Monday, 

May 24, 2010 

Part III 

Consumer Product 

Safety Commission 

16 CFR Part 1102 

Publicly Available Consumer Product 

Safety Information Database; Proposed 

Rule 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29156 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1102 

Publicly Available Consumer Product 

Safety Information Database 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

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

‘‘we’’) is issuing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking 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 proposed rule would 

interpret various statutory requirements 

pertaining to the information to be 

included in the database and also would 

establish 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: Written comments must be 

received by July 23, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0041, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. All comments 

received may be posted without change, 

including any personal identifiers, 

contact information, or other personal 

information provided, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information electronically. 

Such information should be submitted 

in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 

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. In this proposed 

rule, the Commission sets forth its 

interpretation of 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 

involving a description of incidents 

related to 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. Also, 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 through forms reporting on productrelated injuries or incidents. The data 

that the Commission collects and 

maintains on product safety has 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 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 the section 6 

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. 

As stated earlier in part I of this 

document, section 6A of the CPSA 

requires the establishment and 

maintenance of a publicly available and 

searchable database. Section 6A of the 

CPSA specifically excludes any report 

submitted pursuant to the public 

database provisions from the notice 

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

the CPSA. 

Accordingly, the Commission invited 

input from its stakeholders before 

developing the proposed rule. A 

summary of the CPSC’s work done to 

date on the public database, including a 

Report to Congress, Public Meetings, 

Federal Register Notices, Commission 

Actions and Public Comments, are 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29157 

available on the CPSC Web site at 

http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/ 

sect212.html. 

On September 10, 2009, pursuant to 

section 6A(a)(2) of the CPSA, the 

Commission submitted a detailed 

implementation plan for the public 

database to Congress. The plan, titled 

‘‘Implementation of a Searchable 

Consumer Product Safety Incident 

Database,’’ set forth the Commission’s 

strategy for establishing and 

maintaining the public database, 

including plans for the operation, 

content, maintenance, and functionality 

of the database. It also described the 

CPSC’s plans for a public awareness 

campaign to promote the database, and 

contained an implementation schedule. 

Pursuant to section 6A(a)(3) of the 

CPSA, the Commission must establish 

the public database no later than 

eighteen months after submission of its 

detailed implementation plan to 

Congress, or by March 2011. 

On November 10, 2009, the 

Commission held a public hearing 

regarding the establishment of a public 

consumer product safety incident 

database. Consumer groups, trade 

associations, research groups, and 

industry discussed their views on 

implementation of the public database. 

Written statements also were accepted. 

We received fourteen comments, and 

these comments are available on the 

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

library/foia/foia10/pubcom/pubdb.pdf. 

A Webcast of the hearing can be viewed 

on the CPSC’s Web site at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/webcast/previous.html. 

Issues presented at the hearing are 

discussed and responded to in more 

detail in section IV of this document 

below. 

On January 11 and 12, 2010, the 

Commission staff hosted a two-day 

workshop to discuss implementation of 

section 6A of the CPSA, including data 

analysis and reporting; reports of harm; 

manufacturer notification and response; 

additional database content, and 

materially inaccurate information. A 

transcript of the workshops is available 

at http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/ 

pw01112010am.html, and a Webcast of 

the workshops is available on the 

CPSC’s Web site at http:// 

saferproducts.gov/events/ 

pw01112010.html. The CPSC also 

invited comments in conjunction with 

the workshop. We received twenty-two 

comments, and we summarize and 

respond to those comments in section 

IV of this document below. 

II. Statutory Authority 

The Commission is issuing this 

proposed 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 Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would establish a 

new 16 CFR part 1102, ‘‘Publicly 

Available Consumer Product Database.’’ 

The new part would consist of four 

subparts: 

• Subpart A—Background and 

Definitions; 

• Subpart B—Content Requirements; 

• Subpart C—Procedural 

Requirements; 

• Subpart D—Notice and Disclosure 

Requirements 

We describe the provisions in each 

proposed subpart in detail immediately 

below in section III. A through D of this 

document. 

A. Proposed Subpart A—Background 

and Definitions 

1. Proposed § 1102.1—Purpose 

Proposed § 1102.1 would describe the 

purpose of the new ‘‘Publicly Available 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database.’’ In brief, the proposal would 

state that part 1102 sets forth the 

Commission’s interpretation, policy, 

and procedures with regard to the 

creation and maintenance of a 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database. 

2. Proposed § 1102.4—Scope 

Proposed § 1102.4 would explain that 

the part 1102 applies to the content, 

procedure, notice, and disclosure 

requirements to be followed and all 

information published in the Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database. 

3. Proposed § 1102.6—Definitions 

Proposed § 1102.6 would define 

certain terms. As a general matter, 

proposed § 1102.4(a) would explain 

that, except as provided in proposed 

§ 1102.6(b), the definitions set forth in 

section 3 of the CPSA apply. 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. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b) would define 

certain terms or, in some cases, interpret 

terms already defined in section 3 of the 

CPSA. For example, section 3(a)(5) of 

the CPSA defines ‘‘consumer product,’’ 

in part, as ‘‘any article, or component 

part thereof, produced or distributed 

(i) for sale to a consumer for use in or 

around a permanent or temporary 

household or residence, a school, in 

recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the 

personal use, consumption or 

enjoyment of a consumer in or around 

a permanent or temporary household or 

residence, a school, in recreation, or 

otherwise * * *’’ However, proposed 

§ 1102.6(b)(3) would define ‘‘consumer 

product’’ as having the same meaning as 

defined in the CPSA, but would further 

explain that ‘‘consumer product’’ 

includes any other products or 

substances regulated by the Commission 

under the CPSA, Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act, Flammable Fabrics Act, 

the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, 

the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention 

Act, the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and 

Spa Safety Act, and any other statute 

that the Commission enforces. 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. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(1) would define 

‘‘additional information’’ as any 

information, other than reports of harm, 

that the Commission determines is in 

the public interest to include in the 

Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(2) would define 

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

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(4) would define 

‘‘Consumer Product Safety Information 

Database’’ as the publicly available 

searchable information database on the 

safety of consumer products required to 

be established and maintained by the 

Commission. 

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. 

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 relating to action the 

Commission orders to be taken by any 

manufacturer, distributor, or retailer 

about a consumer product. 

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 

received through the public database 

and transmitted by the CPSC to the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

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 an 

injury, illness or death, or any risk of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

injury, illness or death as determined by 

the Commission relating to the use of 

the consumer product. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(9) would define 

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

person or entity that submits 

information to the Commission through 

the database 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. 

Proposed § 1102.6(b)(10) would 

define ‘‘voluntary recall notice’’ to mean 

any notice to the public relating to a 

voluntary corrective action taken by a 

manufacturer in consultation with the 

Commission where the Commission has 

notified the public of the manufacturer’s 

voluntary corrective action. 

B. Proposed Subpart B—Content 

Requirements 

Proposed subpart B, ‘‘Content 

Requirements,’’ would describe the 

database’s contents. In general, section 

6A(b) of the CPSA states that the 

database must include: (1) Reports of 

harm; (2) information derived by the 

Commission from notice under section 

15(c), and any notice to the public 

relating to a voluntary corrective action 

taken by a manufacturer, in consultation 

with the Commission, of which the 

Commission has notified the public; and 

(3) manufacturer comments received by 

the Commission on a report of harm and 

requested for inclusion into the 

database. Proposed §§ 1102.10 through 

1102.14 would describe how such 

reports, information, and comments 

would become part of the database, and 

proposed § 1102.16, ‘‘Additional 

information,’’ would discuss 

information that the CPSC may add to 

the database when adding such 

information would be in the public 

interest. Reports of harm that fall 

outside the scope of CPSC regulatory 

authority will be referred to an 

appropriate agency or entity with 

notification of such action to the 

submitter. 

1. Proposed § 1102.10—Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.10 would explain 

who may submit reports of harm in the 

public database. In brief, proposed 

§ 1102.10(a) would identify those 

submitters specified in section 

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

further clarification for those categories 

of persons that may fall within each of 

the identified groups. The list of persons 

under each group is not exclusive, and 

the proposed lists are intended to 

provide a greater understanding of the 

persons that could fall under each 

category. For example, ‘‘consumers’’ 

would include not only users of 

consumer products, but also family 

members, relatives, parents, guardians, 

friends, observers of a consumer 

product being used by another, and 

victims. The proposal would add a 

category of ‘‘other’’ to include those 

persons who may not clearly fit within 

the statutorily identified categories; for 

example, ‘‘other’’ persons would 

include, but not be limited to, attorneys, 

professional engineers, investigators, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

consumer advocates, consumer 

advocacy organizations, and trade 

associations. 

Proposed § 1102.10(b) would describe 

how a report of harm can be submitted 

to the database. The proposal would 

describe four methods (internet, 

telephone, electronic mail, and paper) 

for submitting reports and when each 

submission will be construed as being 

complete. For example, proposed 

§ 1102.10(b)(1) would explain that 

submitters using the Internet will use an 

electronic form specifically developed 

to collect the report of harm in the 

database. As another example, proposed 

§ 1102.10(b)(2) would explain how 

submissions over the telephone will be 

accepted and proposed § 1102.10(b)(4) 

would explain how the Commission 

will deal with written submissions. 

Additionally, the proposal gives the 

Commission the flexibility to provide 

other means of submission if new ways 

subsequently become available. 

Proposed § 1102.10(c) would describe 

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. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(1) through 

(d)(6) would describe the minimum 

requirements for publication of reports 

of harm in the database. The proposal 

identifies the required criteria of 

information that are referenced in 

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

CPSA and further elaborates on the type 

of information included under each 

category. For example, proposed 

§ 1102.10(d)(1) would explain that a 

description of a consumer product must 

include a word or phrase sufficient to 

distinguish a product identified in a 

report of harm as a consumer product or 

a component of a consumer product or 

some other word or phrase to show it is 

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 described as information that 

would be helpful to the description of 

a consumer product. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(2) would 

describe that a report of harm must 

contain the identity of the manufacturer 

or private labeler in order for the report 

to be published. This section would 

further explain that the name of any 

company information sufficient to 

distinguish an entity will satisfy the 

minimum identification requirement 

and that contact information such a 

mailing address, phone number, or 

electronic mail address would satisfy 

the identification requirement. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(3) would 

explain that a description of harm 

should include a narrative that 

describes the harm or risk of harm. The 

proposal would contain a nonexclusive 

list of examples of the types of harm 

that could be included. The proposal 

would allow for a description to include 

a risk of harm where no actual harm 

occurred. However, this proposed 

section would also explain that 

information unrelated to bodily harm or 

a risk of bodily harm, such as 

information on cost or quality of a 

consumer product, will not satisfy the 

regulatory requirement for a description 

of harm. Information such as the date on 

which the harm occurred or manifested 

itself, the severity of any injury or 

whether medical treatment was sought 

is identified as helpful, but not required, 

information to include in a description. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(4), (5), and (6) 

would describe the minimum 

requirements for contact information, 

verification, and consent of the report of 

harm by the submitter. For contact 

information, the proposed 

§ 1102.10(c)(4) would require that a 

submitter of a report of harm provide 

his or her first and last name and a 

mailing address as required contact 

information for the report to be 

published. The proposed rule would 

explain that submitters of reports of 

harm also may provide other contact 

information, such as an electronic mail 

address or a telephone number, but that 

such information is not required in 

order to publish the report. 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(5) would 

explain that submitters must verify the 

report of harm for publication and the 

verification statement follows the 

statutory outline. Verification would 

involve a submitter of a report of harm 

affirmatively agreeing that he or she has 

reviewed the information submitted in a 

report of harm and then checking the 

box for verifying the information the 

report contains. This proposed section 

would also require that as part of 

verifying the report, submitters of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29159 

reports of harm must indicate what 

category they are in (consumer, 

government agency, health care 

professional, etc.) 

Proposed § 1102.10(d)(6) would 

explain that the submitter of a report of 

harm must consent to inclusion of the 

report of harm in the database in order 

for the report to be published. If no 

consent is provided by the submitter the 

report will not be published. 

Proposed § 1102.10(e) would describe 

the Commission’s ability to seek other 

categories of voluntary information. The 

Commission seeks comment as to 

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 not 

according to a manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

Proposed § 1102.10(f) 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. This 

proposed section would identify criteria 

and explain that the public interest 

determination will be based on the 

criteria relating to whether or not the 

information helps database users to 

identify a consumer product; identify 

the manufacturer or private labeler of a 

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. The Commission 

will examine privacy concerns based on 

the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93– 

579, as amended. 

Proposed § 1102.10(g) would state 

that reports of harm submitted by 

persons under the age of 18 must 

include the consent of the parent or 

guardian of that person. The rationale 

for requiring consent on reports by a 

minor is premised on the notion that age 

of legal consent in many jurisdictions is 

18. 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 addressing 

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 the report contains. 

Proposed § 1102.10(h) 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 

appropriate Commission use. 

Proposed § 1102.10(i) 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. 

2. Proposed § 1102.12—Manufacturer 

Comments 

Proposed § 1102.12(a) would state 

that manufacturers or private labelers 

who receive a report of harm 

transmitted from the CPSC may submit 

comments. Proposed § 1102.12(b) would 

propose that comments may be received 

via an online manufacturer portal where 

the manufacturer can register to submit 

comments on a secure nonpublic portal 

that will be provided through the 

Commission’s database. The proposal 

also would specify that comments may 

be submitted via electronic mail or 

regular mail directed to the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary. 

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 

it, contains the manufacturer’s 

verification of the truth and accuracy of 

their comment (similar to the 

verification required of a submitter of a 

report of harm) as well as their consent 

for publication in the database. The 

proposed rule would require a 

manufacturer to affirmatively request 

that its comment be published and to 

affirmatively consent to such 

publication in order for the 

manufacturer comment to be published 

in the database. 

Proposed § 1102.12(d) would explain 

that the Commission will publish a 

manufacturer’s comments and the date 

such comments are submitted to the 

CPSC in the database. 

Proposed § 1102.12(e) would explain 

that the Commission will not publish 

the actual consents and verifications 

obtained from the manufacturer for such 

publication. 

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. 

4. Proposed § 1102.16—Additional 

Information 

Proposed § 1102.16 would describe 

the criteria to be used to determine any 

additional information that will be 

published in the database consistent 

with the requirements of section 6(a) 

and (b) of the CPSA. 

C. Proposed Subpart C—Procedural 

Requirements 

Proposed subpart C, ‘‘Procedural 

Requirements,’’ would describe the 

procedural requirements set forth in 

section 6A(c) of the CPSA related to the 

manufacturer notification and 

transmission. This proposed subpart 

would explain the procedural 

requirements for CPSC transmission of 

reports of harm to an identified 

manufacturer or private labeler; a 

description of the opportunity for 

comment by the manufacturer or private 

labeler identified in reports of harm; 

how designations of confidential 

information should be submitted and 

the criteria for how they will be 

reviewed; how materially inaccurate 

information should be designated and 

what the Commission will consider in 

reviewing any such claim both before 

and after posting a report of harm in the 

database; the timing of posting reports 

of harm in the database; and the timing 

and posting of manufacturers’ 

comments in the database. 

1. Proposed § 1102.20—Transmission of 

Reports of Harm to Identified 

Manufacturer or Private Labeler 

Proposed § 1102.20 would explain 

what information in a report of harm 

will and will not be transmitted to a 

manufacturer or private labeler. As set 

forth in section 6A(b)(2)(B) of the CPSA, 

the name and contact information of the 

submitter will not be transmitted to a 

manufacturer or private labeler unless 

the submitter of a report of harm 

consents to transmit this information. 

The proposed rule also would prevent 

transmission of any photographs 

submitted with the report of harm 

unless the submitter specifically 

consents, and further explains that 

medical records will not be provided 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

without explicit consent from the 

person to whom such records pertain, or 

his or her parent, guardian or legally 

authorized representative. 

Proposed § 1102.20(b) would describe 

the limitation on use of contact 

information by a manufacturer or 

private labeler. The proposed regulatory 

text would incorporate the limitation in 

section 6A of the CPSA on the use of 

submitter contact information by the 

manufacturer for any purpose other than 

verification of information contained in 

a report of harm. The proposed rule 

would describe activities that will not 

be considered as verification including 

sales, promotion, marketing or warranty 

activities or activities relating to a 

commercial purpose of the 

manufacturer. The proposal also would 

describe what is considered a 

verification purpose by relating the 

statutory criteria required for a report of 

harm to be published. For example, 

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. 

Proposed § 1102.20(c) would explain 

the timing of transmission of reports of 

harm to the manufacturer. The proposal 

would adopt the statutory language that 

the reports will be transmitted to the 

manufacturer to the extent practicable 

within five business days after the 

Commission receives a completed report 

of harm. The proposal would identify 

circumstances where transmission of a 

report of harm to the manufacturer 

within five business days may be 

impracticable. The circumstances 

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. 

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 manufacturer portal. The 

proposal also would explain that where 

a manufacturer or private labeler has not 

registered for electronic transmission, 

the Commission will send reports of 

harm through the United States mail to 

a firm’s principal place of business, 

unless the Commission selects another 

equally effective method of 

transmission. 

Proposed § 1102.20(e) would describe 

that 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. 

Proposed § 1102.20(f) would describe 

the process of manufacturer registration 

and explains that registrants can select 

a preferred method for receiving reports 

of harm in the database. The proposal 

would require that a manufacturer or 

private labeler provide updated contact 

information and allows the registrant to 

select a specific method to receive 

reports of harm. 

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, in its discretion 

not to publish a manufacturer comment 

to the database 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. The 

proposal also would allow the 

Commission to 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. 

2. Proposed § 1102.24—Designation of 

Confidential Information 

Proposed § 1102.24 would explain 

how the Commission will define 

‘‘confidential information’’ and would 

set forth criteria which must be 

followed to assert a claim of 

confidentiality. The Commission notes 

that most reports of harm received from 

consumers will not likely contain 

confidential information. However, 

where such a claim for a portion of 

information on a report of harm is 

asserted, the proposal would require 

affirmative statements that would assist 

the Commission in an evaluation of the 

merits of the request. 

Proposed § 1102.24(a) would interpret 

the terms ‘‘confidential information’’ in 

a manner similar to that in section 6(a) 

of the CPSA. The proposal would 

establish parameters for asserting and 

supporting a claim of a portion of a 

report of harm as confidential; these 

parameters follow closely the 

Commission’s current practice and 

procedure for such assertions in a FOIA 

context. 

Proposed § 1102.24(b) would explain 

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. If these statements are 

missing from any request, the 

Commission will consider the request to 

be incomplete and unsupported. For 

example, proposed § 1102.24(b)(1) 

would explain that a manufacturer or 

private labeler is required to specifically 

designate those portions of the report of 

harm asserted to be confidential. 

Proposed § 1102.24(b)(2) would require 

information on whether the asserted 

confidential portion of a report has ever 

been released to any person who was 

not an employee or in a confidential 

relationship with the manufacturer or 

private labeler. 

Proposed § 1102.24(b)(3) would 

require an explanation on whether the 

asserted confidential portion of the 

report is commonly known or readily 

ascertainable by outside persons with a 

minimum of time and effort. Proposed 

§ 1102.24(b)(4) would require the 

manufacturer to explain the 

relationship, if any, between the 

submitter of the report of harm and the 

manufacturer or private labeler and how 

the submitter could have come into 

possession of such confidential 

information. Proposed § 1102.24(b)(5) 

would explain that the manufacturer 

also must support a confidentiality 

claim by describing how release of the 

information could cause competitive 

harm. Any portion of information in a 

report of harm designated by a 

manufacturer to be confidential but 

lacking the statements and information 

in section § 1101.24 (b)(1) through (b)(6) 

will not be considered confidential. 

Section 1101.24(b) also notes that the 

requester of a designation of 

confidential information bears the 

burden of proof regarding such a 

request. 

Proposed § 1102.24(c) would describe 

the manner of submission where 

confidentiality is asserted for a 

designated portion of a report of harm. 

This proposal would allow submission 

of confidentiality assertions in the same 

manner as manufacturer comments 

described in proposed § 1102.12(b) and 

would require the requests to be 

conspicuously labeled. 

Proposed § 1102.24(d) would explain 

that a request for confidential treatment 

be made at any time after CPSC 

transmission to the manufacturer of a 

report of harm. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29161 

Proposed § 1102.24(e) would explain 

that a request for confidentiality should 

only be made 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. This provision is 

similar to one found in the 

Commission’s FOIA regulations 

concerning the assertion of 

confidentiality. The assertion of 

confidentiality must be legitimate, and 

the Commission believes that this 

provision requires firms to stand behind 

their assertion where the Commission is 

being sued to protect a firm’s 

confidential information. 

Proposed § 1102.24(f) and (g) would 

describe the procedure to notify the 

manufacturer or private labeler of 

determinations on the claim of 

confidentiality. 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. 

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. 

Proposed § 1102.24(h) would explain 

the right of a manufacturer or private 

labeler to sue in the appropriate United 

States District Court to seek removal of 

alleged confidential information 

published in the Consumer Product 

Safety Database. 

3. Proposed § 1102.26—Designation of 

Materially Inaccurate Information 

Proposed § 1102.26 would contain 

definitions and the process for how 

claims of materially inaccurate 

information contained in reports of 

harm and manufacturer comments may 

be asserted and how they will be 

evaluated. Section 6A(c)(4) of the CPSA 

addresses materially inaccurate 

information in a report of harm as well 

as in a manufacturer’s or private 

labeler’s comments. 

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 it creates or has the 

potential to create a substantially 

erroneous or substantially mistaken 

belief about information in a report of 

harm. This proposed definition would 

tie the ‘‘substantially erroneous or 

substantially mistaken’’ element to 

required information in a report of 

harm, such as the identification of a 

consumer product, the identification of 

a manufacturer or private labeler, or the 

harm or risk of harm related to the use 

of the consumer product. 

Proposed § 1102.26(a)(2) would define 

‘‘materially inaccurate information in a 

manufacturer comment’’ similar to the 

definition used in a report of harm. This 

provision would explain such 

information 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. This proposed 

definition would tie the ‘‘substantially 

erroneous or substantially mistaken’’ 

element to information in a 

manufacturer or private labeler 

comment that creates a substantially 

erroneous or substantially mistaken 

belief about: (1) The nature, scope, 

liability or cause of a harm or risk of 

harm related to the use of a consumer 

product; (2) the status of a Commission, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

investigation; (3) the identity of the 

firms responsible for importation and 

distribution and sale of a consumer 

product; (4) information about the 

corrective action that a manufacturer or 

private labeler is engaging in when such 

corrective action has not been approved 

by the Commission; or (5) information 

in a comment about whether the 

manufacturer has taken or promised to 

take any other action with regard to the 

product. 

Proposed § 1102.26(b) would allow 

any person or entity to request that a 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment or portions thereof be 

excluded from the database or corrected 

by the Commission because such report 

or comment contains materially 

inaccurate information as defined in 

proposed § 1102.26(a). This section 

would require, at paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(7), the statements required 

in order to support the claim of 

materially inaccurate information. If 

these statements are missing from any 

request, the Commission would 

consider the request to be incomplete 

and unsupported. Should the 

Commission include in this section a 

‘‘burden of proof’’ requirement and, if so, 

what should be the meaning of the term 

and what standard of proof would be 

imposed under it? 

Proposed § 1102.26(c) would explain 

the manner of submission for 

manufacturers and private labelers and 

all other requesters. This would allow 

manufacturers to submit a claim in the 

same manner as a comment is submitted 

and would allow all other requesters to 

submit via electronic mail or written 

submission directed to the Office of the 

Secretary. 

Proposed § 1102.26(d) would allow a 

request for a determination of materially 

inaccurate information to be submitted 

at any time. If a request for 

determination of materially inaccurate 

information is submitted prior to 

publication in the database, the 

Commission may withhold a report of 

harm from publication in the database 

until it makes a determination. Absent 

such a determination, the Commission 

will generally publish reports of harm 

on the tenth business day after 

transmitting a report of harm. 

Proposed § 1102.26(e) would explain 

that a request for material inaccuracy 

should only be made by those who 

intend in good faith to assist in the 

defense of 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 assertion of 

material inaccuracy must be legitimate 

and the Commission believes that this 

provision requires those seeking such a 

determination on information in a 

report of harm or manufacturer or 

private labeler comment to stand behind 

their assertion where the Commission is 

being sued to compel disclosure of such 

information. 

Proposed § 1102.26(f) would describe 

the notice procedure the Commission 

will follow to notify the person or firm 

requesting a determination regarding 

materially inaccurate information of its 

determination and method of resolution 

after resolving such request. 

Proposed § 1102.26(g) and (h) would 

outline the steps the Commission will 

take where it has made a determination 

of material inaccuracy. Proposed 

§ 1102.26(g) would address a 

Commission determination where 

information in a report of harm or 

comment has not been published and 

would explain that the Commission 

may: (1) Decline to add the report of 

harm or manufacturer comment to the 

database; (2) correct the materially 

inaccurate information; or (3) add 

information to the report of harm to 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information. 

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 contains 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29162 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

materially inaccurate information. The 

proposal would explain that the 

Commission shall, no later than seven 

business days of 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 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 other minimum 

requirements for publication are met 

maintain the comment or report of harm 

in the database. 

Proposed § 1102.26(i)(1) would state 

that the Commission’s policy with 

respect to removing, correction, or 

adding information to correct materially 

inaccurate information is to preserve the 

integrity of the information received for 

publication in the database and that the 

Commission will favor correction and 

addition to correction, over exclusion of 

reports in the database. Proposed 

§ 1102.26(i)(2) would create a means for 

expedited determinations of claims of 

materially inaccurate information for 

those requesters staying within the five 

page limit recommended at 

§ 1102.26(c)(1) by stating that the 

Commission shall, where practicable, 

make an expedited determination after 

receipt of the manufacturer’s request for 

a correction or exclusion. Additionally, 

proposed § 1102.26(c)(1) would explain 

that given the requirement in § 6A of the 

CPSA that reports of harm be published, 

the Commission will generally publish 

reports of harm on the tenth business 

day after transmitting a report of harm 

where either the recommended page 

limit has been exceeded or where the 

Commission is otherwise unable to 

make a determination regarding a claim 

of material inaccuracy prior to the 

statutorily mandated publication date. 

Proposed § 1102.26(j) would explain 

that the Commission will notify the 

requester and publish the report of harm 

or manufacturer comment (if not already 

published) if it meets the minimum 

requirements. 

Proposed § 1102.26(k) would provide 

the Commission the discretion to review 

a report of harm or a manufacturer 

comment for materially inaccurate 

information on its own initiative 

following the same notices and 

procedures set forth in (g) through (j). 

4. Proposed § 1102.28—Publication of 

Reports of Harm 

Proposed § 1102.28 would explain 

that reports of harm will be published 

in the database as soon as practicable, 

but no later than ten days after such 

report of harm is transmitted by the 

CPSC to the manufacturer or private 

labeler. This provision would explain 

that reports may be published beyond 

the ten day time frame when 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 at 

proposed § 1102.26. 

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 which may make it 

impracticable to publish a manufacturer 

comment: (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. 

D. Proposed Subpart D—Notice and 

Disclosure Requirements 

This subpart would contain 

information on the disclaimers that will 

be part of the database and any 

information viewed on it as well as the 

applicability of section 6(a) and (b) of 

the CPSA. 

1. Proposed § 1102.42—Disclaimers 

Proposed § 1102.42 would set forth 

the type of disclaimer that will be used 

on the database and documents 

generated from it. This provision would 

require that the disclaimer be 

prominently and conspicuously 

displayed and that it be transmitted on 

any documents that are printed from the 

database. 

2. Proposed § 1102.44—Applicability of 

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

Proposed § 1102.44(a) would explain 

that section 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 section 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. 

IV. Comments on the Publicly Available 

Database and CPSC’s Responses 

We describe and respond to 

significant issues raised by the 

comments. To make it easier to identify 

comments and the Commission’s 

responses, the word ‘‘Comment’’ will 

appear before each comment 

description, and the word ‘‘Response’’ 

will appear before the Commission’s 

response. We have grouped comments 

based on their similarity and have 

numbered the comments to help 

distinguish between different comment 

themes. The number assigned to each 

comment summary is for organizational 

purposes and does not signify the 

comment’s value, importance, or order 

in which it was received. 

Subpart B—Content Requirements 

Section 1102.10: Reports of Harm 

1. CPSC asked whether any category 

of persons should be excluded from 

submitting reports of harm for inclusion 

in the public database, and, if so, by 

what means. 

Comments (Summary 1) 

Two commenters responded that no 

category of persons should be excluded 

from submitting reports of harm. 

Another commenter responded that 

third party submitters may be one or 

more degrees separated from the events 

involved in a report and encouraged 

CPSC to consider how this might affect 

assessment of information that could be 

materially inaccurate. This commenter 

suggested that there should be 

transparency regarding relationships 

surrounding reports and the person 

filing the report. One commenter stated 

that anonymous reports should not be 

published since they cannot be verified. 

Two commenters proposed that only 

reports from those groups specified in 

Section 6A(b)(1)(A)(i)–(v) should be 

considered for inclusion in the database, 

and the Commission should clearly and 

narrowly define these categories. One 

commenter suggested that the report 

form should ask submitters to identify 

to which group under 6A(b)(1)(A)(i)–(v) 

they belong. This commenter suggested 

that the CPSC should have a method for 

verifying that those filing reports are 

who they say they are. To assist in this, 

the commenter suggested that the CPSC 

should encourage submitters to consent 

to their contact information being 

shared with the manufacturer or private 

labeler. 

Response 

We note the breadth of the entities 

listed in the statute and conclude that 

the list is intended to be nonrestrictive. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29163 

Accordingly, we propose that, except for 

information collected through the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS), which is information 

collected by selected hospital 

emergency rooms, and except for 

information collected through Death 

Certificates, all reports of harm (or 

‘‘incident reports’’) related to use of a 

consumer product or other substance 

regulated by the Commission, be 

collected through the same incident 

report form, regardless of who is 

submitting the report of harm, and 

deposited into a central data warehouse 

for such information. 

We propose that product-related 

incident information be collected from 

all sources, including anonymous 

sources, but that only those reports that 

meet the statutorily required minimum 

information as set forth in the statute be 

published for review and access in the 

publicly-searchable portion of the 

database. 

We propose that a completed report 

for posting in the public database 

include verification of the information 

submitted and an indication as to 

whether consent has been given 

regarding the submitter’s contact 

information being shared with the 

manufacturer or private labeler. 

2. CPSC asked whether reports of 

harm submitted by telephone or paper 

should meet the same statutory time 

frames for submission in the public 

database. 

Comment (Summary 2) 

CPSC received five comments, 

including two from the same 

commenter, responding that regardless 

of the means of transmission, all reports 

of harm should adhere to the same 

statutory time frames for submission in 

the public database. 

Response 

We propose that in order to be 

included in the public database, all 

reports of harm, regardless of how they 

are received by the Commission, must 

meet certain minimum requirements, 

which includes, among other things, 

that reports be verified by the submitter 

for accuracy and that the submitter 

consent to inclusion of the report in the 

public database. We propose that paper 

submissions which do not follow the 

incident report form being developed 

for the CPSC Web site, be returned to 

the submitter for further completion, 

verification and consents. 

We propose that the ‘‘not later than 

five business days’’ time frame for 

notifying a manufacturer or private 

labeler of a report of harm involving one 

of its consumer products will not start 

to run until the CPSC receives a verified 

report of harm from the submitter of the 

report of harm. 

3. CPSC asked what a description of 

the consumer product should entail and 

why. 

Comment (Summary 3) 

For the most part, all of the 

commenters responded that some 

combination of the following would 

provide a description of the consumer 

product: Brand name, category of 

product (using an auto-fill function or 

drop-down menus), model number, 

serial number, and a text description of 

the product. One commenter responded 

that the brand name (incl. ‘‘unknown’’), 

category of product (auto-fill list), model 

number, serial number, serial/series 

number/code, manufacturer’s 

identification, the date the item was 

purchased, where the item was 

purchased, country of origin, 

manufacturer/distributor/private labeler 

name, UPC code, and a text description 

of the product should be included. Two 

commenters suggested that industry 

should be encouraged to provide CPSC 

with product-identification information 

that can be incorporated into the 

database because the greater the 

specificity in product identification, the 

greater the ability of CPSC and 

manufacturers to identify trends and 

patterns in the reports it receives. Three 

commenters suggested that the database 

should permit submitters to upload 

photos and/or supporting 

documentation of the products related 

to the incident. One commenter 

suggested that CPSC should work with 

stakeholders to develop guidelines as to 

types of photos and/or supporting 

documentation that would and would 

not be permitted to be included in the 

database. 

Response 

We agree with the majority of the 

comments and have begun 

incorporating many of the 

recommendations into the development 

of the public database. The incident 

report input screens being developed 

incorporate auto-fill functions, dropdown menus, and text fields where 

appropriate. For example, an auto-fill 

function will be provided for brand 

name, model name or number, 

manufacturer name, retailer name, and 

similar fields based on information we 

have collected in our database library, 

which will grow over time. Drop-down 

menus will be used for fields such as 

product category and type; injury 

severity, type, and location; and state 

and country codes. Text fields will be 

available for incident description and 

product description. 

The incident report form is being 

designed to provide on-line help to 

assist submitters with locating the 

product identification information such 

as brand name, model number, 

manufacturer name, and manufacture 

date code. The staff explored the 

feasibility of collecting detailed product 

identification information from the 

industry but ultimately decided that 

given the pace of change and dynamic 

nature of the consumer product 

universe, central maintenance of such 

information would be infeasible. The 

incident report will allow submitters to 

attach photos and other approved file 

formats to supplement their report. 

4. CPSC asked what contact 

information must be provided, at 

minimum, to meet the statutory 

requirement for inclusion in the 

database. 

Comment (Summary 4) 

All of the commenters agreed that a 

submitter should provide a name and 

address. Some of the commenters 

suggested that submitters should have to 

provide a telephone number and/or an 

e-mail address as a secondary means of 

contact. One commenter also stated that 

when submitted online, the submitter 

should be asked to submit an e-mail 

address, and that when submitted via 

telephone, the submitter should be 

asked to provide a telephone number, 

but that submitters should be 

encouraged to submit a phone number 

and/or an e-mail address regardless of 

the method of submission. This 

commenter also stated that if a report is 

made on behalf of a minor, the 

information provided should be 

provided by the parent or guardian of 

that minor. 

Response 

We propose that the minimum contact 

information that must be provided by a 

submitter of a report of harm for 

inclusion in the public database be the 

submitter’s first name, last name, and 

complete mailing address. Additionally, 

submitters will be strongly encouraged 

to enter an e-mail address and/or a 

telephone number for follow-up 

purposes. 

We also propose that minors under 

the age of 18 not be allowed to submit 

a report of harm to the public database 

without the consent of a parent or 

guardian as the named contact person. 

5. CPSC asked how the report form 

should address the issue of the 

submitter’s verification of the 

information submitted. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29164 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell 

Computers and Humans Apart. 

Comments (Summary 5) 

All of the commenters agreed that 

submitters should have to take 

affirmative steps to verify the accuracy 

of the submission. One commenter 

suggested that verification and consent 

should be obtained separately (e.g., two 

separate questions) and that the CPSC 

should employ a procedure similar to 

that currently utilized by the 

Clearinghouse wherein a completed 

report of harm and verification would 

be mailed to the consumer which the 

consumer would then mail back. This 

commenter also suggested that the CPSC 

should consider sending an automated 

verification message to the submitter’s 

e-mail address when submitted online, 

as this would allow the submitter to 

review the report, and require the 

submitter to respond to the message to 

verify the report and consent to its 

inclusion in database. Reports 

submitted by telephone should receive 

the submitter’s verification and consent 

in writing, as per the current 

Clearinghouse procedure. 

However, one commenter suggested 

that submitters who provide their 

reports via telephone should be able to 

verify truth and accuracy of statements 

over the telephone with CPSC staff. The 

same commenter proposed that 

unconfirmed or anonymous reports 

should, minimally, affirmatively 

acknowledge verification. 

Response 

We propose that for each incident 

report submitted on-line, the submitter 

be prompted to affirmatively check a 

box indicating that they have reviewed 

the report and that they are verifying 

that the information contained in the 

report is true and accurate to the best of 

their knowledge. This same or similar 

statement mechanism will appear on email and paper-based forms for 

verification purposes, although the 

paper-based form may also require the 

submitter’s signature. We propose that 

in the case of telephone submissions, 

CPSC mail or e-mail the completed form 

to the submitter for review and 

verification, including requiring the 

submitter’s verification. 

6. CPSC asked how the report form 

should address the submitter’s consent 

for: (i) Inclusion in the public database; 

and (ii) release of contact information to 

the manufacturer or private labeler, and 

whether there were any other issues 

related to the user’s consent that the 

CPSC should consider. 

Comment (Summary 6) 

All of the commenters on this issue 

suggested that CPSC should utilize 

simple check boxes on the report form. 

Specifically, one commenter proposed 

that consent for inclusion should be 

required but release of contact 

information should be optional. This 

commenter also stated that the report 

form should clearly state that contact 

information will not be released to the 

public. This commenter also suggested 

that next to the check box for release of 

contact information to the manufacturer, 

the report form should include a 

statement that CPSC encourages 

consumers to cooperate with 

investigations. 

Response 

We propose that consent of release of 

information be obtained separately from 

verification. We propose the following 

consents be obtained separately on the 

form: Consent to include information in 

the public database; consent to release 

of contact information to the 

manufacturer or private labeler; and, for 

requests received through FOIA, 

consent to release contact information to 

the general public. 

7. CPSC asked what, if any, measures 

should the agency employ to prevent 

the submission of fraudulent reports of 

harm while not discouraging the 

submission of valid reports. 

Comments (Summary 7) 

All of the commenters on this issue 

expressed concern about the prevention 

of fraudulent reports of harm. Several 

commenters suggested a check box 

function expressly certifying the 

accuracy of the information in the report 

of harm but with reminders of the 

implications for submitting fraudulent 

or inaccurate information. 

Two commenters were concerned 

about Web-based robots spamming the 

database, and one suggested a security 

feature similar to those used on ticket 

Web sites (e.g., requiring the user to 

type a combination of letters and 

numbers appearing on screen) to ensure 

that an automated ‘‘robot’’ is not 

spamming the database with bogus 

information. One commenter suggested 

that submitters should be required to 

affirmatively include a verification 

statement in narrative format as part of 

their description of the incident. One 

commenter stated that CPSC should 

have a method of verifying that a 

submitter is who they say they are and 

not a competitor, interest group, or other 

person motivated to ‘‘salt’’ the database, 

and that CPSC should run system 

checks to see whether multiple reports 

are received from the same person. 

Response 

We agree that preventing fraudulent 

reports is a high priority in the 

development of the public database. The 

development team has incorporated the 

following to address the issue. In the 

new incident report form, the user must 

check a box that indicates they certify 

their incident report to be true and 

accurate to the best of their knowledge. 

This screen captures ‘‘Verification by 

Submitter’’ as one of the five types of 

information required by CPSIA, at a 

minimum, to publish incidents of harm 

in the public database. Once the 

‘‘certify’’ box is checked, the ‘‘Submit’’ 

button becomes available at the bottom 

of the screen. The user clicks the 

‘‘Submit’’ button to officially submit 

their incident report to the CPSC. 

The database implementation team is 

working closely with the enterprise 

information security team to ensure the 

system utilizes industry best practices 

as well as complies with Federal and 

CPSC specific security requirements. 

We are considering implementation of 

CAPTCHA 1 types of challenge-response 

tests to ensure that the incident report 

form is not being generated by a 

computer. We will also examine 

technical options to detect if multiple 

reports are submitted from the same IP 

address. 

8. CPSC asked whether the agency 

should design the online reporting form 

to ensure the capture of data that can be 

used in scientific statistical analysis 

and, if so, how. 

Comments (Summary 8) 

Two commenters agreed that the 

database could facilitate statistical 

analysis, stating that the data could be 

used to calculate incident rates, identify 

emerging hazard trends, improve 

CPSC’s ability to identify risks and 

respond quickly, determine the 

effectiveness of safety standards and 

regulations, and further CPSC’s IT 

modernization plan. One commenter 

responded that the database would not 

support the use of the data for scientific 

statistical analysis because of concerns 

regarding the validity of the data. 

Response 

We are designing database reporting 

options into the system that will enable 

public users to extract data sets of 

published incident report information. 

The extracted fields on these reports 

may be user-defined and exportable in 

a variety of standard file formats that 

will enable use with popular data 

analysis tools. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29165 

9. CPSC asked whether the report 

form should contain links to outside 

Web sites and, if so, why. 

Comments (Summary 9) 

CPSC received four comments in 

response to this question and all agreed 

that linking to outside Web sites could 

be problematic. Some commenters 

agreed that links could be helpful if 

such links were relevant to the product 

or complaint. 

Response 

We agree with these comments and 

conclude that the report form should 

not contain links to outside, non-CPSC 

Web sites at this time. 

10. CPSC asked how the agency 

should design the report form so that it 

is clear and easy for users to complete. 

Comments (Summary 10) 

Many of the commenters agreed that 

for ease of use the report form should 

contain as many drop-down menus, 

pop-up windows, help features, 

reminders, and auto-fill fields as 

possible and/or that required fields 

should be marked with an asterisk. 

Some commenters felt that the database 

should distinguish (statutorily) required 

fields from optional fields. Some 

commenters felt that the database 

should have as few required fields as 

possible, but provide additional fields 

that can be filled in if the submitter so 

chooses. Some commenters suggested it 

could be useful to allow narrative 

responses when seeking a description of 

a product or incident. Others provided 

more basic suggestions for the design of 

the report form, such as the report form 

should use a large, easy-to-read font and 

language. In addition, one commenter 

suggested that CPSC should provide 

easy access to information about the 

database, including its purpose, its 

potential uses, and a guide on how to 

access information in the database and 

should include CPSC contact 

information, such as e-mail address and 

phone number, in plain sight for users 

who need assistance with the database. 

One commenter proposed that 

submitters should have the option to 

review and edit the submission at any 

point in the process of filling out the 

report form. 

Response 

We agree with these comments and 

are incorporating many of the 

recommendations in the public 

database. The incident report input 

screens being developed incorporate 

auto-fill functions, drop-down menus, 

and text fields where appropriate. For 

example, an auto-fill function will be 

provided for brand name, model name 

or number, manufacturer name, retailer 

name, and similar fields based on 

information we have collected in our 

database library, which will grow over 

time. Drop-down menus will be used for 

fields such as product category and 

type; injury severity, type, and location; 

and state and country codes. Text fields 

will be available for incident 

description and product description. 

The incident report form is being 

designed to provide on-line help to 

assist submitters with locating the 

product identification information such 

as brand name, model number, 

manufacturer name, and manufacture 

date code. The staff explored the 

feasibility of collecting detailed product 

identification information from the 

industry but ultimately decided that 

given the pace of change and dynamic 

nature of the consumer product 

universe, central maintenance of such 

information would be infeasible. The 

form will also inform the user about the 

purpose and use of the information 

collected as well as how it will be 

protected. 

11. CPSC asked how the agency could 

ensure the accuracy of submitted data, 

from a system design perspective. 

Comments (Summary 11) 

Two commenters suggested that a 

report of harm be assigned a unique 

identifier. One commenter suggested 

that a report of harm could utilize two 

unique identifiers, one viewable in the 

public database and one viewable only 

to submitters, manufacturers or private 

labelers, and the CPSC for the purposes 

of collecting further information 

regarding a report of harm. One 

commenter suggested that anyone 

submitting a report of harm should be 

required to provide contact information. 

Submitters should be asked to create a 

user ID and password that can be linked 

to each report submitted by the user. 

One commenter suggested that a 

submitter should identify to what group 

they belong when filing a report of 

harm, for example, consumer, 

government agency, or health care 

professional. Several commenters 

suggested the use of drop-down menus 

and/or auto-fill features for as many 

categories of information as possible 

throughout the report form to assist 

submitters in providing complete and 

accurate information. For instance, one 

commenter suggested using hazard 

codes similar to those used in the NEISS 

database and brand names using data 

already in CPSC’s other databases, and 

creating a registry for manufacturers and 

others to provide their contact 

information. One commenter suggested 

unlimited free text incident 

descriptions. One commenter also 

suggested including data fields on the 

report form for CPSC-validated data as 

well as manufacturer/private labeler 

comments. 

One commenter suggested allowing 

submitters to amend reports of harm as 

well as allowing manufacturers to 

submit comments for publication after 

the report of harm has been published. 

This commenter also suggested 

maintaining an audit trail every time a 

report is modified. One commenter 

stated that claims of material inaccuracy 

should be focused on the submitter and 

identification of the consumer product, 

and not on the reported problem with 

the consumer product. This commenter 

suggested that reports of harm should 

not be blocked, removed, or otherwise 

flagged when a manufacturer makes a 

claim of material inaccuracy. 

Response 

We have incorporated many of these 

suggestions into the system design. Each 

report will have a unique identifier 

number. 

The incident report input screens 

being developed incorporate auto-fill 

functions, drop-down menus, and text 

fields where appropriate. For example, 

an auto-fill function will be provided for 

brand name, model name or number, 

manufacturer name, retailer name, and 

similar fields based on information we 

have collected in our database library, 

which will grow over time. Drop-down 

menus will be used for fields such as 

product category and type; injury 

severity, type, and location; and state 

and country codes. Text fields will be 

available for incident description and 

product description. 

The system will utilize drop-down 

menus where possible to ensure data 

quality. The system will perform quality 

checks including, but not limited to, 

e-mail address format, blank fields, 

invalid data format (characters in a 

number field), and state and zip code 

match. 

We are developing a process to 

identify, confirm, and register 

companies that wish to use the online 

manufacturer portal that is being 

designed to facilitate communication 

between CPSC and manufacturers. 

Manufacturer registration, contact/ 

account management, e-mail 

communication, and ability to flag 

information are all functionalities being 

considered for the portal. Manufacturers 

will be able to choose their preferred 

method of communication (e-mail or 

postal mail) with the CPSC. 

Manufacturers will designate a point of 

contact within their organization to 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29166 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2 Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 

Conference, July 28, 2008, page 6. 

receive notification from the CPSC. An 

audit trail will be maintained for all 

changes made in the system. 

The incident report form was 

designed with the minimum number of 

required fields, marked by an asterisk, 

while encouraging the user to supply 

additional information. For example, 

only after the user selects the option of 

posting the incident report to the public 

database does the system checks for the 

five required statutory elements of a 

complete incident report. The user is 

encouraged but not required to register 

with an e-mail address and password. 

We propose making the user’s contact 

information optional for submitting an 

incident to the CPSC and a requirement 

for posting the incident report in the 

public database. 

12. CPSC asked what the agency 

could do to ensure the ongoing and 

perpetual integrity of submitted data, 

from a system design perspective. 

Comments (Summary 12) 

Two commenters suggested that CPSC 

should use software ‘‘filters’’ to sort out 

redundancies and multiple submissions 

from the same source and to group 

multiple discrete reports for the same 

problem. One commenter suggested that 

the CPSC publish the data in PDF 

format or other format not capable of 

manipulation. One commenter stated 

that CPSC should ensure the database is 

a closed-loop that allows for feedback 

on, and modification of published data. 

Two commenters agreed that the 

database should allow for the ability to 

remove falsified or erroneous data. One 

commenter proposed that manufacturer/ 

private labeler’s comments be aligned 

with, and published simultaneously 

with, the report of harm. 

One commenter suggested that CPSC 

could generate notices, and/or seek 

comments, in relation to events that 

could occur with reports of harm, such 

as closure, retention time, and/or 

archiving. Another commenter believes 

that information should remain in the 

database indefinitely. One commenter 

also stated that CPSC should provide 

notice to database users on every page, 

including printed copies, that the 

agency does not guarantee the accuracy, 

completeness, or adequacy of the 

database, and that printed pages should 

bear a date to reduce confusion between 

versions of reports. One commenter 

stated that CPSC should establish 

guidelines for agency staff or contractors 

who will be interacting with the 

database. One commenter proposed that 

any changes to the database should 

require ample public notice and 

accommodate new data in ways that 

will not alter prior data structures. 

Response 

The incident report input screens 

being developed incorporate auto-fill 

functions, drop-down menus, and text 

fields where appropriate. For example, 

an auto-fill function will be provided for 

brand name, model name or number, 

manufacturer name, retailer name, and 

similar fields based on information we 

have collected in our database library, 

which will grow over time. Drop-down 

menus will be used for fields such as 

product category and type; injury 

severity, type, and location; and state 

and country codes. 

The system will feature tools for CPSC 

to perform redundancy and 

deduplication functions. Software is 

being designed to sort and select 

potential duplicates based on 

predefined criteria. Matches will 

automatically be flagged for CPSC staff 

review. The CPSIA conferees recognized 

that ‘‘multiple reports of the same 

incident could provide different 

relevant details and that information 

from those reports could be helpful to 

the public and should, therefore, remain 

in the database.’’ 2 Therefore, those 

different, relevant details will be 

captured in the database. The public 

database will feature prominent notice 

that the agency does not guarantee the 

accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of 

the contents of the database. 

13. CPSC asked how the agency 

should address incomplete reports of 

harm, from a system design perspective. 

Comments Summary (13) 

CPSC received a variety of comments 

in response to this question. Some 

commenters suggested that incomplete 

reports of harm (i.e., those lacking the 

requisite minimum information) should 

not be included in the database and/or 

submitters should be cued via an autoreminder function when required fields 

are incomplete. Other commenters 

proposed that CPSC should accept 

forms with incomplete information and/ 

or seek to fill gaps through further 

research. Two commenters suggested 

that the CPSC can and should, if 

appropriate, act on information in these 

submissions. 

Response 

We are designing the system to 

prompt the submitter when the required 

information for inclusion in CPSC’s 

public database has not been completed. 

In addition, staff recommends including 

language in the public database to 

encourage submitters to complete the 

minimally required information for 

inclusion in the public database. 

Although incomplete reports will not be 

published in the public database, we 

propose that incomplete reports be 

stored for appropriate Commission use. 

14. CPSC asked whether the report 

form should check for inaccurate 

information and, if so, how. 

Comments (Summary 14) 

One commenter responded that the 

CPSC need not check for inaccurate 

information if it utilizes a security 

feature such as those that require a user 

to type a combination of letters and 

numbers appearing on screen. Another 

commenter suggested that in order to 

check for inaccurate information, e-mail 

addresses could be validated for proper 

format and against illegitimate use, 

database fields could be validated (e.g., 

system check for blank fields, etc.), and 

by the use of drop-down menus to 

accurately link a manufacturer to a 

brand and vice versa. 

Response 

We agree with these 

recommendations. One of the security 

features under consideration is using 

CAPTCHA types of challenge-response 

tests to ensure that the incident report 

form is not being generated by a 

computer. The system will utilize dropdown menus where possible to ensure 

data quality. The system will perform 

quality checks including, but not 

limited to, e-mail address format, blank 

fields, invalid data format (characters in 

a number field), and state and zip code 

match. 

15. CPSC asked what means the 

agency could employ to ensure that the 

correct manufacturer and/or private 

labeler is identified in a report of harm. 

Comments (Summary 15) 

One commenter suggested that the 

following information would aid in 

identifying the product and the 

manufacturer: brand name, product 

name, type of product, model number or 

name, serial number (if available), 

product description, and product age. 

Another commenter suggested the use of 

drop-down menus in order to accurately 

link manufacturers to products and vice 

versa. 

One commenter suggested that CPSC 

should rely on the manufacturer to 

confirm their identity in relation to the 

product identified in the report of harm. 

This commenter also suggested that 

CPSC allow companies to register their 

contact information with CPSC in order 

to minimize agency resources. This 

commenter also proposed that retailers 

be treated similarly since retailers 

oftentimes have as much product 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29167 

information as manufacturers, if not 

more. 

Response 

The incident report input screens 

being developed incorporate auto-fill 

functions, drop-down menus, and text 

fields where appropriate. For example, 

an auto-fill function will be provided for 

brand name, model name or number, 

manufacturer name, retailer name, and 

similar fields based on information we 

have collected in our database library, 

which will grow over time. Drop-down 

menus will be used for fields such as 

product category and type; injury 

severity, type, and location; and state 

and country codes. Text fields will be 

available for incident description and 

product description. 

The system will utilize drop-down 

menus where possible to ensure data 

quality. The system will perform quality 

checks including, but not limited to, email address format, blank fields, 

invalid data format (characters in a 

number field), and state and zip code 

match. 

We explored the feasibility of 

collecting product identification 

information from the industry to link 

manufacturers to products and 

ultimately propose that manufacturers 

maintain that information to provide 

better data quality and consistency. One 

key piece of relevant feedback received 

from manufacturers during the staff 

workshop was that manufacturers 

themselves often have difficulty keeping 

their model/product database accurate 

and up to date. Having CPSC maintain 

a copy of this information would 

introduce additional complexity and 

risk. 

We agree with comments regarding 

company registration and are 

developing a process to identify, 

confirm, and register companies. 

16. CPSC asked what, if any, 

instructions to users should be included 

on the report form. 

Comments (Summary 16) 

Some commenters suggested that the 

instructions should be simple, identify 

all required information, and/or state 

that the form cannot be processed 

without the required information. Some 

commenters suggested that the report 

form contain pop-up boxes or links 

providing more detailed explanations of 

the types of information sought. Other 

commenters suggested that the report 

form should notify submitters when 

required fields are left blank. Three 

commenters proposed that the report 

form should instruct the submitter to 

answer questions as thoroughly and 

completely as possible, as well as of the 

importance of providing full and 

complete information, and instruct 

submitters to reference any documents 

associated with the purchase and use of 

the product while filling out the form. 

One commenter proposed that the 

report form should indicate what 

information is required to make a report 

of harm eligible for inclusion in the 

database. One commenter suggested that 

the report form should include a clear 

explanation of the privacy protections of 

the submitted information and the 

importance of these reports to the CPSC. 

This commenter suggested that the 

report form should make clear to 

consumers that they have the right to 

decline consent to sharing their contact 

information with the manufacturer and 

that doing so does not affect the ability 

of a report to be published. 

Several commenters proposed that the 

instructions on the report form should 

inform the submitter of the benefits of 

allowing the manufacturer to contact 

them to verify the report and also 

encourage submitters to do so. One 

commenter proposed the following 

script be included on the report form: 

Manufacturers sometimes find it helpful to 

speak directly with consumers to investigate 

safety issues and obtain information 

regarding reported incidents with their 

products. May we disclose your name and 

contact information to the manufacturer or 

private labeler? 

Another commenter suggested that if 

a submitter declines to share contact 

information with a manufacturer, there 

should be a field indicating as much on 

the report form. Other commenters felt 

that the submitters should be provided 

with this option but without bias, 

allowing consumers to make their own 

choice. 

Response 

We agree with the comments 

regarding making the form simple and 

easy to use. The incident report form 

will provide online help to assist 

submitters with locating the product 

identification information such as brand 

name, model number, and manufacturer 

name and date code. We explored the 

feasibility of collecting product 

identification information from the 

industry and propose that having 

manufacturers maintain that 

information will provide better data 

quality and consistency. 

The form was designed with the 

minimum number of required fields, 

marked by an asterisk, while 

encouraging users to supply additional 

information. For example, only after the 

user selects the option of posting the 

incident report to the public database 

does the system check for the five 

required statutory elements of a 

complete incident report. The form will 

also inform the user about the purpose, 

use, and protection of information being 

collected by the CPSC and how the 

manufacturer might use the information 

provided he or she should choose to 

release it to the manufacturer. 

Section 1102.10: Reports of Harm 

(Additional Comments) 

17. CPSC received a number of 

additional comments not in response to 

any particular question but related to 

the overall issue of Section 1102.10 

‘‘Reports of Harm.’’ 

Comments (Summary 17) 

Several commenters stated that the 

scope of the database is limited to 

reports of harm and not to reports 

relating to general product quality, 

service issues, or other types of quality 

complaints, that the harm must relate to 

the use of the consumer product, and/ 

or that the database is limited to the 

information the Commission determines 

is reasonably related to the safety of 

consumer products as indicated by 

specific reports of harm caused by those 

products and that the CPSC should 

establish guidelines to this end. Along 

these lines, one commenter suggested 

that the software utilized in the database 

could be structured to guide or prompt 

submitters to supply the information 

necessary to constitute a report of harm. 

One commenter suggested that 

consideration should be given to 

limiting the reporting of ‘‘old’’ or ‘‘stale’’ 

data not contemporaneously related to 

the occurrence of the alleged incident. 

Three commenters suggested a one-year 

statute of limitations to file a report of 

harm. Another commenter proposed 

that the database should not contain a 

statute of limitations at all. One 

commenter also suggested that the 

database should be engineered to 

automatically publish reports within the 

required ten business days of receipt. 

Response 

We recognize that the scope of the 

database is limited to reports of harm. 

Instructions and guidance throughout 

will prompt the submitter to adhere to 

this scope. CPSC will review all reports 

of harm regardless of the date of the 

incident described by the submitter. 

We considered options for automatic 

publishing of reports of harm. However, 

considerations around publishing 

personally identifiable information in 

free form text boxes limited staff’s 

design options in this regard. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29168 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Section 1102.12: Manufacturer 

Comments 

18. CPSC asked what means the 

agency should employ to allow 

manufacturers and private labelers to 

submit comments regarding a report of 

harm or to designate confidential 

information, and what issues should the 

agency consider when developing such 

a process. 

Comments (Summary 18) 

In response to this question, CPSC 

received one comment stating that CPSC 

should allow electronic submissions 

accommodating text, photos, and other 

documents as attachments. One 

commenter suggested that CPSC should 

ensure that only the applicable 

manufacturer or private labeler should 

be able to submit comments regarding a 

report. This commenter suggested that 

electronic means would be expected to 

facilitate making comments. This 

commenter also suggested that unique 

identifying information associated with 

a report should be available only to 

submitters, manufacturers or private 

labelers, and CPSC, and it should be a 

requirement for offering comments and, 

also, that different types of users could 

have different ‘‘views’’ of the data. 

Finally, this commenter suggested that 

the database should provide a 

mechanism for designating confidential 

information, redacting, and exchanging 

redacted versions of reports. Two 

commenters requested a clearly 

identified process with criteria to 

determine whether certain content is 

confidential business information. This 

commenter also suggested that CPSC 

should consider allowing manufacturers 

to ‘‘flag’’ reports that are believed to 

contain confidential business 

information. 

Similarly, one commenter stated that 

the CPSC should establish a means for 

submitting comments and designating 

confidential information. The report of 

harm and a manufacturer’s comments 

should be aligned so that the 

manufacturer’s comments appear in 

same field as (alongside) the submitter’s. 

This commenter also suggested that a 

manufacturer should be able to 

designate the information it believes is 

materially inaccurate or confidential via 

a clear method (e.g., flag system) and, if 

the Commission reviews a 

manufacturer’s confidentiality request 

and determines the report contains 

confidential information, it must redact 

that information from the report of 

harm, and must not publish the report 

to the database until it makes a 

determination as to confidentiality; if 

the CPSC determines it is not 

confidential, it must notify the 

manufacturer. This commenter also 

suggested that CPSC should establish a 

means for manufacturers to submit 

proposed redactions of confidential 

information and, if it is determined that 

it is indeed confidential, the agency 

should have a method for ensuring 

information remains confidential (e.g., 

not disclosed under the FOIA). One 

commenter stated that if confidential 

business information does happen to be 

submitted for posting, manufacturers 

and private labelers must demonstrate 

confidentiality and submit supporting 

information to show that the requested 

material is entitled to confidential 

treatment. This commenter also stated 

that a manufacturer’s comments to a 

report of harm should also contain a 

verification of truth and accuracy by the 

manufacturer. 

One commenter stated that accuracy 

should start and end with the submitter 

and the product identification, and that 

the CPSC should not verify the accuracy 

of, and should not allow manufacturers 

to comment on, the report of harm. 

Response 

We agree with many of the comments 

and have taken the suggestions into 

consideration in the following ways: 

• The system will allow users to 

submit text, photo, and other approved 

types of documents as attachments. 

• Only the registered contact from a 

manufacturer or private labeler can 

submit comments regarding a report. 

• Each report will have a unique 

identifier. 

• There will be role-based access and 

views into the data. 

• Manufacturers will have the ability 

to flag for CPSC review those reports 

they believe contain confidential 

information. 

Section 1102.16: Additional Information 

19. CPSC asked what additional 

categories of information should be 

included in the public database and 

why. 

Comments (Summary 19) 

Two commenters proposed that 

information regarding the product, such 

as manufacturer, the type of product, 

the product brand, model number or 

name, serial number, UPC code, date of 

purchase, product code date or 

equivalent designation on the product, 

and place of purchase; date of incident; 

location of incident; whether 

manufacturer or private labeler was 

contacted prior to submission of the 

report; verification that the label 

instructions were followed when using 

the product; and a brief description of 

the circumstances of the incident 

(including how the product was being 

used at the time of the reported 

incident, a description of what 

happened, whether the submitter used 

any other products or devices along 

with the product involved in the 

incident), how much the product was 

used over what period of time (if 

applicable), description of harm 

incurred during the incident, the types 

of symptoms or injuries sustained, and 

the type of medical care sought, if 

applicable. Two commenters proposed 

that recalls be included in the database, 

while another commenter proposed that 

the database include information 

derived by the Commission from CPSA 

Section 15 reports. 

Two commenters were in favor of 

including CPSC technical research, 

reports on emerging hazards, and other 

staff-generated research that will 

improve the public’s understanding of 

consumer product safety. One 

commenter stated that the Commission 

should make all staff research 

completed within the past five years 

publicly accessible within 30 days of 

completion and, if not in the database 

itself, linked in the database. 

One commenter suggested that CPSC 

should address how it will integrate predatabase incident data into the new 

system. Along these lines, one 

commenter suggested that NEISS data 

should be included in the database, 

while another commenter responded 

that CPSC should not add categories of 

information beyond that required by the 

CPSIA but, rather, should focus its 

efforts on ensuring the quality of, and 

timely reporting of, required 

information. Finally, one commenter 

felt that the CPSC should accept 

information submitted anonymously by 

whistleblowers and, if the information 

was determined to be valid, the 

information should be part of the public 

database. 

Response 

The incident report form will be 

designed to collect the following 

information regarding the report of 

harm, including: Name of manufacturer 

or private labeler; type of product; 

product brand; model number; serial 

number; date of purchase; manufacturer 

code date; place of purchase; date of 

incident; location of incident; whether 

the manufacturer or private labeler was 

contacted prior to submission of the 

report of harm and, if not, whether there 

is a plan to contact them; a brief 

description of the circumstances of the 

incident; a description of harm incurred 

during the incident; the types of 

symptoms or injuries sustained; and the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29169 

type of medical care sought, if 

applicable. 

After the user successfully submits 

the report of harm, the system will alert 

the user of any recalls that are related 

to the incident reported and provide 

options for the user to subscribe to the 

recalls.gov subscription list and 

possibly other lists, web services, or 

agency publications. 

The incorporation of CPSC technical 

research, reports on emerging hazards, 

and other staff-generated research into 

the public database is being studied for 

future releases of the system. 

The database will accept information 

submitted anonymously but we propose 

that anonymous reports not be 

published. 

20. CPSC asked what, if any, 

information could not be included in 

the public database pursuant to the 

statute and why. 

Comments (Summary 20) 

Several commenters stated that the 

database should exclude reports filed 

under section 15(b) of the CPSA. One 

commenter also stated that information 

received under any other mandatory or 

voluntary reporting program established 

between retailer, manufacturer, or 

private labeler and the CPSC could not 

be included in the database, as well as 

information exempt from disclosure 

under FOIA, trade secrets, and other 

confidential information. 

Two commenters stated that reports of 

harm and/or comments involving 

products that fall outside the scope of 

CPSC regulatory authority should not be 

included in the database. One 

commenter was concerned that the 

status of CPSC investigations, including 

the existence of the investigation, 

should not be included in the database. 

This commenter also felt that the 

database should not contain the 

resolution and/or remedy provided to 

individual submitters and that status 

updates should be allowed only by 

manufacturers providing comments. 

Finally, this commenter stated that 

third-party comments would not be 

appropriate for the database. 

Response 

We propose that all reports of harm 

meeting the minimum statutory 

requirements be included in the public 

database. All other reports of harm 

should be collected for appropriate 

Commission use. Reports of harm that 

fall outside the scope of CPSC 

regulatory authority will be referred to 

the appropriate agency or entity with 

notification of such action to the 

submitter. 

21. CPSC asked what, if any, 

disclaimers or qualifications should 

appear on the report form. 

Comments (Summary 21) 

Comments in response to this 

question fell into two categories. The 

first category of comments concerned 

the need for a disclaimer either on all 

screen views during the process of 

submitting a report form or at least at 

the end on the completed report form. 

Commenters felt that that the disclaimer 

should inform users of the database that 

CPSC has not verified the truth or 

accuracy of reports in the database. One 

commenter felt that there should be an 

acknowledgment check box for the 

submitter to select upon completion of 

a report to certify the truth and accuracy 

of the report prior to submission. 

The second category of comments 

concerned the need to inform users how 

reports of harm, and specifically any 

personal information contained therein, 

would be used by CPSC. One 

commenter suggested that users should 

be informed that the report of harm 

itself would be contained in a publicly 

viewable database. Other commenters 

were concerned that users should be 

informed that their contact information 

would never be publicly available and 

would only be shared with 

manufacturers if submitters gave 

express consent. 

Response 

We propose that notice, consistent 

with statutory requirements, should be 

provided to users of the public database 

that the Commission does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy 

of the contents of the database and that 

the submitters of a report of harm verify 

that the information they have provided 

is accurate to the best of their 

knowledge. 

We also propose that the public 

database include detailed information 

for submitters regarding how their 

contact information will be used. 

22. CPSC also asked what specific 

disclaimers the agency should make 

with regard to the accuracy of the 

information contained in the public 

database and why, and where should 

such disclaimers appear and why. 

Comments (Summary 22) 

CPSC received a variety of comments 

in response to this question. Several 

commenters felt that all publicly 

viewable pages in the database should 

contain a disclaimer that CPSC has not 

verified the truth or accuracy of the 

reports in the database. 

One commenter recommended that 

that Commission use the statutorily 

required disclaimer consistently on each 

report on the database. 

One commenter was concerned about 

a disclaimer for materially inaccurate 

information. This commenter suggested 

that when a report is claimed to contain 

materially inaccurate information, the 

report should be marked on every page 

to indicate it as such. When an existing 

report is removed or corrected because 

of a claim of materially inaccurate 

information, public notice should be 

made to those who already viewed the 

report. Finally, one commenter 

suggested that printed reports of harm 

from the database should contain a print 

date in order to reduce confusion 

between versions of reports of harm or 

manufacturer comments. 

Response 

The Commission does not guarantee 

the accuracy, completeness or adequacy 

of the contents of the public database. 

The public database will contain a 

notice to this effect. Additionally, we 

propose that such notice be placed in 

the following locations, at minimum: 

• On the entrance screen for public 

users 

• On all search result displays 

• On all reports printed from the 

public database 

Printed reports of harm will contain a 

print date. 

Subpart C—Procedural Requirements 

Section 1102.20: Transmission of 

Reports of Harm to the Identified 

Manufacturer or Private Labeler 

23. CPSC asked whether, given the 

statutory timeframe for notification, 

manufacturers and private labelers 

should be able to ‘‘register’’ contact 

information with the Commission for 

the purpose of notification of a report of 

harm and, if so, what form of contact 

information should be acceptable, i.e., 

electronic mail only. CPSC also wanted 

to know what other issues along these 

lines should be considered. 

Comments (Summary 23) 

The majority of the commenters who 

responded to this question agreed that 

registration would help facilitate 

manufacturer notification. One 

commenter responded that electronic 

mail only would be acceptable. 

Response 

We propose that the Commission 

provide a mechanism for manufacturers 

and private labelers to register their 

contact information and their preferred 

method of contact by the Commission. 

24. CPSC asked how the agency could 

ensure that manufacturers and/or 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29170 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

private labelers do not use a submitter’s 

contact information for purposes other 

than verification of a report of harm, 

and by what means could CPSC enforce 

such a provision. 

Comments (Summary 24) 

Two commenters suggested that CPSC 

could emphasize that misuse of contact 

information would not be tolerated and 

that CPSC would take any necessary 

action to prosecute violators. One 

commenter proposed that CPSC reiterate 

the restrictions and appropriate uses for 

consumer contact information in all 

forms sent to manufacturers, while 

another commenter proposed that CPSC 

publish a list of uses of contact 

information that would be deemed 

abuses of that information. This 

commenter also suggested that CPSC 

could create a webpage for submitters to 

report abuse. 

Response 

We conclude that the intent of the 

statute to provide contact information 

for the submitter to the manufacturer is 

for the sole purpose of verifying the 

report of harm. The Commission may, at 

its discretion, determine means by 

which it will enforce this provision. 

Subpart B—Content Requirements 

Section 1102.22: Opportunity for 

Manufacturer Comment 

25. CPSC asked what means the 

agency should employ to notify 

manufacturers and private labelers 

regarding a report of harm within the 

five day statutory time frame. 

Comments (Summary 25) 

The majority of commenters agreed 

that electronic mail notification would 

be the most effective means of 

notification. Although others felt that it 

should be according to the preference 

(electronic mail, telephone, fax) of the 

manufacturer or private labeler. Two 

commenters were concerned that 

notification should reach the intended 

recipient and suggested that CPSC 

develop procedures for when electronic 

mail is undeliverable and/or to confirm 

that individuals receiving notification 

are authorized contacts for the 

manufacturers and private labelers. 

Response 

As part of the public outreach effort, 

we are developing a process to identify, 

confirm, and register companies. A 

manufacturer portal is being designed to 

facilitate communication between CPSC 

and manufacturers. Manufacturer 

registration, contact/account 

management, e-mail communication, 

and the ability to flag information that 

may be confidential or materially 

inaccurate are all functionalities being 

considered for the portal. Manufacturers 

will be able to choose their preferred 

method of communication (e-mail or 

postal mail) with the CPSC. 

Manufacturers will designate a point of 

contact within their organization to 

receive notification from the CPSC. We 

are working closely with enterprise 

information security experts to secure 

electronic communication. 

26. CPSC asked what, if any, 

circumstances could arise which could 

restart any of the timeframes 

contemplated in the statute with regard 

to manufacturer notification and 

responses. 

Comments (Summary 26) 

One commenter suggested that if a 

submitter provides new or supplemental 

information to CPSC before the initial 

report is published, this would delay 

publication of the report of harm in the 

database. Another commenter suggested 

that if there is a valid claim by the 

manufacturer that a report of harm is 

invalid, incomplete, or inaccurate, the 

CPSC should take steps to suspend any 

statutory time limits until the claim 

could be adjudicated by the 

Commission. One commenter proposed 

that the Commission ‘‘restart’’ the 

statutory timeframes if notification goes 

to the wrong manufacturer or private 

labeler, if incomplete information is 

provided in the report form, or if the 

submitter corrects the original report 

form, especially where information in a 

required field has been changed. 

Response 

We propose that in cases where a 

claim of materially inaccurate or 

confidential information is under 

review, the Commission, in its 

discretion, may withhold a report of 

harm in part or in full until such a 

determination is made. Absent such a 

determination, the Commission will 

generally publish reports of harm on the 

tenth business day after transmitting a 

report of harm. 

Section 1102.26: Designation of 

Materially Inaccurate Information 

27. CPSC asked, given the statutory 

timeframe, how the agency should 

review claims of materially inaccurate 

information. 

Comments (Summary 27) 

Two commenters felt that there 

should be a process for reviewing, 

modifying, or removing materially 

inaccurate information. One commenter 

felt that a claim of materially inaccurate 

information contained in a report of 

harm should not restart the ten-day 

statutory time period for posting of 

other information in the report form. 

One commenter felt that once the CPSC 

has received a claim of materially 

inaccurate information contained in a 

report of harm, it should have a limited 

time to issue a decision or, in the 

alternative, it should remove the report 

of harm until it does. Finally, one 

commenter felt that the CPSC could use 

its discretion to permit an extension of 

the ten-day period for publication in the 

database in circumstances where there 

is a challenge to the accuracy of the 

report. 

Response 

We propose that if a claim of 

materially inaccurate information is 

timely submitted, the Commission may 

withhold the report of harm from 

publication in the public database until 

a determination is made regarding such 

claim. Absent such a determination, the 

Commission will generally publish 

reports of harm on the tenth business 

day after transmitting a report of harm. 

We also propose that if the Commission 

determines that the designated 

information in a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment contains 

materially inaccurate information before 

it is published, the Commission should 

in its discretion do the following: 

Decline to add the materially inaccurate 

report of harm or manufacturer 

comment to the public database; redact 

the information, and if the minimum 

requirements for publication are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the database; 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and if the minimum 

requirements for publication are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the database; 

or, add the information to the report of 

harm or the manufacturer comment to 

correct the materially inaccurate 

information, and, if the minimum 

requirements for publication are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the public 

database. 

Should the Commission make a 

determination of material inaccuracy 

after publication, we propose the 

following: Removal of the entire 

materially inaccurate report of harm or 

manufacturer comment from the public 

database, including all associated 

documents, photographs, or comments; 

redaction of the materially inaccurate 

information and if the minimum 

requirements for publication are met, 

maintain the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the public 

database; correction of the materially 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29171 

inaccurate information and, if the 

minimum requirements are met, 

maintain the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the public 

database; or, add the information to the 

report of harm or the manufacturer 

comment to correct the materially 

inaccurate information and, if the 

minimum requirements for publication 

are met, maintain the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment in the public 

database. 

28. CPSC asked whether the agency’s 

responsibility with regard to materially 

inaccurate information is limited to 

reports of harm and manufacturer 

comments and why or why not. 

Comments (Summary 28) 

CPSC received one comment in 

response to this question which stated 

that CPSC should exclude materially 

inaccurate information regardless of the 

source. 

Response 

Only one commenter opined that the 

agency has a responsibility for 

materially inaccurate information 

regardless of the source. We believe that 

new section 6A of the CPSA sets forth 

requirements for the Commission to 

review such information in reports of 

harm and manufacturer comments in 

the context of the database. We 

recommend that our responsibility be 

for those two identified instances. For 

other information not in the database, 

CPSC follows other requirements under 

section 6 of the CPSA for ensuring that 

information it discloses is accurate and 

not misleading and that the Commission 

has taken reasonable steps with respect 

to the accuracy of information. 

29. CPSC asked what types of 

information would constitute materially 

inaccurate information. 

Comments (Summary 29) 

CPSC received numerous, specific 

examples of what could constitute 

materially inaccurate information 

contained in a report of harm, 

including: Misidentification of the 

manufacturer or private labeler, 

misidentification of persons involved, 

or misidentification of the consumer 

product itself (including 

misidentification of brand name or 

model number or misuse/modification 

of the product); and inaccuracy in the 

description of the incident. 

Some commenters were also 

concerned that materially inaccurate 

information could comprise opinion 

statements about a consumer product’s 

design or general safety, information not 

directly related to the incident such as 

conclusory or unsupported statements 

about product design, information in 

contradiction with generally accepted 

scientific principles, legal opinions, and 

reports of an injury or hazard caused by 

something other than the product 

identified in the report of harm. One 

commenter felt that any information 

that the staff determines to be falsified 

as well as any information that is 

inflammatory or invective could also 

constitute materially inaccurate 

information. 

Several commenters also felt that the 

database should be a repository for factbased information only. Similarly, one 

commenter felt that information that 

could not be substantiated, such as 

documentation or information 

supporting a report of harm, would 

constitute materially inaccurate 

information. Others provided more 

general comments stating that materially 

inaccurate information would be 

inaccurate information that is 

substantial and important. Along these 

lines, some commenters suggested that 

CPSC provide a definition for 

‘‘materially inaccurate information.’’ 

Response 

We agreed on the following definition 

of materially inaccurate information in 

a report of harm: 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 in a database user about 

information in a report of harm relating 

to: (1) The identification of a consumer 

product; (2) the identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler; or (3) 

the harm or risk of harm related to the 

use of the consumer product. 

We agreed on the following definition 

of materially inaccurate information in 

a manufacturer comment: 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 in a database user 

relating to: (1) The nature, scope, 

liability, or cause of a harm or risk of 

harm related to the use of a consumer 

product; (2) the status of a Commission, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

investigation; (3) the identity of the firm 

or firms responsible for the importation, 

manufacture, distribution, sale, or 

holding for sale a consumer product; (4) 

whether the manufacturer or private 

labeler is engaging in a corrective action 

(when such action has not been 

approved by the Commission); or (5) 

whether the manufacturer has taken, or 

promised to take, any other action with 

regard to the product. 

30. CPSC asked how the agency 

should process a claim that a report of 

harm or a manufacturer comment 

contains materially inaccurate 

information, both before and after such 

information has been made available in 

the public database. 

Comments (Summary 30) 

The majority of commenters agreed 

that CPSC should develop a transparent 

and efficient process for handling a 

claim of materially inaccurate 

information in a report of harm, 

including how redactions, corrections 

and/or removal of a report of harm will 

be addressed. Correspondingly, many 

commenters also felt that CPSC should 

develop a parallel procedure for the 

inclusion of reports of harm in the 

database wherein CPSC staff would 

make affirmative verification that the 

report of harm was true and accurate. 

Several commenters felt that a report of 

harm could not be published in the 

database until the CPSC had verified 

that it was true and accurate. 

Two commenters felt that CPSC 

should follow the procedures specified 

in the statute wherein upon a claim that 

a report of harm or a comment contains 

materially inaccurate information, the 

CPSC must make a determination as to 

the accuracy of that report or comment 

and that the report or comment should 

not be published until such 

determination is made. Similarly, three 

commenters suggested that the CPSC 

should decline to post a report of harm 

involving a claim of material inaccuracy 

until an appropriate investigation of the 

claim had been made. 

Another commenter proposed that the 

CPSC adopt a trial procedure during 

which it would permit extensions to the 

ten-day period for publication of reports 

of harm to the database where there has 

been a claim of material inaccuracy. 

This commenter suggested that the 

CPSC provide a means for 

manufacturers and private labelers to 

flag information in a report as being 

materially inaccurate and also provide a 

means to flag materially inaccurate 

information after it has been published 

to the database. This commenter 

recommended that the CPSC establish 

timeframes during which claims of 

material inaccuracy will be resolved. 

On the other hand, two commenters 

felt that publication of a report of harm 

should take priority over verifying 

claims of materially inaccurate 

information. Additionally, one 

commenter suggested that the party 

contending the material inaccuracy 

bears the burden of demonstrating the 

material inaccuracy and that CPSC 

should reject efforts to delay or deny 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

posting of information based upon 

unsubstantiated claims of materially 

inaccuracy. One commenter felt that if 

the CPSC publishes a report of harm 

over the manufacturer or private 

labeler’s objections, the CPSC should 

provide the reasons for doing so. One 

commenter wanted an opportunity to 

examine the consumer product in 

question during the pendency of an 

investigation into materially inaccurate 

information in a report of harm. 

One commenter felt that if an 

inaccurate report was inadvertently 

published, it should be removed as soon 

as possible and that a simple retraction 

would not suffice, while another 

commenter felt that the CPSC could 

internally investigate it and post a 

clarification/disclaimer or delete the 

materially inaccurate information from 

the report of harm. 

One commenter suggested that when 

a report of harm has been determined to 

contain materially inaccurate 

information, it should be marked on 

every page to indicate it was removed or 

corrected. When existing reports are 

removed or corrected because they 

contain materially inaccurate 

information, public notice should be 

made to those who already viewed the 

report of harm. This commenter also 

suggested that if the CPSC receives a 

subpoena or FOIA request regarding a 

report of harm that has been corrected 

or removed, the CPSC should provide 

notice in accordance with Section 6(b) 

to the manufacturer or private labeler. 

Response 

We propose that if the Commission 

makes a determination of materially 

inaccurate information prior to 

publication of a report of harm, it shall 

either decline to add the report of harm 

or manufacturer comment to the public 

database or, redact or correct the 

materially inaccurate information and if 

the minimum requirements for 

publication are met, publish the report 

of harm or manufacturer comment in 

the public database. We propose the 

Commission favor correction over 

exclusion. 

If the Commission makes a 

determination of material inaccuracy 

after publication of a report of harm or 

manufacturer comment, the 

Commission shall, no later than seven 

business days after making such 

determination, remove the report of 

harm or manufacturer comment from 

the public database or, redact or correct 

the report of harm or manufacturer 

comment and if the minimum 

requirements for publication are met, 

publish the report of harm or 

manufacturer comment. We propose the 

Commission favor correction over 

exclusion. 

31. CPSC asked how the agency 

should allow a submitter or others to 

claim that a manufacturer has submitted 

materially false information. 

Comments (Summary 31) 

Two commenters recommended that 

CPSC assign a unique identifier to each 

report of harm to assist in making a 

claim of material inaccuracy, while 

another commenter suggested there is 

no need to highlight reports of harm 

whose accuracy is doubted since CPSIA 

contains reasonable protections to 

safeguard against inaccurate 

information. 

Response 

We propose incorporating the 

suggestion of a unique identifier into the 

design of the public database. 

Section 1102.28: Publication of Reports 

of Harm 

32. CPSC asked if a manufacturer or 

private labeler requested that a 

comment associated with the report of 

harm be made available in the public 

database, what, if any, circumstances 

would prevent such comment from 

inclusion in the public database. 

Comments (Summary 32) 

One commenter replied that CPSC 

should not publish any comments that 

are found to be falsified, inflammatory, 

invective, or legal opinions or comprise 

information patently violating generally 

accepted scientific principles. Another 

commenter replied that all comments 

should be included in the database as 

long as they do not contain trade secret 

or confidential information. 

Response 

We agree that all comments that are 

requested for publication be included in 

the public database unless the 

Commission determines publication of 

the comment is not in the public 

interest. 

33. CPSC asked what, if any, authority 

does the agency have to withhold a 

report of harm from the public database 

if a manufacturer or private labeler 

claims the report contains materially 

inaccurate or confidential information. 

Comments (Summary 33) 

One commenter responded that CPSC 

is permitted to withhold a report of 

harm from the database if it agrees with 

the manufacturer or private labeler’s 

claim. 

Response 

We propose that should the 

Commission make a determination of 

materially inaccurate information or 

confidential information, the 

Commission shall, in its discretion, 

decline to add the report of harm to the 

database, correct the materially 

inaccurate information in the report or 

add information to the report to correct 

it. We propose to favor correction/ 

addition over exclusion. 

34. CPSC asked what data sets, 

including information from reports of 

harm and mandatory and voluntary 

recall notices, should be made available 

for public search and reporting and 

why. 

Comments (Summary 34) 

Some commenters agreed that all of 

the information submitted to the 

database except for personal and/or 

contact information contained in reports 

of harm should be made available for 

public search and reporting. One 

commenter wanted to make it clear that 

personal and/or contact information 

should never be disclosed to the public 

and only to a manufacturer or private 

labeler where there has been consent. 

Several commenters agreed that 

voluntary and mandatory recall notices, 

and/or information derived as a result of 

such recall notices, should be 

searchable as well. One commenter 

would like to be able to search the 

CPSC’s NEISS data. 

Two commenters wanted to be able to 

search for manufacturer and private 

labeler comments provided in response 

to a report of harm. One commenter also 

suggested being able to search CPSC’s 

‘‘closed investigations’’ which the staff is 

interpreting as pertaining to 

investigations conducted by the Office 

of Compliance and Field Operations 

staff. One commenter would like to be 

able to search staff research. One 

commenter noted that recall information 

should be provided separate from 

reports of harm, stating that recalls are 

often limited in scope and there is a risk 

that reports of harm could be 

inappropriately or inaccurately linked 

to recall information, while another 

commenter wanted searching to be 

limited to what the statute requires in as 

simple and accurate a format as 

possible. 

Response 

We propose that all information and 

data sets that will be made available in 

the public database should be made 

searchable and sortable. The 

incorporation of additional categories of 

information into the public database is 

being studied for future releases of the 

system software. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29173 

35. CPSC asked in what formats the 

agency should make data available to 

the public and why. 

Comments (Summary 35) 

Several commenters agreed that the 

data should be downloadable and/or 

searchable in common, readily-available 

formats that do not require the purchase 

of specific, proprietary software. One 

commenter suggested providing the data 

in downloadable formats that would 

facilitate use by manufacturers in their 

own tracking systems. 

Commenters would like to be able to 

search by general word entry, including 

advanced searches for data using search 

terms connected by both the words 

‘‘AND’’ and ‘‘OR,’’ and/or also by type/ 

category of product, brand name, model 

name, model number, type of injury and 

other harm, approximate date of 

purchase, and product manufacturer 

information. 

Two commenters recommended 

making raw data available. 

Response 

We agree with a number of the 

comments and the system will provide 

search capabilities that include those 

suggested by the comments such as 

‘‘fuzzy matching’’, search/sort by 

product category, manufacturer/private 

labeler/retailer (including common 

misspellings), model, date/type/ 

location/severity of the product and 

hazard. The system will also provide 

downloadable access the data in 

multiple common formats. 

36. CPSC asked what types of data 

analysis and reporting tools are being 

used by third party analysts in the 

public and industry, and what are those 

tools’ relative merits and drawbacks. 

Comments (Summary 36) 

One commenter stated that it uses 

COGNOS Powerplay to analyze its data 

because it allows both Web- and 

desktop-based access to data in its 

proprietary databases from an easy-touse front-end. Also, data accessed via 

COGNOS Powerplay can be exported to 

Excel or other programs. This 

commenter indicated that the 

drawbacks include limited graphing 

capabilities and the need for a 

programmer to build COGNOS cubes 

that allow access to data. 

One commenter responded that 

commercial software programs 

developed by Intertek and Safety 

Research and Strategies facilitate large 

database searches and result analysis. 

This commenter stated that Intertek’s 

software is a Web-based software 

package that enables users to easily 

analyze product injury data and is 

currently part of NEISS. This 

commenter recommended that CPSC 

utilize a software program that allows 

keyword searching, year-to-year 

comparisons, and trend analysis across 

all variables that NEISS tracks (injury 

type, body part, environment, age, 

outcome). One commenter responded 

that the CPSC need not, and should not, 

facilitate third-party organizations in 

analyzing preliminary data. 

Response 

We recognize the power of ‘‘crowd 

sourcing.’’ The system will make the 

data available in multiple common 

formats for download so researchers and 

partner organizations can work with us 

to identify hazards and analyze trends. 

We are also planning to partner with 

research institutions to develop 

advanced algorithms for early warning 

and pattern recognition so smarter 

decisions can be made to better protect 

consumers. 

Subpart D—Notice and Disclosure 

Requirements 

Section 1102.44: Applicability of 

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

37. CPSC asked under what 

circumstances the provisions of section 

6(a) and (b) of the CPSA would be 

relevant to the provisions of section 6A 

of the CPSA, especially with regard to 

additional categories of information that 

may be included in the public database. 

Comments (Summary 37) 

Two commenters responded that the 

provisions of section 6(b) were not 

relevant/applicable to the database. Two 

commenters responded that only reports 

of harm are exempt from sections 6(a) 

and (b) and any additional information 

included in the public database would 

have to comply with those sections. 

Response 

The Commission has to follow the 

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

CPSA when determining what 

additional information is in the public 

interest to include in the database. 

V. Request for Comments 

The CPSC has already invited 

comments on the publicly available 

database through a public hearing held 

on November 10, 2009 and through a 

series of public workshops held on 

January 11 and 12, 2010, and we 

considered the comments in developing 

this proposed rule. This proposed rule 

would establish content and procedural 

requirements for the inclusion of 

information in the publicly available 

database. All interested persons are 

invited to submit comments on any 

aspect of the proposed rule. Comments 

should be submitted in accordance with 

the instructions in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

VI. 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 proposed 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. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). We describe the provisions in 

this section of the document with an 

estimate of the annual reporting burden. 

Our estimate includes the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing each 

collection of information. 

We particularly invite 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. 

Title: Publicly Available Consumer 

Product Safety Information Database. 

Description: The proposed rule would 

allow consumers to submit reports of 

harm involving the use of consumer 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

products or other products or 

substances regulated by the CPSC and 

also allow manufacturers of such 

products or substances to comment on 

the reports of harm. The reports and 

comments would be part of a public 

database operated and maintained by 

the CPSC. A manufacturer identified in 

a report of harm and who receives a 

report of harm from 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 

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 1102.12(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 public 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 public 

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, we do not currently keep 

track of how many manufacturer 

comments are submitted electronically 

versus in paper form. Because the 

public database will be online, we will 

assume that most manufacturers will 

utilize electronic options for 

participating in the database, especially 

when the public 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 that there 

are two actions involved in a 

manufacturer comment: First, the 

research and preparation necessary to 

comment, and second, the act of 

providing the comment. To estimate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29175 

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). Thus, the 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 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). The 

proposed rule would specify what must 

be included in such a request 

(§ 1102.26(b)); 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 

(§ 1102.26(b)(4)). We anticipate this will 

double the amount of time it takes to file 

the request, or 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). As 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. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to OMB for review. Interested 

persons are requested to fax comments 

regarding information collection by June 

23, 2010, to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see 

ADDRESSES). 

VIII. 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. 

IX. 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. 

Preliminary analysis shows the 

proposed rule will have little or no 

effect on small businesses. The rule 

would implement the statutory 

requirements set forth in section 6A of 

the CPSA for the establishment and 

maintenance of a publicly available 

database containing reports of harm 

involving the use of consumer products, 

as well as comments received by 

manufacturers regarding such reports of 

harm identifying their products. The 

agency anticipates that the new database 

will likely increase the number of 

consumer-generated reports over the 

number of incident reports currently 

filed with the Commission. However, 

because of their smaller sales volumes, 

we believe small manufacturers are less 

likely to receive an incident report and, 

hence, to experience any impacts. 

Moreover, even if a small firm does 

choose to respond to an incident report, 

we believe the amount of time to do so 

would not likely be more than a few 

hours, on average. Before the 

Commission can certify that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities additional information on these 

points would be helpful. Therefore, the 

Commission invites comment on this 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

analysis and preliminary certification 

statement. 

X. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(‘‘APA’’) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). The Commission intends 

that any final rule based on this 

proposal will become effective 30 days 

after the date of publication of a final 

rule in the Federal Register. However, 

as the database is still being developed, 

and the requirements set forth in this 

rule will only be applicable once the 

public database is established, the 

Commission intends to state, in the final 

rule, when the database will become 

operational. 

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 proposes to amend 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 Designation 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 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 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 Consumer Product Safety 

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. 

(4) Consumer Product Safety 

Information Database means the 

database on the safety of consumer 

products established and maintained by 

the CPSC as described in section 6A of 

the CPSA. 

(5) Harm means any injury, illness, or 

death, or any risk of injury, illness, or 

death, as determined by the 

Commission. 

(6) Mandatory recall notice means any 

notice to the public required of a firm 

pursuant to order issued by the 

Commission under section 15(c) of the 

CPSA. 

(7) 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. 

(8) Report of harm means any 

information submitted to the 

Commission through the manner 

described in § 1102.10(b) regarding an 

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: 

(1) Consumers including, but not 

limited to, users of consumer products, 

family members, relatives, parents, 

guardians, friends, 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, acupuncturists; 

(4) Child service providers including, 

but not limited to, day care centers, day 

care providers, pre-kindergarten school, 

and child care providers; 

(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 

(6) Others including, but not limited 

to, attorneys, professional engineers, 

investigators, nongovernmental 

organizations, consumer advocates, 

consumer advocacy organizations, and 

trade associations. 

(b) Manner of submission. To be 

entered into the publicly accessible 

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 or facsimile 

directed to the [Name of office will 

appear in final rule], provided that the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29177 

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 through the 

[Office and address will appear in final 

rule]. 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 Consumer Product Safety 

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. 

A description of a consumer product 

includes, 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. Identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler 

includes, but is not limited to, a mailing 

address, phone number, or electronic 

mail address. 

(3) Description of the harm. A brief 

narrative description of an 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 

date on which the harm occurred or 

manifested itself, and the severity of any 

injury and whether any medical 

treatment was received. 

(4) 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. 

(5) 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. As part of 

verifying the report, submitters of 

reports of harm must indicate which 

category they are in (consumer, 

government agency, health care 

professional etc.) Although this 

information will not be published in the 

database it is required information for 

the report of harm. 

(6) 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, if the victim has 

not provided consent, and contact 

information; 

(3) Photographs that in the 

determination of the Commission are 

not in the public interest, 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. 

(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) Materially inaccurate information 

as set forth in § 1102.26; 

(7) Submitters of reports of harm may 

retract reports at any time, if they 

indicate in writing to the Commission 

that they supplied materially inaccurate 

information; and/or 

(8) 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 to publish. The 

Commission’s determination 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 accepted by 

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(e) 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Secretary at [e-mail address will appear 

in final rule]; or 

(3) A manufacturer or private labeler 

may submit written comments directed 

to the Office of the Secretary at 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814–4408. 

(c) What must be submitted. Subject 

to § 1102.24, 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 received 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, 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 which 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 to provide such 

information to the manufacturer or 

private labeler; 

(2) Photographs that depict a person 

or an injury unless the submitter of the 

report of harm consents, in writing, to 

provide such photograph(s) to the 

manufacturer or private labeler; 

(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 is limited to 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; and/or 

(4) Description of the incident related 

to use of the consumer product. 

(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. 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; or 

(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 (e) 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 which 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 received 

after one year. 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29179 

discretion, where it determines it is in 

the public interest, may choose not to 

publish a manufacturer comment to the 

Database if such comment is received 

more than one year after transmission of 

the report of harm to the manufacturer 

or private labeler. 

§ 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) 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. A request 

for designation of confidential 

information must be received by the 

Commission in a timely manner. If a 

request for confidential treatment is 

submitted in a timely fashion, the 

Commission may, in its discretion, 

withhold a report of harm from 

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 

might thereafter 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 

United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia. 

§ 1102.26 Designation 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 in a 

significant and relevant way that creates 

or has the potential to create a 

substantially erroneous or substantially 

mistaken belief in a Database user about 

information in a report of harm relating 

to: 

(i) The identification of a consumer 

product; 

(ii) The identification of a 

manufacturer or private labeler; or 

(iii) The harm or risk of harm related 

to use of the consumer product. 

(2) Materially inaccurate information 

in a manufacturer comment means 

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 in a Database user 

relating to: 

(i) The nature, scope, liability, or 

cause of a harm or risk of harm related 

to the use of a consumer product; 

(ii) The status of a Commission, 

manufacturer, or private labeler 

investigation; 

(iii) The identity of the firm or firms 

responsible for the importation, 

manufacture, distribution, sale, or 

holding for sale a consumer product; 

(iv) Whether the manufacturer or 

private labeler is engaging in a 

corrective action (when such action has 

not been approved by the Commission); 

or 

(v) Whether the manufacturer has 

taken, or promised to take, any other 

action with regard to the product. 

(b) Request for designation 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. A 

requester seeking an exclusion or 

correction 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; 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(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/or 

(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—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. 

(1) 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 

[e-mail address will appear in final 

rule]; or 

(ii) Paper-Based. Written submission 

directed to the Office of the Secretary at 

[mailing address will appear in final 

rule]. 

(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 in the 

database, the Commission may withhold 

a report of harm from publication in the 

Database until it makes a determination. 

Absent such a determination, the 

Commission will generally publish 

reports of harm on the tenth business 

day after transmitting a report of harm. 

(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 might 

thereafter 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 the 

requested information in a report of 

harm or manufacturer comment is 

materially inaccurate information before 

it is published in the Database, the 

Commission may: 

(1) Decline to add the materially 

inaccurate 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(c) 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(c) 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 report of harm or 

manufacturer comment 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(c) 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(c) 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(c) and 1102.12(c), 

the Commission shall favor correction 

and addition to correction 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 generally publish 

reports of harm on the tenth business 

day after transmitting a report of harm 

where either the recommended page 

limit of comments has been exceeded or 

where the Commission has been 

otherwise 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 7 

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 as 

practicable thereafter as described in 

§ 1102.30. 

(j) Commission determination of no 

material inaccuracy. If the Commission 

determines that the requested 

information in a report of harm does not 

contain materially inaccurate 

information, the Commission will: 

(1) Notify the requester of its 

determination; 

(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, 1102.12 and 1102.24. 

(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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 99 / Monday, May 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 29181 

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(c) in the 

Database beyond the ten business day 

time frame set forth in paragraph (a) of 

this section if the Commission 

determines 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. 

(a) Timing. Subject to §§ 1102.12 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 as practicable thereafter. 

Examples of circumstances that may 

make it impracticable to publish a 

manufacturer comment at the same time 

as a report of harm include, but are not 

limited to: 

(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. 

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 Consumer 

Product Safety Information 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(c), in the Consumer Product 

Safety Information Database. 

(b) Limitation on construction. 

Section 1102.42(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: May 7, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11374 Filed 5–21–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS3