[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 84 (Monday, May 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25313-25315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10833]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request--Follow-Up Activities 
for Product-Related Injuries

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35), the Commission announces that it has submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget a request for an extension of the 
existing approval of collections of information conducted during 
follow-up activities for product-related injuries.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 31, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be captioned ``Product-Related 
Injuries'' and mailed to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
CPSC, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. Copies of comments 
also may be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; delivered to the Office of the 
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, telephone (301) 504-0800; 
telefacsimilied to (301) 504-0127; or emailed to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e784979484ca8894a784979484c9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b4a7a4b4fab8a497b4a7a4b4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR A COPY CONTACT: Linda Glatz, Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207; 301-504-0416 ext. 
2226 or by email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f0308030e1b152f0c1f1c0c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e8848f84899c92a88b989b8bc68f879e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

    Section 5(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2054(a)) 
requires the Commission to collect information related to the cause and 
prevention of death, injury, and illness associated with consumer 
products, and to conduct continuing studies and investigations of 
deaths, injuries, diseases, and economic losses resulting from 
accidents involving consumer products. The Commission uses this 
information to support rulemaking proceedings, development and 
improvement of voluntary standards, information and education programs, 
and administrative and judicial proceedings to remove unsafe products 
from the marketplace and consumers' homes.
    Persons who have been involved with, or who have witnessed, 
incidents associated with consumer products are an important source of 
information

[[Page 25314]]

about deaths, injuries, and illnesses resulting from such incidents. 
From consumer complaints, newspaper accounts, death certificates, 
hospital emergency room reports, and other sources, the Commission 
selects a limited number of accidents for investigation. These 
investigations may involve face-to-face or telephone interviews with 
accident victims, witnesses, or other persons having relevant 
knowledge.
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35) (PRA), the Commission obtained the approval of the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for this collection of information (OMB 
control No. 3041-0029). The current approval expires May 31, 2000. The 
extension is requested through May 31, 2003.
    In the Federal Register of January 4, 2000 (65 FR 290), the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission published a notice, required by the 
PRA, to announce the agency's intention to seek extension of approval 
of this collection of information, through May 31, 2003. The estimated 
burden of this collection of information is 752 hours per year lower 
than the burden estimated for the currently approved collection. The 
Commission received one comment, from representatives of seven 
manufacturers of all-terrain vehicles (ATV's). A summary of this 
comment, and the Commission's response, is provided later in this 
notice.

2. Additional Details About the Request for Approval of a 
Collection of Information

    Agency address: Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 
20207.
    Title of information collection: Follow-Up Activities for Product-
Related Injuries.
    Type of request: Extension of approval.
    Frequency of collection: One time for each respondent.
    General description of respondents: Persons who have been involved 
in, have witnessed, or otherwise have knowledge of incidents associated 
with consumer products.
    Estimated number of respondents: Total 8,500: 1,600 subjects of in-
depth investigations (IDI's) to be interviewed by telephone and 400 
IDI's to be interviewed at the incident site; 2,500 persons who fill 
out forms on the Commission's internet web site or in Commission 
publications; and 4,000 persons to be interviewed by CPSC's Hotline 
operators.
    Estimated annual average number of hours per respondent: 20 min. 
for each telephone interview; 5.0 hours for each on-site interview; 12 
min. to fill out a form; 10 min. for each Hotline interview.
    Estimated total annual number of hours for all respondents: 3,700.

3. Comments on the Commission's Federal Register Notice Announcing 
its Intention to Request an Extension of the Approval of this 
Collection of Information

