

believe that the process we have set up 

addresses this issue, and therefore, we 

are not revising the rule as suggested by 

the commenter. 

Comment 91—One commenter states 

that with respect to notifications to the 

manufacturer about a claim in proposed 

§ 1102.26(f) and (j) on material 

inaccuracies, we should include text of 

proposed redaction, correction, or 

addition to be made to the disputed 

report of harm. Otherwise, the 

commenter claims that we would be 

making arbitrary statements concerning 

the inaccuracy. 

Response—As section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA requires, we will notify the 

manufacturer where we have 

determined that information is 

materially inaccurate. This notification 

will include information on how we 

propose to address the material 

inaccuracy consistent with the statutory 

provisions. As noted in § 1102.26(i)(1), 

we will favor correction over removal 

where we determine that such 

correction can address the material 

inaccuracy. 

Comment 92—One commenter states 

that unless necessary to permit 

publication in the Database, we should 

not rewrite the text of documents, but 

should simply redact disputed 

information to ensure that additional 

issues regarding accuracy do not arise. 

Response—Section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA gives removal as one option for 

addressing information determined as 

materially inaccurate in the Database. 

Correction of the materially inaccurate 

information is also a specified option to 

resolve a material inaccuracy claim. 

Section 6A(c)(4) of the CPSA also allows 

us to add information to correct the 

material inaccuracy. We will not adopt 

the suggestion to adopt redaction as our 

only option and reject the suggestion 

that we not correct such information 

where correction would address the 

material inaccuracy. While it is possible 

that such a correction might somehow 

create a new issue, we do not believe 

that it would create more inaccuracy 

issues. Manufacturers are free, however, 

to point out to us any issue about the 

correction after receiving notification of 

it. We do not intend the correction 

process to turn into a negotiation over 

the correction language, but we will 

provide notice to the manufacturer as 

stated in § 1102.26(f). 

j. Proposed § 1102.26(j)—Commission 

Determination of No Material 

Inaccuracy 

Proposed § 1102.26(j) would describe 

the process for what we would do if we 

determine that the requested 

information in a report of harm does not 

contain materially inaccurate 

information. The proposal would have 

us notify the requestor of our 

determination, and publish the report in 

the Database, if it meets the minimum 

requirements for publication. 

Several comments were received 

regarding this section, but no changes to 

the final rule resulted from the 

comments. However, on our own 

initiative, we clarified in the final rule 

that the Commission determination of 

no material inaccuracy may be made to 

a manufacturer comment, in addition to 

a report of harm. We also made an 

internal citation correction in 

§ 1102.26(j)(2) to correctly state where 

the minimum requirements for reports 

of harm and manufacturer comments 

may be found in the rule: In 

§ 1102.10(d) and § 1102.12(c) and added 

the word ‘‘and’’ between (1) and (2) to 

be consistent with the statutory 

language. 

Comment 93—One commenter 

addresses the resource issue 

surrounding the Database, and states 

that if section 6(b) of the CPSA is any 

guide, lack of staff could make 

determinations on material inaccuracy 

‘‘indefinite.’’ The commenter would 

have the final rule specify a 20- 

business-day deadline for resolution of 

a claim of material inaccuracy. If the 

Commission cannot resolve any claim of 

material inaccuracy within 20 days, the 

commenter would have the report 

removed from the Database until the 

claim is resolved. The commenter notes 

that such a procedure would promote 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

timely consideration, and provide an 

impetus for quick resolution. 

Response—We are considering how 

best to allocate resources to address a 

possible increase in information 

submitted through the Database. We are 

committed to providing sufficient 

resources for a successful Database. We 

take seriously the obligation to review 

reports of harm and manufacturer 

comments for minimum content 

requirements, and for determination of 

claims of confidential or materially 

inaccurate information. However, 

because section 6A of the CPSA 

establishes clear deadlines for specific 

actions, we cannot amend the rule to 

allow additional time for review. 

Comment 94—One commenter says it 

may be in the best interest of the public 

for the Commission to provide 

notification on its Web site that reports 

of harm may be updated, revised, or 

corrected, but in a manner that will not 

chill submissions by consumers. The 

commenter adds that if a report is 

altered, consumers automatically should 

receive via e-mail, updated information 

regarding their report of harm. 

Response—Section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA allows the Commission to redact 

or correct reports of harm for materially 

inaccurate information. The current 

system requirements do not provide for 

updates on individual reports via email. However, consumers are free to 

check the Web site for changes. 

Comment 95—Some commenters 

would have us audit material 

inaccuracy claims to ensure that 

manufacturers and others are making 

such claims in good faith—instead of 

frivolous claims to block public 

disclosure of critical safety hazard 

information. 

Response—Section 6A(d) of the CPSA 

requires the Commission to submit to 

the appropriate congressional 

committees an annual report on the 

Database, which must include the 

number of reports and comments for the 

year, and the number of corrected or 

removed reports and comments for the 

year from the Database. We believe this 

statutory requirement will allow us to 

address the suggestion by the 

commenters that the Commission audit 

material inaccuracy claims to ensure 

that such claims are being asserted in 

good faith and not frivolously. We also 

believe that by clarifying the burden of 

proof requirement to § 1102.26, such 

claims will be supported and made in 

good faith. 

k. Proposed § 1102.26(k)—Commission 

Action in Absence of a Request 

Proposed § 1102.26(k) would provide 

that the Commission may review a 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment on its own initiative following 

the same notices and procedures set 

forth in § 1102.26(g) through (j). 

We received several comments related 

to this section, which resulted in no 

changes to the final rule. 

Comment 96—One commenter states 

that Commission-initiated reviews of 

materially inaccurate information 

should be reviewed with the submitter 

or the manufacturer before publication 

of correction of any material inaccuracy. 

Response—We will provide notice of 

the result of a Commission-initiated 

review to the manufacturer, where such 

a review results in the Commission 

taking an action under section 6A(c)(4) 

of the CPSA to address information it 

deems materially inaccurate. However, 

the statute does not require us to await 

a manufacturer’s comment or to inform 

the submitter of the report of harm 

before taking any action to address the 

material inaccuracy, and so we will not 

revise the rule as suggested by the 

commenter. 

Comment 97—One commenter asserts 

that any inaccuracy in a report should 

warrant removal of the entire report 

until all other facts can be verified and 

a corrected report can be posted. 

Response—Section 6A(c)(4) of the 

CPSA requires that the Commission 

make a determination regarding a 

material inaccuracy claim before we 

may take steps to resolve the claim. 

Adopting the commenter’s suggestion to 

remove a report for any inaccuracies 

would be contrary to section 6A(c)(4) of 

the CPSA, which allows materially 

inaccurate information to be removed, 

added to, or corrected only after a 

determination of material inaccuracy. 

Under the commenter’s suggestion, a 

report with an error in the description 

of the incident, such as the time of day, 

or the color of the product, would have 

to be removed. We do not believe that 

such information would meet the 

threshold for material inaccuracy, and 

so we will not revise the rule as 

suggested by the commenter. 

4. Proposed § 1102.28—Publication of 

Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.28(a) would explain 

that reports of harm will be published 

in the Database as soon as practicable, 

but no later than 10 business days after 

such report of harm is transmitted by 

the CPSC to the manufacturer or private 

labeler. 

Proposed § 1102.28(b) would explain 

an exception to the 10-business day 

deadline where reports of harm may be 

published beyond the 10-day time frame 

if we determine that the report of harm 

misidentifies or fails to identify all 

manufacturers or private labelers. The 

information would have to be corrected 

through the procedures for materially 

inaccurate information. The provision 

also would state that once the 

manufacturer or private labeler has been 

identified correctly, the time frames in 

§ 1102.28(a) will apply. 

We received several comments related 

to this section, which did not result in 

any modifications to the final rule. On 

our own initiative, we have corrected an 

internal citation error in § 1102.28(b) 

from § 1102.10(c) to § 1102.10(d). 

Comment 98—Several commenters 

assert that § 1102.28(b) would not 

provide sufficient time to investigate 

meaningfully and respond to reports of 

harm. Some commenters state that a 

company ‘‘needs the time to review its 

files, retrieve test reports, confer with its 

many suppliers, etc. A meaningful 

comment period is essential to the 

development of a meaningful consumer 

complaint database.’’ The commenters 

note that this places a heavy burden on 

manufacturers, and that we should 

consider adopting provisions for 

exceptions and extensions, perhaps up 

to 30 days, where the 10-day time frame 

is not possible, or would be ‘‘manifestly 

unfair.’’ The commenters also state that 

we should work with industry to 

develop realistic time frames for 

businesses to respond. 

Response—We are bound by the time 

frame set forth in section 6A(c)(3)(A) of 

the CPSA and do not have the authority 

to establish a different time frame. 

Moreover, establishing a different time 

frame would be inconsistent with the 

direction given in section 6A(f)(1) of the 

CPSA to not apply the provisions of 

section 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA to 

reports of harm. Section 6(b) of the 

CPSA requires that we wait 15 days 

after notifying a manufacturer of our 

intent to publicly disclose 

manufacturer-specific information to the 

public. In contrast, under section 6A of 

the CPSA, once we transmit a report of 

harm to a manufacturer or private 

labeler, we must publish the report of 

harm no later than the tenth business 

day after transmission unless a 

determination of material inaccuracy 

has been made. 

Comment 99—A commenter states 

that reports of harm submitted after a 

certain time period (e.g., one year) 

following the alleged harm should not 

be published. 

