Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database, 29156-29181 [2010-11374]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29156-29181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11374]



[[Page 29155]]

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

Part III





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Part 1102



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



Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 29156]]


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

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: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no 
longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) except 
through https://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 https://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential 
business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or 
protected information electronically. Such information should be 
submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov.

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 product-related 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

[[Page 29157]]

available on the CPSC Web site at https://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 https://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/pubcom/pubdb.pdf. A 
Webcast of the hearing can be viewed on the CPSC's Web site at https://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 https://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/pw01112010am.html, and a Webcast of the 
workshops is available on the CPSC's Web site at https://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 Sec.  1102.1--Purpose
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.4--Scope
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.6--Definitions
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6 would define certain terms. As a general 
matter, proposed Sec.  1102.4(a) would explain that, except as provided 
in proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.6(b)(2) would define ``Commission'' or ``CPSC' 
as meaning the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.6(b)(8) would define ``report of harm'' as any 
information submitted to the Commission through the manner described in 
Sec.  1102.10(b) regarding an incident concerning an injury, illness or 
death, or any risk of

[[Page 29158]]

injury, illness or death as determined by the Commission relating to 
the use of the consumer product.
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  1102.10 through 
1102.14 would describe how such reports, information, and comments 
would become part of the database, and proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.10--Reports of Harm
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10 would explain who may submit reports of harm 
in the public database. In brief, proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.10(b)(2) would explain how submissions over the 
telephone will be accepted and proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 29159]]

reports of harm must indicate what category they are in (consumer, 
government agency, health care professional, etc.)
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.12--Manufacturer Comments
    Proposed Sec.  1102.12(a) would state that manufacturers or private 
labelers who receive a report of harm transmitted from the CPSC may 
submit comments. Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.14--Recall Notices
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.16--Additional Information
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.20--Transmission of Reports of Harm to 
Identified Manufacturer or Private Labeler
    Proposed Sec.  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

[[Page 29160]]

without explicit consent from the person to whom such records pertain, 
or his or her parent, guardian or legally authorized representative.
    Proposed Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.24--Designation of Confidential Information
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.12(b) and would require the requests to be 
conspicuously labeled.
    Proposed Sec.  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.

[[Page 29161]]

    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.24(f) and (g) would describe the procedure to 
notify the manufacturer or private labeler of determinations on the 
claim of confidentiality. Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.26--Designation of Materially Inaccurate 
Information
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.26(g) and (h) would outline the steps the 
Commission will take where it has made a determination of material 
inaccuracy. Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 29162]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.26(c)(1) 
would explain that given the requirement in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.28--Publication of Reports of Harm
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  
1102.26.
5. Proposed Sec.  1102.30--Publication of Manufacturer Comments
    Proposed Sec.  1102.30 would explain that the Commission will 
publish manufacturer comments that meet the minimum requirements in 
proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.42--Disclaimers
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  1102.44--Applicability of Section 6(a) and (b) of the 
CPSA
    Proposed Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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, 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 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.

[[Page 29164]]

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 e-mail 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