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment, from 
representatives of seven manufacturers of all-terrain vehicles (ATV's), 
on its previous Federal Register notice announcing its intention to 
request an extension of the approval of this collection of information. 
A summary of this comment, and the Commission's response, is given 
below.
    Comment 1. ``The Proposed Extension Notice Indicates CPSC Is 
Shifting Away From In-Depth Investigations and Increasingly Relying on 
Unverified Information Submitted By Consumers or Their Legal 
Representatives.''
    Response. The lower number of IDI's between the submissions to OMB 
in the year 1997 and the year 2000 does not reflect any basic change in 
CPSC's investigation philosophy.
    In 1997, the clearance request covered 700 on-site and 2200 
telephone investigations, so that CPSC would have clearance to follow 
up on every case CPSC analysts determined required an investigation. 
However, fewer cases than estimated were actually conducted. The 2000 
clearance request (400 on-site and 1600 telephone investigations) is 
consistent with the actual number of investigations now being conducted 
annually and with the Commission's current resource allocations.
    To broaden the scope of data collection, the Commission continues 
to use multiple data sources, including some anecdotal sources. 
Newsclips, consumer complaints, coroner reports, and reports received 
through our Hotline are examples of such anecdotal data sources used by 
the Commission. The addition of Internet sites to the data collection 
sources reflects CPSC's continuing efforts to broaden the scope of data 
collection efforts by identifying and using additional sources as 
appropriate.
    Anecdotal data may help identify hazard patterns that deserve 
further attention. However, anecdotal data are not used as the basis 
for product safety determinations. Those determinations use data 
provided by in-depth investigations. Often, the extent to which an 
incident is susceptible to independent verification cannot be 
determined until some follow up, covered by this approval request, is 
conducted.
    Comment 2. ``Information Submitted to CPSC Through the Hotline or 
Over the Internet Regarding Products Such as ATVs is Unverified, 
Inherently Suspect and Thus of No Practical Utility for Hazard 
Identification or Analysis.''
    Response. Although anecdotal data are collected and utilized by the 
Commission, these data are not treated as a scientific sample and are 
not used to make safety determinations about ATV's. Except where states 
forbid contact with next-of-kin or the initiation of investigations 
when the source of information is a death certificate, all ATV-related 
death incidents reported to the Commission are substantiated by 
exhaustive IDI's. Therefore, the number of ATV investigations is 
directly related to the number of reports received through the various 
data sources utilized by the Commission. For ATV-related injuries, the 
Commission relies upon the scientific sample provided by its National 
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a stratified cluster 
sample of reports of hospital emergency-room-treated product-related 
injuries.
    The increase in the number of callers to the Commission's Hotline 
reflected in the submission to OMB results, at least in part, from 
Commission efforts to expand and improve information approaches in 
order to increase public awareness about its role in product safety. 
For the year 2000 request, CPSC has used the number of incidents 
expected to be reported to the Hotline (4000) as the number of persons 
expected to be interviewed by telephone.
    Incident reports received through the Hotline are also an important 
source of incidents assigned for investigation. The decision whether to 
investigate a product-related incident can involve a number of factors, 
including the perceived seriousness of the hazard and the number of 
similar incidents reported.
    The Commission's use of the Internet as a data source is a fairly 
recent example of efforts to expand data collection efforts. The 
increase in the number of incident reports gathered from the Internet 
reflects increased use of the Internet. The Internet is a new source of 
very important incident data, but very few of these reports pertain to 
ATV's.
    These reports are never used as a substitute for investigations. 
CPSC has historically investigated every ATV-related death. This 
practice has not changed.

[[Page 25315]]

    Comment 3. ``CPSC Must Be Careful To Avoid Mischaracterization In 
Its IDIs Regarding ATVs''
    Response. CPSC investigators are trained to report the sequence of 
events in ATV incidents, not just the precipitating event. In each of 
the cases cited by the commenters as examples of mischaracterization, 
the investigator correctly reported a collision. Any overturn was 
reported as an action subsequent to the collision. The incidents are 
reflected in the database accordingly. The CPSC staff is not aware of 
any investigation being reported solely as an overturn where it is 
apparent that some other event preceded the overturn.
    Further, when these data are coded for entering into the All-
Terrain Vehicle Death (ATVD) database, the first event (such as a 
collision) is coded as the primary hazard pattern, followed by any 
subsequent events (such as rollover).
    Discrepancies are often encountered in various documents gathered 
during an investigation. Investigators do their best to resolve such 
discrepancies and correctly note such information in the investigation 
report.

4. Comments to OMB on This Request for Extension

    Comments on this request for extension of approval of collection of 
information should be submitted by May 31, 2000, to the addresses given 
at the beginning of this notice.
    Copies of the request for extension of the information collection 
and supporting documentation are available from Linda Glatz, Management 
and Program Analyst, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone: (301) 504-
0416, ext. 2226, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a060d060b1e102a091a1909440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe9299929f8a84be9d8e8d9dd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: April 26, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-10833 Filed 4-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>