Response—For the reasons provided 

in response to Comment 19 above, we 

are not adopting this suggestion, which 

is not required by section 6A(b) of the 

CPSA. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76861 

5. Proposed § 1102.30—Publication of 

Manufacturer Comments 

Proposed § 1102.30 would explain 

that the Commission will publish 

manufacturer comments that meet the 

minimum requirements in proposed 

§ 1102.12(c) at the same time as a report 

of harm is published or as soon as 

practicable thereafter. The proposal 

would provide examples of 

circumstances that may make it 

impracticable to publish a manufacturer 

comment at the same time as a report of 

harm: (1) The Commission did not 

receive the comment until on or after 

the publication date of the report of 

harm; or (2) the Commission is resolving 

a claim that the manufacturer comment 

contains materially inaccurate 

information. 

We received several comments on this 

section, which has been finalized with 

modification. On our own initiative, we 

have corrected the internal citations to 

state that publication of a manufacturer 

comment is subject to §§ 1102.12, 

1102.24, and 1102.26 of the final rule. 

This correction is consistent with 

§ 1102.28(a), stating that publication of 

reports of harm are subject to 

§§ 1102.10, 1102.24, and 1102.26. In 

addition, we struck the second example 

of a circumstance that would make it 

impracticable to publish a manufacturer 

comment at the same time as a report of 

harm because it was inaccurate. A claim 

by a third party that a manufacturer 

comment contains a material inaccuracy 

could be made only after the 

manufacturer comment had already 

been published in the Database. A 

manufacturer comment would remain in 

the Database until the Commission 

made a determination about any alleged 

material inaccuracy. 

Comment 100—One commenter 

suggests that information published in 

the Database (reports of harm and 

manufacturer comments), and the fact of 

its publication, should be declared 

inadmissible as evidence to establish 

the truth of such information. 

Response—The commenter’s 

suggestion goes beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. We do not believe that 

section 6A of the CPSA authorizes us to 

issue a regulation that would address 

the admissibility in judicial proceedings 

of information in the Database. Such 

matters are left to the legislative and 

judicial branches. For example, courts 

can decide whether to exclude database 

entries as inadmissible based on the 

arguments advanced by the commenter. 

However, we will treat information 

contained in the Database (reports of 

harm and manufacturer comments) in 

the same manner in which we currently 

treat other official agency records that 

are sought by litigants for use in private 

litigation. Current regulations, at 16 CFR 

1016.3(b), provide a process for 

authentication of official agency records 

by the Secretary of the Commission, and 

requests for authentication of 

information contained in the Database 

should be made in accordance with that 

regulation. 

Comment 101—One commenter is 

concerned about whether comments 

would always be displayed when a 

report of harm is accessed through the 

Database. This commenter reasons that, 

absent such a requirement, there is a 

risk that a search of the Database might 

reveal a report of harm without also 

revealing a related comment. 

Response—Comments associated with 

a report of harm will always be 

displayed when a report of harm is 

accessed through the Database, provided 

the comment meets the minimum 

requirements for publication (see 

§ 1102.12(a)). However, if a comment 

does not meet the minimum 

requirements for publication, for 

example, when we do not have the 

consent of the manufacturer or private 

labeler to publish the comment to the 

Database, it will not be published in the 

Database and, therefore, will not be 

displayed when the corresponding 

report of harm is accessed. 

D. Proposed Subpart D—Notice and 

Disclosure Requirements 

1. Proposed § 1102.42—Disclaimers 

Proposed § 1102.42 would require a 

disclaimer stating that the CPSC does 

not guarantee the accuracy, 

completeness, or adequacy of the 

contents of the Database, particularly 

with respect to the accuracy, 

completeness, or adequacy of the 

information submitted by persons 

outside the CPSC. This provision 

requires that the Database prominently 

and conspicuously display such a 

disclaimer on the Database and on any 

documents printed from the Database. 

Several comments were received on 

this section, which has been finalized 

with one slight modification, shortening 

the second mention of the Database to 

‘‘Database.’’ 

Comment 102—One commenter 

would have the disclaimer for the 

Database read as follows: ‘‘The fact of 

publication in whole or in part in the 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database, or later modification, 

retraction or removal therefrom, may 

not be used to establish the truth or 

falsehood of any reported allegations or 

comment in any related litigation.’’ 

Response—In proposed § 1102.42 we 

provided the following disclaimer, 

which would be displayed prominently 

and conspicuously on the Database and 

on any documents that are printed from 

the Database: ‘‘The Commission does not 

guarantee the accuracy, completeness, 

or adequacy of the contents of the 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database, particularly with respect to 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy 

of information submitted by persons 

outside of the CPSC.’’ The commenter’s 

proposed revision of the disclaimer 

regarding the use of information in any 

related litigation speaks to the issue of 

whether Database information is 

inadmissible in other forums. We will 

not revise the rule because admissibility 

is a matter for the legislative and 

judicial branches. 

Comment 103—One commenter 

would amend the Disclaimer section to 

have the disclaimer read: ‘‘prominently 

and conspicuously displayed on the 

database and on any documents that are 

downloaded, printed or otherwise 

transferred from the Database.’’ This 

commenter suggests the use of an 

electronic watermark. Another 

commenter notes that the disclaimer 

should be repeated at every chance on 

the Database, on any intake complaint 

forms, and on the information released 

in the Database. 

Response—The disclaimer was 

specified in section 6A(b)(5) of the 

CPSA and is described in § 1102.42. We 

will conspicuously display the 

disclaimer on Web pages, including the 

online incident report form, and 

documents that can be printed or 

otherwise transferred from the Database. 

At this time our system does not create, 

via software, a permanent disclaimer 

that goes on any data exported from the 

Database. 

Comment 104—One commenter notes 

that we should clarify that the 

disclaimer will be ‘‘prominently and 

conspicuously’’ displayed on each 

document in the Database when it is 

displayed for electronic review, as well 

as if and when the document is printed 

(even remotely to nongovernmental 

computers). This commenter states that 

it is important so as not to be viewed as 

self-authenticating public records under 

the Federal Rules of Evidence and state 

rules of evidence. 

Response—We have described how 

the disclaimer will be displayed on the 

Database and on printed documents. 

How a court will treat any document 

printed from the Database is dependent 

upon how the document is presented 

and whether a court would view the 

document as self-authenticating under 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the appropriate Federal or State 

evidentiary rules. 

Comment 105—Some commenters 

criticize the proposed disclaimer, 

stating that the Commission did not 

indicate clearly that reports of harm 

included in the Database contained 

information submitted by persons 

outside of the Commission. 

Response—Section 1102.42 uses the 

disclaimer found in section 6A(b)(5) of 

the CPSA, which states that the 

Commission does not guarantee the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

the contents of the Database; however, 

we added language strengthening this 

disclaimer by drawing particular 

reference to the accuracy, completeness, 

or adequacy of information submitted 

by persons outside of the CPSC. 

Therefore, we believe that we have 

addressed sufficiently the concerns 

raised by the commenters, by notifying 

users of the Database that information in 

the Database has been provided by 

individuals outside of the Commission. 

Comment 106—One commenter states 

that the disclaimer in § 1102.42 does not 

go far enough in explaining the 

limitations of the data, particularly in 

‘‘data sets’’ produced by conducting a 

search of the Database. This commenter 

states that the disclaimer should explain 

the anecdotal nature of the data, and 

that it cannot be used for broad, 

statistical purposes; the commenter also 

states that the disclaimer should state 

clearly the concerns about accuracy, 

completeness, or adequacy. The 

commenter suggests that the disclaimer 

explain the lack of verification by the 

CPSC of the ‘‘facts’’ in the reports, and 

caution users against drawing 

conclusions about the named products 

based on these data. 

Response—We believe that we have 

addressed adequately these concerns by 

proposing a disclaimer that closely 

tracks the statute, but draws particular 

attention to the fact that the Database 

contains information submitted by 

persons outside of the Commission. The 

Database is not a Database of 

government-generated data. The 

information is generated by external 

third parties. The Database will be 

searchable and sortable, as required by 

section 6A. The disclaimer speaks to the 

anecdotal nature of the data. 

2. Proposed § 1102.44—Applicability of 

Sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA 

Proposed § 1102.44(a) would explain 

that sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA do 

not apply to the submission, disclosure, 

and publication of information provided 

in a report of harm. Proposed 

§ 1102.44(b) would apply sections 6(a) 

and (b) of the CPSA to information 

received by the Commission pursuant to 

section 15(b) of the CPSA, and to 

information received by the 

Commission pursuant to any other 

voluntary or mandatory reporting 

program established between a retailer, 

manufacturer, or private labeler. 

We received several comments related 

to this section, which has been finalized 

without substantive change. We have 

made two internal citation corrections. 

In § 1102.44(a), we corrected a citation 

from § 1102.10(c) to § 1102.10(d), and in 

§ 1102.44(b), we corrected a citation 

from § 1102.42 to § 1102.44(a), and we 

shortened the name of the Database to 

‘‘Database.’’ 

Comment 107—One commenter states 

that, ‘‘notwithstanding Congressional 

direction for this database,’’ section 6 of 

the CPSA should apply to information 

in the Database. The commenter further 

states that ‘‘Section 6(b) of the CPSA was 

not repealed by the CPSIA.’’ The 

commenter asserts that the Commission 

should take reasonable steps to ensure 

that the information published in the 

Database is ‘‘accurate and fair in the 

circumstances’’ and that accuracy 

protections of section 6 of the CPSA 

contribute to the ‘‘ultimate release of 

information that consumers can 

reasonably rely upon.’’ 

Response—We do not agree that we 

can ‘‘opt’’ to apply sections 6(a) and (b) 

of the CPSA to the submission, 

disclosure, and publication of 

information provided in a report of 

harm when section 6A(f)(1) of the CPSA 

provided an express exemption to 

sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA for 

reports of harm submitted to the 

Database. Thus, § 1102.44 continues to 

state that sections 6(a) and (b) of the 

CPSA do not apply to the submission, 

disclosure, and publication of 

information provided in a report of 

harm that meets the minimum 

requirements for publication in 

§ 1102.10(c). 

Comment 108—One commenter is 

concerned about whether we will retain, 

as agency records, the originals of 

documents that have subsequently been 

modified or excluded from the Database 

because of claims of material 

inaccuracy. The commenter explains 

that it believes that the Database 

provisions in the statute required that 

the originals be purged as records of the 

agency. The commenter asks that, if we 

disagree or believe that the Federal 

Records Act requires those documents 

to be maintained, we make it clear that 

the documents are still subject to 

sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA if 

requested under FOIA or otherwise. 

Response—We disagree with this 

commenter’s analysis that information 

purged from the Database does not 

comprise official agency records subject 

to the Federal Records Act; therefore, 

when we receive requests for 

information purged from the Database 

under the FOIA or otherwise, we will 

invoke all applicable Federal laws, 

including sections 6(a) and (b) of the 

CPSA, prior to the release of any such 

information. 

Comment 109—One commenter asks 

that we clarify that reports submitted 

under section 15 of the CPSA and 

reports submitted under other voluntary 

retailer reporting programs would not be 

disclosed in the Database. The 

commenter’s concern is that the current 

confidentiality protections surrounding 

this data facilitate dialogue between 

retailers and the CPSC. The commenter 

is concerned that, if that level of trust 

is compromised, or confidentiality is 

reduced, it would affect the ability of 

the CPSC to have full and frank 

discussions with manufacturers and 

retailers. 

Response—Section 6A of the CPSA 

exempts reports of harm submitted to 

the Database from sections 6(a) and (b) 

of the CPSA; however, it clearly states 

that it does not exempt reports 

submitted under section 15 of the CPSA 

or reports submitted under any other 

mandatory or voluntary retailer, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

reporting program with the 

Commission. Therefore, § 1102.44 

specifically states that information 

received by the Commission pursuant to 

section 15 of the CPSA or any other 

mandatory or voluntary reporting 

program established between a retailer, 

manufacturer, or private labeler and the 

Commission is not exempted from the 

requirements of sections 6(a) and (b) of 

the CPSA. This means that the 

Commission could not publish such 

information in the Database without 

first complying with the notice 

provisions of sections 6(a) and (b) of the 

CPSA. In this phase of the Database, we 

are not publishing reports submitted 

under section 15(b) of the CPSA or 

reports submitted under any other 

mandatory or voluntary retailer, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

reporting program. Comments Regarding 

Implementation of the Database 

Unrelated to a Specific Section in the 

Rule. 

Comment 110—The Commission 

should commit resources for 

educational outreach and training, and 

publish an official guidance tailored 

specifically to manufacturers and 

private labelers. 

Response—We have committed staff 

and support resources dedicated to 

industry and consumer education 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76863 

regarding the Database. This effort 

includes developing a process to 

identify, confirm, register, and train 

businesses that wish to utilize the 

Business Portal to electronically 

respond to reports of harm. 

We are working with industry trade 

associations and consumer advocacy 

organizations in this effort. 

Documentation and other support 

materials, as well as information 

sessions will be available in the months 

preceding the ‘‘go-live’’ date. Calendar 

dates for information sessions will be 

posted on the Public Calendar on our 

Web site. 

Comment 111—One commenter states 

that unverified reports in the Database 

should not create section 15 reporting 

obligations. The commenter states that 

because submitters are not required to 

provide contact information to 

manufacturers, unverified and 

inaccurate reports are bound to end up 

in the Database. The commenter states 

that the rule should state that 

transmitted reports of harm will not 

trigger any CPSA reporting requirement, 

due to the nature of the contents of the 

Database and its purpose, and that the 

overall purpose is to provide a tool for 

consumers to obtain reliable 

information, rather than be a source of 

information to manufacturers about 

potential product issues. 

Response—Section 6A does not 

specifically exempt Database 

information from consideration in 

section 15 cases and, therefore, we will 

not adopt the suggestion that we 

specifically exclude information in the 

Database from consideration in such 

cases. While it is true that the Database 

is subject to a disclaimer that the 

Commission does not guarantee the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

the contents of the Database, 

information in the Database will be 

verified by the submitter. Information in 

the Database may be used for a variety 

of purposes, not the least of which 

could be identifying potential hazards 

associated with consumer products 

whether by the manufacturer or the 

Commission. 

Comment 112—A commenter states 

that the rule should ensure that users do 

not circumvent minimum requirements 

for Database entry by posting incidents 

and comments through Commission 

social media outlets. It would be 

appropriate to obtain some assurances 

that this will not be permitted. 

Response—On the Web pages of all of 

the social media accounts utilized by 

the Commission, clear and conspicuous 

policies are posted regarding the 

appropriate way to post content related 

to incident reporting and directing users 

to the Database for such purposes. 

Comment 113—Some commenters 

state that it is ‘‘crucial’’ for the CPSC to 

implement the Database in the 

narrowest scope possible and then 

expand it (i.e., start with specific 

product categories that present the most 

risk and gradually open up the 

Database) to other products. 

Commenters state that this would 

ensure reliability and the long-term 

success of the Database by minimizing 

mistakes, minimizing the impact of 

mistakes, providing the CPSC with 

flexibility to make changes, reducing the 

burden on CPSC resources, and enabling 

time to work out an efficient means of 

handling the paperwork involved in 

maintaining the Database. The 

commenters estimate that it would take 

22 dedicated full-time employees to 

handle the potential increase in incident 

reports. The commenters state that the 

CPSC has the opportunity to engage 

stakeholders in discussions on how to 

improve and resolve problems as they 

arise. Commenters state that the 

Database should include a forum for this 

type of implementation discussion, 

naming Facebook development as an 

example. Commenters allege that staged 

implementation is consistent with 

congressional intent and the 

commenters point to the General 

Accounting Office study requirement as 

indication that Congress knew the 

Database would need to be modified 

and improved as time progresses. 

Response—Congress required that 

implementation of the Database occur 

18 months after our implementation 

report to Congress. We submitted our 

implementation report in September 

2009. We are on track to fulfill that 

mandate. 

We already have started the process of 

planning and testing internal business 

processes against the requirements of 

the implemented software. This 

includes planning for data intake, 

processing, and notification of 

manufacturers and private labelers. We 

are aligning staff and support resources 

to new business processes in 

anticipation of the implementation. We 

anticipate this alignment around new 

processes to be completed several 

months before the ‘‘go-live’’ date in 

March 2011. We believe these steps 

address the commenters concerns and 

would obviate the need for a phased 

introduction of the Database. 

Comment 114—‘‘[T]he regulation does 

not include crucial information on how 

this database will be implemented. 

Although the CPSC has shared some of 

its plan with the public, much is still 

not known. It is quite possible that the 

format for submitting reports of harm 

and the data input techniques to be used 

for reporting, will have a major impact 

on the accuracy of the data in the 

database.’’ 

Response—The implementation plan 

is not appropriate for the text of a 

regulation. Starting in September 2009, 

we submitted a report to Congress on 

implementation of the Database. We 

held a public hearing on November 10, 

2009, regarding implementation. In 

addition, we held a two-day workshop 

in January 2010, regarding 

implementation, and requested 

comments. All of this information is 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.cpsc.gov. Thus, we have 

committed staff and support resources 

through the ‘‘go-live’’ date in a dedicated 

effort to inform industry and educate 

consumers regarding the Database. This 

effort further includes creation of a Web 

site on http://www.saferproducts.gov 

devoted to Database education and 

implementation issues, which is 

periodically updated with new content. 

The Commission has also conducted 

focus groups on the input forms and 

Database screens. The Commission 

plans to send staff to attend and speak 

at conferences to teach on the Database. 

It also plans to develop a process to 

identify, confirm, register, and train 

businesses that wish to utilize the 

Business Portal to electronically 

respond to reports of harm. 

We are working with industry trade 

associations and consumer advocacy 

organizations in this effort. 

Documentation and other support 

materials are being developed, and 

information sessions will be available in 

the months preceding the ‘‘go-live’’ date. 

Calendar dates for information sessions 

will be posted on the Public Calendar 

on our Web site. 

Comment 115—Some commenters 

state that the manner of registering and 

contacting manufacturers and private 

labelers will greatly affect their ability to 

comment on the data in a timely 

fashion. A first look at the proposed 

manufacturer registration system 

identified a number of significant 

issues. To insure that the Database 

properly serves its intended purpose, 

the details of the Database should be 

shared with the public for comment 

before it is implemented. 

Response—Our education and 

outreach efforts are described above in 

response to Comment 115. We are 

actively engaged in an industry and 

consumer education effort that includes 

developing a process to identify, 

confirm, register, and train businesses 

that wish to utilize the Business Portal 

to electronically respond to reports of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

harm. Documentation and other support 

materials, as well as information 

sessions will be available in the months 

preceding the ‘‘go-live’’ date. Calendar 

dates for information sessions will be 

posted on the Public Calendar on our 

Web site. 

Comment 116—Some commenters 

state that valid reports of harm may 

come from the same IP address, such as 

government, health facilities, and 

consumer organizations, and that these 

multiple, but valid, reports should be 

accepted. 

Response—Multiple, valid reports 

will be accepted from the same IP 

address. The first release of the software 

will contain features to protect against 

computer-generated reports and flag 

potentially duplicate reports for staff 

review. 

The software and mechanisms that we 

use to detect multiple reports from the 

same IP address will be used to detect 

a nefarious denial of service type of 

attack. A denial of service attack is an 

attempt to make a computer resource 

unavailable to its intended users. 

Commonly, the perpetrator of such an 

attack would saturate a public Web site 

with extraordinarily high numbers of 

information requests. Such computergenerated high volume would limit the 

target’s ability to respond to legitimate 

(human) use. 

Comment 117—One commenter states 

that the Report to Congress mockup 

shows a static, noncheckable 

verification, and suggests that we 

require consumers to affirmatively attest 

by clicking on something in the portal. 

Response—We noted this suggested 

requirement/feature in several forums, 

and have implemented it by requiring 

that submitters select a check mark box 

on the incident report form for it to be 

submitted and published. 

Comment 118—Commenters discuss 

discouraging false complaints regarding 

consumer products. The commenters 

suggest that the final rule contain a 

mechanism for the prompt removal of 

false complaints. Computer-generated 

reports should not be accepted. Another 

commenter states that the system should 

detect multiple reports from the same IP 

address, which are then flagged for 

further inspection. 

Response—We agree that the Database 

should not contain materially 

fraudulent or false complaints about 

consumer products. Section 1102.26 

details the designation and disposition 

of materially inaccurate information. 

Also, the Database software will assist 

with fraud prevention. The Database 

implementation team is working closely 

with the enterprise information security 

team to ensure that the Database uses 

industry best practices for security and 

complies with federal and CPSC specific 

security requirements. For example, the 

first release of the software will contain 

features to protect against computergenerated reports and flag potentially 

duplicate reports for CPSC review. 

However, despite our best efforts to 

ensure that legitimate reports of harm 

are being filed, we cannot 

independently verify that every report 

of harm submitted is legitimate and 

accurate. Congress required that the 

Database contain a disclaimer, which is 

set forth in § 1102.42 of the final rule. 

IV. Environmental Impact 

The Commission’s regulations at 16 

CFR 1021.5(a) are considered to ‘‘have 

little or no potential for affecting the 

human environment,’’ and 

environmental assessments and impact 

statements are not usually prepared. See 

16 CFR 1021.5(c). The final rule 

contains the Commission’s 

interpretation of the statutory 

requirements set forth in section 6A of 

the CPSA, as added by section 212 of 

the CPSIA, for the inclusion of 

information related to reports of harm 

involving the use of consumer products 

or other products or substances 

regulated by the Commission in a 

publicly available and searchable 

database. As such, the proposed rule is 

not expected to have an adverse impact 

on the environment. The Commission 

concludes that no environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement is required. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to public comment and review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). In a 

May 24, 2010 Federal Register notice 

regarding the proposed rule (75 FR 

29156, 29173–75), we described the 

information collection and the annual 

reporting burden. Our estimate included 

the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

each collection of information. 

We invited comments on: (1) Whether 

the collection of information is 

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 methodology 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. We received 

one comment about the burden 

estimates contained in the proposed 

rule. The comment summary and 

response appear below. 

Comment: A commenter states that 

the annual reporting burden is 

significantly underestimated because 

the Commission based the estimate on 

current reporting figures. Also, the 

commenter states that it will take 

manufacturers and private labelers more 

than 4 hours to investigate and respond 

to a report of harm. 

Response: With regard to the 

estimated annual reporting burden and 

time needed for manufacturers and 

private labelers to investigate and 

respond to a report of harm, the 

preamble to the proposed rule explained 

that we based our estimates on our 

experience with our incident report 

forms for fiscal year 2009 (75 FR at 

29174). The commenter has not 

provided any alternative data or 

methodology that would support 

adjusting our estimates. We also note 

that in our research on other agency 

databases, we were unable to determine 

conclusively whether CPSC will 

experience an increase in reports when 

the public facing database is launched. 

Accordingly, we decline to alter or 

amend the estimated burdens. 

Title: Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database. 

Description: The final rule allows 

consumers to submit reports of harm 

involving the use of consumer products 

or other products or substances 

regulated by the CPSC, and also allows 

manufacturers of such products or 

substances to comment on the reports of 

harm. The reports and comments will be 

part of the Database operated and 

maintained by the CPSC. A 

manufacturer identified in a report of 

harm and who receives a report of harm 

from the CPSC may request that 

portions of the report be designated as 

confidential information. Any person or 

entity reviewing a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment may request that 

the report or comment, or portions 

thereof, be excluded from the Database 

or corrected by the CPSC because it 

contains materially inaccurate 

information. 

Description of Respondents: Persons 

who wish to submit reports of harm 

involving the use of consumer products 

or other products or substances 

regulated by the CPSC and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76865 

manufacturers of such products or 

substances who wish to comment on 

those reports of harm, pursuant to 

section 6A of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2055a). In 

addition, any person or entity reviewing 

a report of harm or manufacturer 

comment, either before or after 

publication in the Database, may request 

that the report of harm or manufacturer 

comment, or portions thereof, be 

excluded from the Database or corrected 

by the CPSC because it contains 

materially inaccurate information. 

We estimate the burden of this 

collection of information as follows: 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

16 CFR Section Number of 

respondents 

Frequency of 

responses 

Total annual 

responses 

Minutes per 

response 

Total burden, 

in hours 

16 CFR 1102.10(b)(1), (3) Reports of harm—electronic ..... 11,534 1 11,534 12 2,307 

16 CFR 1102.10(b)(2) Reports of harm—telephone ........... 3,329 1 3,329 10 555 

16 CFR 1102.10(b)(4) Reports of harm—paper ................. 277 1 277 20 92 

16 CFR 1102.12(b)(1), (2) Manufacturer comments—electronic ................................................................................. 5,753 1 5,753 255 24,450 

16 CFR 102.12(b)(3) Manufacturer comments—paper ....... 1,817 1 1,817 270 8,177 

16 CFR 1102.24 Requests to treat information as confidential—electronic .......................................................... 345 1 345 15 86 

16 CFR 1102.24 Requests to treat information as confidential—paper ................................................................ 109 1 109 30 54 

16 CFR 1102.26 Requests to treat information as materially inaccurate—electronic ............................................... 1,726 1 1,726 30 863 

16 CFR 1102.26 Requests to treat information as materially inaccurate—paper ...................................................... 545 1 545 60 545 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 37,129 

There are no capital costs or operating 

and maintenance costs associated with 

this collection of information. 

Our estimates are based on the 

following: 

The CPSC is in the process of 

developing the forms that will be used 

by consumers and manufacturers to 

submit reports and comments for 

inclusion in the Database. Because those 

forms are still under development, for 

present purposes, we based our burden 

estimates on our experience with 

similar forms and processes, and on 

information gleaned from 

manufacturers. Specifically, the CPSC 

currently has an incident report form 

that consumers and others use to report 

consumer safety incidents to the agency. 

The CPSC provides most of those 

consumer complaints to the 

manufacturer, and the manufacturer 

may provide comments to the agency. 

For present purposes, we assume that 

the Database will receive the same 

number of reports of harm as the CPSC 

received of incident reports in fiscal 

year 2009, and that the numbers by 

manner of submission to the CPSC (i.e., 

electronic, telephone, paper) will be the 

same. Thus, using the data from fiscal 

year 2009, we estimate that we will 

receive a total of 15,140 reports of harm 

(11,534 by electronic means, 3,329 by 

telephone, and 277 by paper 

submissions). We had already estimated 

the time associated with the electronic 

and telephone submission of incident 

reports at 12 and 10 minutes, 

respectively and so used those figures 

for present purposes as well. We 

estimate that the time associated with a 

paper form would be 20 minutes on 

average. Thus, we estimate the total 

burden hours associated with the 

submission of reports of harm to be 

2,954 hours ((11,534 electronic report × 

12 minutes per report) + (3,329 

telephone reports × 10 minutes per 

report) + (277 paper reports × 20 

minutes per report) = 177,238 minutes 

or approximately 2,954 hours)). 

In 2008, manufacturers submitted 

comments to the CPSC in response to a 

consumer complaint forwarded to the 

manufacturer about 40 percent of the 

time. We estimate that the response rate 

will increase in the case of the Database; 

currently, neither the incident reports 

nor manufacturer comments are 

routinely public. We estimate that the 

manufacturer response rate will increase 

25 percent, up to a 50 percent response 

rate. Therefore we expect to receive half 

as many total manufacturer comments 

as reports of harm (15,140 reports of 

harm × 0.5 manufacturer comments per 

report of harm = 7,570 manufacturer 

comments). In terms of the manner of 

commenting, currently we do not keep 

track of how many manufacturer 

comments are submitted electronically 

versus in paper form. Because the 

Database will be online, we will assume 

that most manufacturers will utilize 

electronic options for participating in 

the Database, especially when the 

Database (unlike the current incident 

reporting system) will not give 

manufacturers the option of submitting 

their comments by phone. However, to 

ensure that we avoid inadvertently 

underestimating the burden, we will 

assume that manufacturers would 

submit electronically at the same rate. 

That equates to an estimate of 5,753 

manufacturer comments submitted 

electronically, and 1,817 submitted on 

paper. 

We also will assume that there are 

two actions involved in a manufacturer 

comment: (1) The research and 

preparation necessary to comment; and 

(2) the act of providing the comment. To 

estimate how much time manufacturers 

will spend researching and preparing to 

comment, we contacted three 

manufacturers that have experience 

submitting comments in response to 

incident reports. The manufacturers 

each reported a range of time, because 

time required in preparing a comment 

can vary greatly. The three ranges were 

15 minutes to 4 hours, 10 minutes to 

5 hours, and 10 minutes to 3 hours. For 

purposes of estimating the burden, we 

used the average high end of these 

ranges, 4 hours, for that portion of the 

burden estimate. Based on our 

experience with the current 

manufacturing comment process, we 

estimate that manufacturers will spend 

between 5 and 30 minutes actually 

providing the comment, depending on 

the length and complexity of their 

comment. For the purposes of this 

estimate, we use the high end of that 

range for paper submissions (30 

minutes) and the midpoint for 

electronic (15 minutes). Thus, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

estimated burden associated with 

manufacturer comments is 

approximately 32,607 hours ((5,753 

electronic comments × 255 minutes per 

comment) + (1,817 paper comments × 

270 minutes per comment) = 1,957,605 

minutes or approximately 32,627 

hours). 

Regarding requests to designate 

information as confidential, we 

anticipate that there are very limited 

circumstances under which confidential 

information will be included in a report 

of harm; by its very nature, such 

information is not available to the 

public. Accordingly, we assigned a 

value of 3 percent to our estimation of 

the rarity with which we expect to 

receive such requests. Three percent of 

the total number of reports of harm 

estimated (15,140) results in an estimate 

of 454 requests to designate information 

as confidential. The proposed rule 

would specify what must be included in 

such a request (§ 1102.24(b)); it is 

concrete information that we expect will 

be known or readily attainable by the 

entity filing the request. We estimate 

that it will take 15 minutes to submit 

such a request electronically. Because it 

would take longer to convey the 

necessary information on paper, and to 

avoid inadvertently underestimating the 

burden, we estimate that it will take 

twice as much time, or 30 minutes, to 

submit the request on paper. We 

employed the same assumptions as used 

above to predict how many requests will 

be submitted electronically (454 

requests × 76 percent electronic 

submission) to arrive at an estimate of 

345 electronic requests and 109 paper 

requests. We multiplied 345 electronic 

requests by 15 minutes, resulting in 

5,175 minutes, or about 86 burden hours 

for the electronic requests. Similarly, we 

multiplied 109 paper requests by 30 

minutes, resulting in 3,270 minutes, or 

about 54 burden hours for the paper 

requests. 

Regarding requests to designate 

information materially inaccurate, 

roughly 10 percent of the manufacturer 

comments that we currently receive 

contain a claim that the incident report 

contained inaccurate information. We 

used that figure to estimate that the 

number of requests to treat information 

as materially inaccurate will be 10 

percent of the total number of reports of 

harm and manufacturer comments that 

we expect, or 2,271 ([15,140 reports + 

7,570 comments] × 10 percent). Section 

1102.26(b) of the proposed rule would 

specify what must be included in such 

a request. Most of the information will 

be known or readily attainable by the 

person or entity filing the request, but 

we estimate it will take longer to file a 

request to treat information as 

materially inaccurate than to file a 

request to treat information as 

confidential because with a request 

related to material inaccuracy one must 

provide evidence of the inaccuracy as 

described in § 1102.26(b)(4). We 

anticipate that this will double the 

amount of time it takes to file the 

request, or require 30 minutes for an 

electronic request and 60 minutes for a 

paper request. Employing the same 

assumptions concerning the method of 

submission, we estimate that there will 

be 1,726 electronic requests to treat 

information as materially inaccurate 

(2,271 total requests × 76 percent 

electronic = 1,726). Because each 

electronic request is estimated to take 

30 minutes, we estimate the resulting 

burden to be 863 hours (1,726 requests 

× 30 minutes = 51,780 minutes, or 863 

burden hours). Similarly, 545 paper 

requests (2,271 requests × 24 percent 

paper = 545), at 60 minutes each to 

complete, results in a burden of 545 

hours (545 paper requests × 60 minutes 

= 32,700 minutes, or 545 hours). 

The total estimated burden, therefore, 

is 37,129 hours. 

VI. Executive Order 12988 

According to Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), agencies must state 

in clear language the preemptive effect, 

if any, of new regulations. This 

regulation is issued under the authority 

of the CPSA, wherein preemption is 

discussed in section 26 of the CPSA. 

Section 26 of the CPSA only addresses 

the preemptive effect of consumer 

product safety standards under the 

CPSA. The current rule is not a 

consumer product safety standard under 

the CPSA. Accordingly, the Commission 

has determined that this rule does not 

contain requirements that impact the 

states. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies 

review proposed rules for their potential 

economic impact on small entities, 

including small businesses. Section 603 

of the RFA calls for agencies to prepare 

and make available for public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

describing the impact of the proposed 

rule on small entities and identifying 

impact-reducing alternatives. 5 U.S.C. 

603. Section 605(b) of the RFA, 

however, states that this requirement 

does not apply if the head of the agency 

certifies that the rule will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, and the agency 

provides an explanation for that 

conclusion. 

The proposed rule did not contain an 

initial RFA analysis, stating that 

preliminary analysis establishes that the 

proposed rule will have little or no 

effect on small businesses. While the 

agency anticipates that the new 

Database likely will increase the number 

of consumer-generated reports over the 

number of incident reports currently 

filed with the Commission, this will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

Because of the small increase in the 

expected number of incident reports, 

relative to the large number of small 

manufacturers that produce consumer 

products, relatively few small 

manufacturers will receive even a single 

incident report. Moreover, because 

small manufacturers have smaller sales 

volumes than large manufacturers, they 

are less likely than large manufacturers 

to receive an incident report for 

comment. Even if a small firm does 

receive an incident report and chooses 

to respond, the amount of time to do so 

likely would not be more than 

approximately 4 hours, on average. 

The Commission invited comment on 

this analysis and the preliminary 

certification statement. One comment 

was received as discussed below. Based 

on this, we decline to provide a 

complete RFA analysis on the economic 

impact of the rule on small businesses 

prior to implementation of the final 

rule, and certify that no such analysis is 

required. 

Comment—One commenter disagrees 

that the proposed rule will have little or 

no impact on small businesses based on 

the time and resources required to 

respond to reports of harm. The 

commenter states that small businesses 

must contract out for legal, engineering, 

and testing services, which will all 

likely take more than a few hours to 

complete an analysis and which will 

place a significant financial burden on 

these small firms. Furthermore, when ‘‘a 

few hours’’ is multiplied by the number 

of small businesses subject to this rule, 

the commenter claims the time burden 

becomes substantial. Based on the 

resource allocation required of small 

businesses, the commenter states that 

the Commission should complete a 

regulatory flexibility analysis on the 

economic impact of the rule on small 

businesses prior to implementation of 

the proposed rule. 

Response—Our analysis does not rule 

out the possibility that some small 

businesses may be adversely affected by 

the rule. However, under the RFA, the 

inquiry is whether the rule would have 

a significant economic impact on a 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76867 

substantial number of small entities. If 

a severe safety defect is alleged in an 

incident report, a small business may 

need to devote substantial resources to 

investigate the incident. However, such 

an investigation would not necessarily 

be attributable to the Database, because 

a severe product defect would need to 

be investigated, even in the absence of 

the Database. Moreover, it is expected 

that only a small proportion of small 

businesses will receive even a single 

incident report. 

According to our analysis, no more 

than an additional five percent of small 

manufacturers of consumer products 

will be affected by the Database rule 

annually. Of these, only a very small 

percentage of the incidents reported 

would merit a large investigation effort. 

Based on the CPSC’s Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) experience, it 

is rare that a small firm devotes 

substantial time and effort responding to 

incident reports. Thus, while it is 

possible that a small number of small 

businesses may experience a 

‘‘significant’’ impact in investigating 

certain incidents, the number of small 

businesses experiencing such an impact 

would not be ‘‘substantial.’’ 

Moreover, many impacts attributed to 

the Database rule are indirect in that 

they do not arise from direct regulation 

of the production activities of entities. 

Consequently, these impacts generally 

are not subject to the analytical 

requirements of the RFA. Nevertheless, 

in forming a basis for certification, we 

performed a threshold analysis, which 

quantifies the expected impact of a 

regulation, and to a large degree, forms 

the analytical substance of a formal RFA 

analysis. In sum, it is expected that the 

average cost of responding 

electronically to one incident report is 

$280, and that the impact on an average 

small manufacturer (with revenue of 

$6.4 million) would amount to about 

0.0044 percent of sales. Even if an 

average small manufacturer received 

and responded to 10 incident reports 

during the year, the cost still would be 

considerably less than one-tenth of one 

percent of the value of shipments. 

Further analysis would not change these 

results or provide additional insight into 

the expected impacts of the rule. 

Accordingly, we decline to provide a 

complete RFA analysis on the economic 

impact of the rule on small businesses, 

and will certify that no such analysis is 

required. 

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). Accordingly, the effective 

date of the final rule is 30 days after the 

date of publication of a final rule in the 

Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1102 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Business and industry, 

Consumer protection, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons stated above, the 

Commission amends Title 16 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations by adding 

a new Part 1102 to read as follows: 

PART 1102—PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

INFORMATION DATABASE 

Subpart A—Background and Definitions 

Sec. 

1102.2 Purpose. 

1102.4 Scope. 

1102.6 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Content Requirements 

1102.10 Reports of harm. 

1102.12 Manufacturer comments. 

1102.14 Recall notices. 

1102.16 Additional information. 

Subpart C—Procedural Requirements 

1102.20 Transmission of reports of harm to 

the identified manufacturer or private 

labeler. 

1102.24 Designation of confidential 

information. 

1102.26 Determination of materially 

inaccurate information. 

1102.28 Publication of reports of harm. 

1102.30 Publication of manufacturer 

comments. 

Subpart D—Notice and Disclosure 

Requirements 

1102.42 Disclaimers. 

1102.44 Applicability of sections 6(a) and 

(b) of the CPSA. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051, 2051 note, 

2052, 2055, 2055a, 2065, 2068, 2070, 2071, 

2072, 2076, 2078, 2080, 2087. 

Subpart A—Background and 

Definitions 

§ 1102.2 Purpose. 

This part sets forth the Commission’s 

interpretation, policy, and procedures 

with regard to the establishment and 

maintenance of a Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database (also referred to as the 

‘‘Database’’) on the safety of consumer 

products and other products or 

substances regulated by the 

Commission. 

§ 1102.4 Scope. 

This part applies to the content, 

procedure, notice, and disclosure 

requirements of the Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database, including all information 

published therein. 

§ 1102.6 Definitions. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, the definitions in 

section 3 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA) (15 U.S.C. 2052) 

apply to this part. 

(b) For purposes of this part, the 

following definitions apply: 

(1) Additional information means any 

information that the Commission 

determines is in the public interest to 

include in the Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database. 

(2) Commission or CPSC means the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

(3) Consumer product means a 

consumer product as defined in section 

3(a)(5) of the CPSA, and also includes 

any other products or substances 

regulated by the Commission under any 

other act it administers. 

(4) Harm means injury, illness, or 

death; or risk of injury, illness, or death, 

as determined by the Commission. 

(5) Mandatory recall notice means any 

notice to the public required of a firm 

pursuant to an order issued by the 

Commission under section 15(c) of the 

CPSA. 

(6) Manufacturer comment means a 

comment made by a manufacturer or 

private labeler of a consumer product in 

response to a report of harm transmitted 

to such manufacturer or private labeler. 

(7) Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database, 

also referred to as the Database, means 

the database on the safety of consumer 

products established and maintained by 

the CPSC as described in section 6A of 

the CPSA. 

(8) Report of harm means any 

information submitted to the 

Commission through the manner 

described in § 1102.10(b), regarding any 

injury, illness, or death; or any risk of 

injury, illness, or death, as determined 

by the Commission, relating to the use 

of a consumer product. 

(9) Submitter of a report of harm 

means any person or entity that submits 

a report of harm. 

(10) Voluntary recall notice means 

any notice to the public by the 

Commission relating to a voluntary 

corrective action, including a voluntary 

recall of a consumer product, taken by 

a manufacturer in consultation with the 

Commission. 

Subpart B—Content Requirements 

§ 1102.10 Reports of harm. 

(a) Who may submit. The following 

persons or entities may submit reports 

of harm: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Consumers including, but not 

limited to, users of consumer products, 

family members, relatives, parents, 

guardians, friends, attorneys, 

investigators, professional engineers, 

agents of a user of a consumer product, 

and observers of the consumer products 

being used; 

(2) Local, state, or federal government 

agencies including, but not limited to, 

local government agencies, school 

systems, social services, child protective 

services, state attorneys general, state 

agencies, and all executive and 

independent federal agencies as defined 

in Title 5 of the United States Code; 

(3) Health care professionals 

including, but not limited to, medical 

examiners, coroners, physicians, nurses, 

physician’s assistants, hospitals, 

chiropractors, and acupuncturists; 

(4) Child service providers including, 

but not limited to, child care centers, 

child care providers, and 

prekindergarten schools; and 

(5) Public safety entities including, 

but not limited to, police, fire, 

ambulance, emergency medical services, 

federal, state, and local law enforcement 

entities, and other public safety officials 

and professionals, including consumer 

advocates or individuals who work for 

nongovernmental organizations, 

consumer advocacy organizations, and 

trade associations, so long as they have 

a public safety purpose. 

(b) Manner of submission. To be 

entered into the Database, reports of 

harm must be submitted to the CPSC 

using one of the following methods: 

(1) Internet submissions through the 

CPSC’s Internet Web site on an 

electronic incident report form 

specifically developed to collect such 

information. 

(2) Telephonic submissions through a 

CPSC call center, where the information 

is entered on the electronic incident 

form. 

(3) Electronic mail directed to the 

Office of the Secretary at info@cpsc.gov, 

or by facsimile at 301–504–0127, 

provided that the submitter completes 

the incident report form available for 

download on the CPSC’s Internet Web 

site specifically developed to collect 

such information. 

(4) Written submissions to the Office 

of the Secretary, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408. 

The Commission will accept only those 

written reports of harm that use the 

incident report form developed for the 

CPSC’s Internet Web site; or 

(5) Other means the Commission 

subsequently makes available. 

(c) Size limit of reports of harm. The 

Commission may, in its discretion, limit 

the data size of reports of harm, which 

may include attachments submitted, 

where such reports of harm and 

attachments may negatively impact the 

technological or operational 

performance of the system. 

(d) Minimum requirements for 

publication. Subject to §§ 1102.24 and 

1102.26, the Commission will publish 

in the Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database 

reports of harm containing all of the 

following information: 

(1) Description of the consumer 

product. The description of the 

consumer product must, at a minimum, 

include a word or phrase sufficient to 

distinguish the product as a consumer 

product, a component part of a 

consumer product, or a product or 

substance regulated by the Commission. 

In addition to a word or phrase 

sufficient to distinguish the product as 

a consumer product, a description of a 

consumer product may include, but is 

not limited to, the name, including the 

brand name of the consumer product, 

model, serial number, date of 

manufacture (if known) or date code, 

date of purchase, price paid, retailer, or 

any other descriptive information about 

the product. 

(2) Identity of the manufacturer or 

private labeler. The name of one or more 

manufacturers or private labelers of the 

consumer product. In addition to a firm 

name, identification of a manufacturer 

or private labeler may include, but is 

not limited to, a mailing address, phone 

number, or electronic mail address. 

(3) Description of the harm. A brief 

narrative description of illness, injury, 

or death; or risk of illness, injury, or 

death related to use of the consumer 

product. Examples of a description of 

harm or risk of harm include, but are 

not limited to: Death, asphyxiation, 

lacerations, burns, abrasions, 

contusions, fractures, choking, 

poisoning, suffocation, amputation, or 

any other narrative description relating 

to a bodily harm or risk of bodily harm. 

Incident reports that relate solely to the 

cost or quality of a consumer product, 

with no discernable bodily harm or risk 

of bodily harm, do not constitute ‘‘harm’’ 

for purposes of this part. A description 

of harm may, but need not, include the 

severity of any injury and whether any 

medical treatment was received. 

(4) Incident date. The date, or an 

approximate date, on which the 

incident occurred. 

(5) Category of submitter. Indication 

of which category the submitter is in 

(i.e., consumers, government agencies, 

etc.) from § 1102.10(a). 

(6) Contact information. The 

submitter’s first name, last name, and 

complete mailing address. Although this 

information will not be published in the 

Database, it is required information for 

the report of harm. Submitters also may, 

but are not required to, provide an 

electronic mail address and a phone 

number to allow for efficient and timely 

contact regarding a report of harm, 

when necessary. 

(7) Verification. A submitter of a 

report of harm must affirmatively verify 

that he or she has reviewed the report 

of harm, and that the information 

contained therein is true and accurate to 

the best of the submitter’s knowledge, 

information, and belief. Verification 

procedures for each method of 

submission will be specified. 

(8) Consent. A submitter of a report of 

harm must consent to publication of the 

report of harm in the Database if he or 

she wants the information to be 

included in the Database. 

(e) Additional information requested 

on report of harm. The minimum 

requirements (at § 1102.10(d)) for 

publication of a report of harm in the 

Database do not restrict the Commission 

from choosing to seek other categories of 

voluntary information in the future. 

(f) Information not published. The 

Commission will exclude the following 

information provided on a report of 

harm from publication in the Database: 

(1) Name and contact information of 

the submitter of a report of harm; 

(2) Victim’s name and contact 

information, if the victim or the victim’s 

parent, guardian, or appropriate legally 

authorized representative, has not 

provided appropriate legal consent; 

(3) Photographs that in the 

determination of the Commission are 

not in the public interest, including 

photographs that could be used to 

identify a person or photographs that 

would constitute an invasion of 

personal privacy based on the Privacy 

Act of 1974, Public Law 93–579 as 

amended; 

(4) Medical records without the 

consent of the person about whom such 

records pertain or without the consent 

of his or her parent, guardian, or 

appropriate legally authorized 

representative; 

(5) Confidential information as set 

forth in § 1102.24; 

(6) Information determined to be 

materially inaccurate as set forth in 

§ 1102.26; 

(7) Reports of harm retracted at any 

time by the submitters of those reports, 

if they indicate in writing to the 

Commission that they supplied 

materially inaccurate information; 

(8) Consents and verifications 

associated with a report of harm; and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76869 

(9) Any other information submitted 

on or with a report of harm, the 

inclusion of which in the Database, the 

Commission determines is not in the 

public interest. The Commission shall 

consider whether the information is 

related to a product safety purpose 

served by the Database, including 

whether or not the information helps 

Database users to: 

(i) Identify a consumer product; 

(ii) Identify a manufacturer or private 

labeler of a consumer product; 

(iii) Understand a harm or risk of 

harm related to the use of a consumer 

product; or 

(iv) Understand the relationship 

between a submitter of a report of harm 

and the victim. 

(g) Reports of harm from persons 

under the age of 18. The Commission 

will not accept any report of harm when 

the report of harm is or was submitted 

by anyone under the age of 18 without 

consent of the parent or guardian of that 

person. 

(h) Incomplete reports of harm. Any 

information received by the 

Commission related to a report of harm 

that does not meet the requirements for 

submission or publication will not be 

published, but will be maintained for 

internal use. 

(i) Official records of the Commission. 

All reports of harm that are submitted 

to the Commission become official 

records of the Commission in 

accordance with 16 CFR 1015.1. 

Alteration (or disposition) of any such 

records will only be in accordance with 

the procedures specified in this part. 

§ 1102.12 Manufacturer comments. 

(a) Who may submit. A manufacturer 

or private labeler may submit a 

comment related to a report of harm if 

the report of harm identifies such 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

(b) How to submit. A manufacturer or 

private labeler may submit comments to 

the CPSC using one of the following 

methods: 

(1) A manufacturer or private labeler 

who registers with the Commission as 

described in § 1102.20(f) may submit 

comments through a manufacturer 

portal maintained on the CPSC’s 

Internet Web site; 

(2) A manufacturer or private labeler 

may submit comments by electronic 

mail, directed to the Office of the 

Secretary at info@cpsc.gov; or 

(3) A manufacturer or private labeler 

may submit written comments directed 

to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 

West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814– 

4408. 

(c) What must be submitted. Subject 

to §§ 1102.24 and 1102.26, the 

Commission will publish manufacturer 

comments related to a report of harm 

transmitted to a manufacturer or private 

labeler in the Database if such 

manufacturer comment meets the 

following requirements: 

(1) Manufacturer comment relates to 

report of harm. The manufacturer or 

private labeler’s comment must relate to 

information contained in a specific 

report of harm that identifies such 

manufacturer or private labeler and that 

is submitted for publication in the 

Database. 

(2) Unique identifier. A manufacturer 

comment must state the unique 

identifier provided by the CPSC. 

(3) Verification. A manufacturer or 

private labeler must verify that it has 

reviewed the report of harm and the 

comment related to the report of harm 

and that the information contained in 

the comment is true and accurate to the 

best of the firm’s knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

(4) Request for publication. When a 

manufacturer or private labeler submits 

a comment regarding a report of harm, 

it may request that the Commission 

publish such comment in the Database. 

A manufacturer or private labeler must 

affirmatively request publication of the 

comment, and consent to such 

publication in the Database, for each 

comment submitted to the CPSC. 

(d) Information published. Subject to 

§§ 1102.24 and 1102.26, the 

Commission will publish a 

manufacturer comment and the date of 

its submission to the CPSC in the 

Database if the comment meets the 

minimum requirements for publication 

as described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(e) Information not published. The 

Commission will not publish in the 

Database consents and verifications 

associated with a manufacturer 

comment. 

§ 1102.14 Recall notices. 

All information presented in a 

voluntary or mandatory recall notice 

that has been made available to the 

public shall be accessible and 

searchable in the Database. 

§ 1102.16 Additional information. 

In addition to reports of harm, 

manufacturer comments, and recall 

notices, the CPSC shall include in the 

Database any additional information it 

determines to be in the public interest, 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. 

Subpart C—Procedural Requirements 

§ 1102.20 Transmission of reports of harm 

to the identified manufacturer or private 

labeler. 

(a) Information transmitted. Except as 

provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) of this section, the Commission 

will transmit all information provided 

in a report of harm, provided such 

report meets the minimum requirements 

for publication in the Database, to the 

manufacturer or private labeler 

identified in a report of harm. The 

following information will not be 

transmitted to a manufacturer or private 

labeler: 

(1) Name and contact information for 

the submitter of the report of harm, 

unless such submitter provides express 

written consent (for example, by 

checking a box on the report of harm) 

to provide such information to the 

manufacturer or private labeler; 

(2) Photographs that could be used to 

identify a person; and 

(3) Medical records, unless the person 

about whom such records pertain, or his 

or her parent, guardian, or appropriate 

legally authorized representative, 

consents to providing such records to 

the manufacturer or private labeler. 

(b) Limitation on use of contact 

information. A manufacturer or private 

labeler who receives name and contact 

information for the submitter of a report 

of harm and/or a victim must not use or 

disseminate such information to any 

other party for any other purpose other 

than verification of information 

contained in a report of harm. 

Verification of information contained in 

a report of harm must not include 

activities such as sales, promotion, 

marketing, warranty, or any other 

commercial purpose. Verification of 

information contained in a report of 

harm may include verification of the: 

(1) Identity of the submitter and/or 

the victim, including name, location, 

age, and gender; 

(2) Consumer product, including 

serial or model number, date code, 

color, or size; 

(3) Harm or risk of harm related to the 

use of the consumer product; 

(4) Description of the incident related 

to use of the consumer product; 

(5) Date or approximate date of the 

incident; and/or 

(6) Category of submitter. 

(c) Timing. To the extent practicable, 

the Commission will transmit a report of 

harm to the manufacturer or private 

labeler within five business days of 

submission of the completed report of 

harm. If the Commission cannot 

determine whom the manufacturer or 

private labeler is from the report of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

harm, or otherwise, then it will not post 

the report of harm on the Database but 

will maintain the report for internal 

agency use. Examples of circumstances 

that may arise that may make 

transmission of the report of harm 

impracticable within five business days 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) The manufacturer or private 

labeler is out of business with no 

identifiable successor; 

(2) The submitter misidentified a 

manufacturer or private labeler; 

(3) The report of harm contained 

inaccurate or insufficient contact 

information for a manufacturer or 

private labeler; or 

(4) The Commission cannot locate 

valid contact information for a 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

(d) Method of transmission. The 

Commission will use the method of 

transmission and contact information 

provided by the manufacturer or private 

labeler. The Commission will transmit 

reports of harm to a manufacturer or 

private labeler who has registered with 

the Commission as described in 

paragraph (f) of this section. If a 

manufacturer or private labeler has not 

registered with the Commission, the 

Commission will send reports of harm 

through the United States mail to the 

firm’s principal place of business, 

unless the Commission selects another 

equally effective method of 

transmission. 

(e) Size limits of manufacturer 

comments. The Commission may, in its 

discretion, limit the data size of 

comments, which may include 

attachments submitted, where such 

comments and attachments may 

negatively impact the technological or 

operational performance of the system. 

(f) Manufacturer registration. 

Manufacturers and private labelers may 

register with the Commission to select a 

preferred method for receiving reports 

of harm that identify such firm as the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

Manufacturers and private labelers that 

choose to register with the Commission 

must: 

(1) Register with the Commission 

through a process identified for such 

registration; 

(2) Provide and maintain updated 

contact information for the firm, 

including the name of the firm, title of 

a person to whom reports of harm 

should be directed, complete mailing 

address, telephone number, electronic 

mail address, and Web site address (if 

any); and 

(3) Select a specified method to 

receive reports of harm that identify the 

firm as the manufacturer or private 

labeler of a consumer product. 

(g) Manufacturer comments. A 

manufacturer or private labeler who 

receives a report of harm from the CPSC 

may comment on the information 

contained in such report of harm. The 

Commission, in its discretion, where it 

determines it is in the public interest, 

may choose not to publish a 

manufacturer comment in the Database. 

For example, it may not be in the public 

interest for the Commission to publish 

comments that, in the unlikely event, 

contain language reasonably described 

as lewd, lascivious, or obscene. 

§ 1102.24 Designation of confidential 

information. 

(a) For purposes of this section, 

‘‘confidential information’’ is considered 

to be information that contains or relates 

to a trade secret or other matter referred 

to in 18 U.S.C. 1905 or that is subject 

to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

(b) A manufacturer or private labeler 

identified in a report of harm and who 

receives a report of harm from the CPSC 

may review such report of harm for 

confidential information and request 

that portions of the report of harm be 

designated as confidential information. 

Each requester seeking such a 

designation of confidential information 

bears the burden of proof and must: 

(1) Specifically identify the exact 

portion(s) of the report of harm claimed 

to be confidential; 

(2) State whether the information 

claimed to be confidential has ever been 

released in any manner to a person who 

was not an employee or in a 

confidential relationship with the 

company; 

(3) State whether the information so 

specified is commonly known within 

the industry or is readily ascertainable 

by outside persons with a minimum of 

time and effort; 

(4) If known, state the company’s 

relationship with the victim and/or 

submitter of the report of harm and how 

the victim and/or submitter of the report 

of harm came to be in possession of 

such allegedly confidential information; 

(5) State how the release of the 

information would be likely to cause 

substantial harm to the company’s 

competitive position; and 

(6) State whether the person 

submitting the request for treatment as 

confidential information is authorized 

to make claims of confidentiality on 

behalf of the person or organization 

concerned. 

(c) Manner of submission. Requests 

for designation of confidential 

information may be submitted in the 

same manner as manufacturer 

comments as described in § 1102.12(b). 

A request for designation of confidential 

treatment must be conspicuously 

marked. 

(d) Timing of submission. In order to 

ensure that the allegedly confidential 

information is not placed in the 

database, a request for designation of 

confidential information must be 

received by the Commission in a timely 

manner prior to the 10th business day 

after the date on which the Commission 

transmits the report to the manufacturer 

or private labeler. If a request for 

confidential treatment is submitted in a 

timely fashion, the Commission will 

either make a determination on the 

claim prior to posting on the 10th 

business day after transmittal to the 

manufacturer or, as a matter of policy, 

redact the allegedly confidential 

information from a report of harm before 

publication in the Database until it 

makes a determination regarding 

confidential treatment. 

(e) Assistance with defense. No 

request to redact confidential 

information from a report of harm 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) should be 

made by any person who does not 

intend in good faith, and so certifies in 

writing, to assist the Commission in the 

defense of any judicial proceeding that 

thereafter might be brought to compel 

the disclosure of information that the 

Commission has determined to be a 

trade secret or privileged or confidential 

commercial or financial information. 

(f) Commission determination of 

confidentiality. If the Commission 

determines that information in a report 

of harm is confidential, the Commission 

shall: 

(1) Notify the manufacturer or private 

labeler; 

(2) Redact such confidential 

information in the report of harm; and 

(3) Publish the report of harm in the 

Database without such confidential 

information. 

(g) Commission determination of no 

confidentiality. If the Commission 

determines that a report of harm does 

not contain confidential information, 

the Commission shall: 

(1) Notify the manufacturer or private 

labeler; and 

(2) Publish the report of harm, if not 

already published, in the Database. 

(h) Removal of confidential 

information. As stated at 6A(c)(1)(C)(iii) 

of the CPSA, to seek removal of alleged 

confidential information that has been 

published in the Database, a 

manufacturer or private labeler may 

bring an action in the district court of 

the United States in the district in 

which the complainant resides, or has 

its principal place of business, or in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76871 

§ 1102.26 Determination of materially 

inaccurate information. 

(a) For purposes of this section, the 

following definitions apply: 

(1) Materially inaccurate information 

in a report of harm means information 

that is false or misleading, and which is 

so substantial and important as to affect 

a reasonable consumer’s decision 

making about the product, including: 

(i) The identification of a consumer 

product; 

(ii) The identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler; 

(iii) The harm or risk of harm related 

to use of the consumer product; or 

(iv) The date, or approximate date on 

which the incident occurred. 

(2) Materially inaccurate information 

in a manufacturer comment means 

information that is false or misleading, 

and which is so substantial and 

important as to affect a reasonable 

consumer’s decision making about the 

product, including: 

(i) The description of the consumer 

product; 

(ii) The identity of the firm or firms 

responsible for the importation, 

manufacture, distribution, sale, or 

holding for sale of a consumer product; 

(iii) The harm or risk of harm related 

to the use of a consumer product; 

(iv) The status of a Commission, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

investigation; 

(v) Whether the manufacturer or 

private labeler is engaging in a 

corrective action and whether such 

action has not been approved by the 

Commission; or 

(vi) Whether the manufacturer has 

taken, or promised to take, any other 

action with regard to the product. 

(b) Request for determination of 

materially inaccurate information. Any 

person or entity reviewing a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment, either 

before or after publication in the 

Database, may request that the report of 

harm or manufacturer comment, or 

portions of such report of harm or 

manufacturer comment, be excluded 

from the Database or corrected by the 

Commission because it contains 

materially inaccurate information. Each 

requester seeking an exclusion or 

correction bears the burden of proof and 

must: 

(1) State the unique identifier of the 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment to which the request for a 

determination of materially inaccurate 

information pertains; 

(2) Specifically identify the exact 

portion(s) of the report of harm or the 

manufacturer comment claimed to be 

materially inaccurate; 

(3) State the basis for the allegation 

that such information is materially 

inaccurate; 

(4) Provide evidence, which may 

include documents, statements, 

electronic mail, Internet links, 

photographs, or any other evidence, 

sufficient for the Commission to make a 

determination that the designated 

information is materially inaccurate; 

(5) State what relief the requester is 

seeking: Exclusion of the entire report of 

harm or manufacturer comment; 

redaction of specific information; 

correction of specific information; or the 

addition of information to correct the 

material inaccuracy; 

(6) State whether and how an alleged 

material inaccuracy may be corrected 

without removing or excluding an entire 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment; and 

(7) State whether the person 

submitting the allegation of material 

inaccuracy is authorized to make claims 

of material inaccuracy on behalf of the 

person or organization concerned. 

(c) Manner of submission— 

(1) Length of request and expedited 

review. The Commission strongly 

recommends requesters seeking an 

expedited review of claims of materially 

inaccurate information to limit the 

length of the request described in 

§ 1102.26(b) to no more than five pages, 

including attachments, to allow for the 

expedited review of the request. 

Regardless of length, all submissions 

will be reviewed. 

(2) Manufacturers and private 

labelers. A manufacturer or private 

labeler may request a Commission 

determination of materially inaccurate 

information related to a report of harm 

in the same manner as described in 

§ 1102.12(b). Such requests should be 

conspicuously marked. 

(3) All other requests. All other 

requests for a Commission 

determination of materially inaccurate 

information contained in a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment made 

by any other person or firm must be 

submitted to the CPSC using one of the 

methods listed below. The request 

seeking a Commission determination of 

materially inaccurate information may 

be made through: 

(i) Electronic mail. By electronic mail 

directed to the Office of the Secretary at 

info@cpsc.gov; or 

(ii) Paper-based. Written submission 

directed to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814–4408. 

(d) Timing of submission. A request 

for a Commission determination 

regarding materially inaccurate 

information may be submitted at any 

time. If a request for determination of 

materially inaccurate information is 

submitted prior to publication of a 

report of harm in the Database, the 

Commission cannot withhold the report 

of harm from publication in the 

Database until it makes a determination. 

Absent a determination, the 

Commission will publish reports of 

harm on the tenth business day after 

transmitting a report of harm to the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

(e) Assistance with defense. No 

request for a determination of materially 

inaccurate information should be made 

by any person who does not intend in 

good faith, and so certifies in writing, to 

assist the Commission in the defense of 

any judicial proceeding that thereafter 

might be brought to compel the 

disclosure of information that the 

Commission has determined to be 

materially inaccurate information. 

(f) Notice. The Commission shall 

notify the person or firm requesting a 

determination regarding materially 

inaccurate information of its 

determination and method of resolution 

after resolving such request. 

(g) Commission determination of 

material inaccuracy before publication. 

If the Commission determines that 

information in a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment is materially 

inaccurate information before it is 

published in the Database, the 

Commission shall: 

(1) Decline to add the materially 

inaccurate information to the Database; 

(2) Correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and, if the minimum 

requirements for publication as set forth 

in §§ 1102.10(d) and 1102.12(c) are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the Database; 

or 

(3) Add information to the report of 

harm or the manufacturer comment to 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and, if the minimum 

requirements for publication as set forth 

in §§ 1102.10(d) and 1102.12(c) are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the Database. 

(h) Commission determination of 

material inaccuracy after publication. If 

the Commission determines, after an 

investigation, that the requested 

designated information in a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment 

contains materially inaccurate 

information after the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment has been 

published in the Database, the 

Commission shall, no later than seven 

business days after such determination: 

(1) Remove the information 

determined to be materially inaccurate 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3
76872 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

from the Database, including any 

associated documents, photographs, or 

comments; 

(2) Correct the information, and, if the 

minimum requirements for publication 

as set forth in §§ 1102.10(d) and 

1102.12(c) are met, maintain the report 

of harm or manufacturer comment in 

the Database; or 

(3) Add information to the report of 

harm or the manufacturer comment to 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and, if the minimum 

requirements for publication as set forth 

in §§ 1102.10(d) and 1102.12(c) are met, 

maintain the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the Database. 

(i) Commission discretion. 

(1) In exercising its discretion to 

remove, correct, or add information to 

correct materially inaccurate 

information contained in a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment, the 

Commission shall preserve the integrity 

of information received for publication 

in the Database whenever possible. 

Subject to §§ 1102.10(d) and 1102.12(c), 

the Commission shall favor correction, 

and the addition of information to 

correct, over exclusion of entire reports 

of harm and manufacturer comments, 

where possible. 

(2) Expedited determinations. Where 

a manufacturer has filed a request for a 

correction or exclusion within the 

recommended page limit in 

§ 1102.26(c)(1), the Commission shall 

attempt, where practicable, to make an 

expedited determination of a claim of 

material inaccuracy. Given the 

requirement of section 6A of the CPSA 

that reports of harm be published, the 

Commission will publish reports of 

harm on the tenth business day after 

transmitting a report of harm, where the 

Commission has been unable to make a 

determination regarding a claim of 

material inaccuracy prior to the 

statutorily mandated publication date. 

In such instances, the Commission will 

make any necessary correction, 

exclusion, or addition not later than 

seven business days after making a 

determination that there is materially 

inaccurate information in the report of 

harm. Manufacturer comments will be 

published at the same time as the report 

of harm is published, or as soon 

thereafter as practicable. 

(j) Commission determination of no 

material inaccuracy. If the Commission 

determines that the requested 

information in a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment does not contain 

materially inaccurate information, the 

Commission will: 

(1) Notify the requester of its 

determination; and 

(2) Publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment, if not already 

published, in the Database if it meets 

the minimum requirements set forth in 

§§ 1102.10(d) and 1102.12(c). 

(k) Commission action in absence of 

request. The Commission may review a 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment for materially inaccurate 

information on its own initiative, 

following the same notice and 

procedural requirements set forth in 

paragraphs (g) through (j) of this section. 

§ 1102.28 Publication of reports of harm. 

(a) Timing. Subject to §§ 1102.10, 

1102.24, and 1102.26, the Commission 

will publish reports of harm that meet 

the requirements for publication in the 

Database. The Commission will publish 

reports of harm as soon as practicable, 

but not later than the tenth business day 

after such report of harm is transmitted 

to the manufacturer or private labeler by 

the CPSC. 

(b) Exceptions. The Commission may 

publish a report of harm that meets the 

requirements of § 1102.10(d) in the 

Database beyond the 10-business-day 

time frame set forth in paragraph (a) of 

this section if the Commission 

determines that a report of harm 

misidentifies or fails to identify all 

manufacturers or private labelers. Such 

information must be corrected through 

the procedures set forth in § 1102.26 for 

materially inaccurate information in a 

report of harm. Once a manufacturer or 

a private labeler has been identified 

correctly, the time frame set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall apply. 

§ 1102.30 Publication of manufacturer 

comments. 

Timing. Subject to §§ 1102.12, 

1102.24, and 1102.26, the Commission 

will publish in the Database 

manufacturer comments submitted in 

response to a report of harm that meet 

the minimum requirements set forth in 

§ 1102.12(c). This publication will occur 

at the same time as the report of harm 

is published or as soon thereafter as 

practicable. An example of a 

circumstance that may make it 

impracticable to publish a manufacturer 

comment at the same time as a report of 

harm includes when the Commission 

did not receive the comment until on or 

after the publication date of the report 

of harm. 

Subpart D—Notice and Disclosure 

Requirements 

§ 1102.42 Disclaimers. 

The Commission does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy 

of the contents of the Consumer Product 

Safety Information Database, 

particularly with respect to the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

information submitted by persons 

outside of the CPSC. The Database will 

contain a notice to this effect that will 

be prominently and conspicuously 

displayed on the Database and on any 

documents that are printed from the 

Database. 

§ 1102.44 Applicability of sections 6(a) and 

(b) of the CPSA. 

(a) Generally. Sections 6(a) and 6(b) of 

the CPSA shall not apply to the 

submission, disclosure, and publication 

of information provided in a report of 

harm that meets the minimum 

requirements for publication in 

§ 1102.10(d) in the Database. 

(b) Limitation on construction. 

Section 1102.44(a) shall not be 

construed to exempt from the 

requirements of sections 6(a) and 6(b) of 

the CPSA information received by the 

Commission pursuant to: 

(1) Section 15(b) of the CPSA; or 

(2) Any other mandatory or voluntary 

reporting program established between a 

retailer, manufacturer, or private labeler 

and the Commission. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, United States Consumer Product 

Safety Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–30491 Filed 12–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES3