Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database, 76832-76872 [2010-30491]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76832-76872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30491]



[[Page 76831]]

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

Part III





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Part 1102



Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database; Final 
Rule

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

[[Page 76832]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1102


Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission,'' 
``CPSC,'' or ``we'') is issuing a final rule that would establish a 
Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database 
(``Database''). Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act of 2008 (``CPSIA'') amended the Consumer Product Safety Act 
(``CPSA'') to require the Commission to establish and maintain a 
publicly available, searchable database on the safety of consumer 
products, and other products or substances regulated by the Commission. 
The final rule interprets various statutory requirements pertaining to 
the information to be included in the Database and also establishes 
provisions regarding submitting reports of harm; providing notice of 
reports of harm to manufacturers; publishing reports of harm and 
manufacturer comments in the Database; and dealing with confidential 
and materially inaccurate information.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective January 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Kelsey James, Director, 
Information Technology Policy and Planning, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 
504-7213; mjames@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 212 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to establish and 
maintain a product safety information database that is available to the 
public. Specifically, section 212 of the CPSIA amended the CPSA to 
create a new section 6A of the CPSA, titled ``Publicly Available 
Consumer Product Safety Information Database.'' Section 6A(a)(1) of the 
CPSA requires the Commission to establish and maintain a database on 
the safety of consumer products, and other products or substances 
regulated by the Commission. The Database must be publicly available, 
searchable, and accessible through the Commission's Web site. Section 
6A of the CPSA sets forth specific content, procedures, and search 
requirements for the publicly available database. On May 24, 2010, we 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 29156, which set 
forth the Commission's proposed interpretation and implementation of 
the Database provisions of section 6A of the CPSA. The comment period 
on the proposed rule ended on July 23, 2010. After reviewing and 
considering significant issues raised by the comments, the Commission 
is now promulgating a final rule on the statutory requirements of 
section 6A.
    For several decades, the Commission has gathered and maintained a 
database of consumer complaints, known as consumer product incident 
reports. Such incident reports describe safety-related incidents 
involving the use of consumer products that fall within the scope of 
the Commission's jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 5(a) of the CPSA, 
the Commission collects information related to the causes and 
prevention of death, injury, and illness associated with consumer 
products. The Commission conducts studies and investigations of deaths, 
injuries, diseases, other health impairments, and economic losses 
resulting from accidents involving consumer products. In addition, 
pursuant to section 5(b) of the CPSA, the Commission may conduct 
research, studies, and investigations on the safety of consumer 
products and on improving the safety of such products. Currently, the 
Commission obtains information about product-related deaths, injuries, 
and illnesses from a variety of sources, including newspapers, death 
certificates, consumer complaints, and hospital emergency rooms. In 
addition, the Commission receives information from the public through 
its Internet Web site via forms reporting on product-related injuries 
or incidents.
    To date, the data that the Commission collects and maintains on 
product safety have not been immediately available and searchable by 
the public. Before the CPSIA's enactment, the CPSA required that the 
Commission follow the notice provisions of section 6 of the CPSA before 
publicly disclosing any information that allowed the public to readily 
ascertain the identity of a manufacturer or private labeler of a 
consumer product. Section 6 of the CPSA contains requirements for 
giving notice of such information to the manufacturer or private 
labeler and providing them with an opportunity to comment on the 
information prior to public disclosure. Section 6 of the CPSA also 
requires the Commission to take reasonable steps to assure that 
disclosure of such information is accurate, fair in the circumstances, 
and reasonably related to effectuating the purposes of the CPSA. The 
Commission has applied the requirements in section 6 of the CPSA to 
Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA'') requests as well. See Consumer 
Product Safety Commission et al. v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102 (1980). 
The Commission issued regulations interpreting section 6 notice 
requirements at 16 CFR part 1101. Thus, consumers currently have access 
to incident data through reports and studies published by the 
Commission or through information provided in response to FOIA 
requests.
    Section 6A of the CPSA creates a new disclosure requirement with 
respect to product safety-related incident reports, referred to as 
``reports of harm'' in both the statute and the proposed rule. 
Specifically, section 6A of the CPSA excludes any incident report 
submitted for inclusion in the Database from the notice requirements of 
section 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. Instead, section 6A of the CPSA sets 
up a new framework for collecting reports of harm, transmitting them to 
the manufacturer and private labeler for comment, and then posting them 
on a Database that is accessible on the Commission's Web site.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking provided the public with an 
opportunity to understand how the Commission is intending to implement 
the new procedures in section 6A of the CPSA, and to provide comment. 
Prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, however, the 
Commission provided stakeholders with information about Database 
implementation, as well as offered several opportunities for 
stakeholder input and comment, all of which were discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed rule at 75 FR 29156-57. Prior Commission 
activities related to the Database include: Providing a detailed 
implementation plan to Congress; holding a public hearing on Database 
implementation; holding a public workshop, which sought comments on 
Database implementation; attending and speaking about the Database at 
various conferences; and creating the https://www.saferproducts.gov Web 
site, where updates on implementation of the Database are provided. 
Information on all of these Commission activities and public comments 
are available on the CPSC Web site at https://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/sect212.html.
    We received 37 comments on the proposed rule. After reviewing the 
comments, the Commission made several changes to the final rule, all of 
which are discussed in detail in section III below.

[[Page 76833]]

II. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is issuing this rule pursuant to section 3 of the 
CPSIA which provides the Commission authority to issue regulations, as 
necessary, to implement the CPSIA.

III. Description of the Final Rule, Comments on the Proposed Rule, and 
the Commission's Responses

    The final rule establishes a new 16 CFR part 1102, ``Publicly 
Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database.'' The new part 
consists of four subparts:
    Subpart A--Background and Definitions;
    Subpart B--Content Requirements;
    Subpart C--Procedural Requirements;
    Subpart D--Notice and Disclosure Requirements.
    Below, we describe and explain each subpart and section of the 
final rule, as well as describe and respond to significant issues 
raised by the comments on the proposed rule (75 FR 29156, May 24, 2010) 
pertaining to each section. In addition to comments on each of the 
subparts of the final rule, we have added a section ``E'' below to 
address Database implementation comments that are not directly related 
to a section of the proposed rule. To make it easier to identify 
comments and the Commission's responses, the word ``Comment'' will 
appear in italics before each comment description, and the word 
``Response'' will appear in italics before the Commission's response. 
We have grouped comments based on the section of the proposed rule to 
which they pertain and their similarity, and we have numbered the 
comments to help distinguish between different comment themes. The 
number assigned to each comment summary is for organizational purposes 
only and does not signify the comment's value, importance, or order in 
which it was received.

A. Proposed Subpart A--Background and Definitions

1. Proposed Sec.  1102.2--Purpose
    Proposed Sec.  1102.2 would describe the purpose for a new 16 CFR 
part 1102 titled ``Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety 
Information Database,'' which is to set forth the Commission's 
interpretation, policy, and procedures to establish and maintain such 
Database.
    We have finalized this section and made one clarification, which is 
to add the words ``Publicly Available'' to the full name of the 
Database.
2. Proposed Sec.  1102.4--Scope
    Proposed Sec.  1102.4 would describe the scope of the rule to 
include the content, procedure, notice, and disclosure requirements for 
all information published in the Database.
    We received one comment related to this section. The section has 
been finalized with one correction, which is to add the words 
``Publicly Available'' to the full name of the Database.
    Comment 1--One commenter states that incident reports involving 
over-the-counter drugs and dietary supplements should not be included 
in the Database because food and drugs are regulated and monitored by 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''). The commenter notes 
that the Commission has regulatory authority only over product 
packaging, and asserts that consumers will inadvertently submit drug or 
supplement safety information to the Commission rather than to the 
manufacturer or the FDA. If the Commission includes complaints 
regarding product packaging in the Database, the commenter states that 
the Commission should not only instruct consumers that only product 
packaging complaints can be reported in the Database, but should also 
regularly monitor the Database to ensure that complaints involve only 
products over which the Commission has jurisdiction.
    Response--Section 1102.10(d)(1) of the final rule states that to be 
included in the Database, a report of harm must, ``at a minimum, 
include a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as a 
consumer product, a component part of a consumer product, or a product 
or substance regulated by the Commission.'' A report of harm that does 
not identify a product or substance over which the Commission has 
jurisdiction will not be included in the Database. Every report of harm 
will be reviewed to ensure that the minimum requirements for 
publication are met before being published in the Database. Also, as 
with our current online incident report form, the Database will 
describe the products that are not within the Commission's 
jurisdiction, including food and drugs. This information will include 
links to the appropriate government agencies that do have jurisdiction. 
We have no intention of including reports of harm solely involving 
products or substances not within our jurisdiction, but will include 
all products and substances that do fall within our jurisdiction, 
including complaints about drug product packaging.
3. Proposed Sec.  1102.6--Definitions
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6 would define certain terms related to the 
establishment and maintenance of the Database.
a. Proposed Sec.  1102.6(a)--Terms Defined in Sec.  3 of the CPSA Apply 
to the Database Rule
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(a) would explain that, except as provided in 
proposed Sec.  1102.6(b), the definitions set forth in section 3 of the 
CPSA apply to the Database rule. For example, section 3(a)(11) of the 
CPSA defines a ``manufacturer'' as ``any person who manufactures or 
imports a consumer product.'' Because section 3(a)(11) of the CPSA 
defines ``manufacturer,'' any reference to ``manufacturer'' in proposed 
part 1102 would have the same meaning.
    One comment was received related to this section, which we have 
finalized without change.
    Comment 2--One commenter states that the term ``private labeler'' 
should be defined in Sec.  1102.6 of the final rule.
    Response--Section 3(a)(12) of the CPSA defines ``private labeler'' 
as ``an owner of a brand or trademark on the label of a consumer 
product which bears a private label.'' Because the CPSA defines 
``private labeler,'' there is no need to include such a definition in 
the final rule.
b. Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)--Terms Defined Relevant to Sec.  1102
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b) would define certain terms or, in some 
cases, interpret terms already defined in section 3 of the CPSA.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)(1) would define ``additional information'' 
as any information that the Commission determines is in the public 
interest to include in the Consumer Product Safety Information 
Database.
    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it with one change, which is to add ``Publicly Available'' to 
the full name of the Database.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)(2) would define ``Commission'' or ``CPSC'' 
as meaning the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it without change.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)(3) would define ``consumer product'' as 
having the same meaning as defined in section 3(a)(5) of the CPSA, but 
would further explain that ``consumer product'' includes any other 
products or substances regulated by the Commission. This further 
clarification is based on the statutory requirement in section 
6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA for submission of reports of harm relating to 
the use of consumer products and other products or substances regulated 
by the Commission.

[[Page 76834]]

    No comments were received related to this definition, and, for 
clarity, we have added ``under any other act it administers'' to the 
end of the definition.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)(4) would define ``Consumer Product Safety 
Information Database,'' which is also referred to as the ``Database,'' 
as the database on the safety of consumer products required to be 
established and maintained by the Commission as described in section 6A 
of the CPSA.
    No comments were received related to this definition. However, on 
our own initiative, we did incorporate the shortened name of 
``Database'' in the final rule and added the words ``Publicly 
Available'' to the full name of the Database.
    Proposed 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. This definition is taken from section 
6A(g) of the CPSA, which states that ``[i]n this section, the term 
`harm' means (1) injury, illness, or death; or (2) risk of injury, 
illness, or death, as determined by the Commission.''
    We received several comments related to this definition which did 
not lead us to make any changes. However, we are changing this 
definition to be consistent with the statutory language.
    Comment 3--Some commenters would remove from the definition of a 
report of harm the terms ``or any risk of injury, illness, or death as 
determined by the Commission, relating to the use of a consumer 
product.'' The commenters argued that such a determination requires an 
arbitrary assessment that would require Commission resources to 
determine whether the report of harm represents a legitimate risk. 
According to these commenters, reports of harm addressing risks should 
come from the Commission in recall notices only, not from the general 
public.
    Response--Section 6A(g) of the CPSA defines ``harm,'' as used in 
this section of the statute, as ``(1) injury, illness, or death; or (2) 
risk of injury, illness, or death, as determined by the Commission.'' 
Because the definition of ``harm'' is dictated by Congress in the 
statute, and Congress has plainly expressed its intent in the statute 
that the Database include reports of harm involving risks of harm, we 
will not remove this phrase from the definition of a report of harm. 
Moreover, the Database is meant to help us in our mission to protect 
the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with the use 
of consumer products. Use of agency resources to assess risks is 
essential to our mission. While submitters must describe an illness, 
injury, or death, or risk of illness, injury, or death on the incident 
report form, each report of harm will be reviewed before publication to 
ensure that it meets the minimum requirements for publication set forth 
in Sec.  1102.10(d).
    Comment 4--Some commenters propose that ``any risk of injury'' be 
defined narrowly to account for the level of risk or the potential for 
injury to exclude reports of harm that ``have near zero risk of causing 
injury.'' These commenters would strike the term ``any'' and replace it 
with a phrase such as ``substantial risk of serious injury,'' which 
they state has historically been used by the Commission.
    Response--We disagree with the commenters because they would have 
us interpret the statute in an unnecessarily narrow manner. However, we 
have stricken the word ``any'' and changed the comma to a semicolon 
after the first occurrence of the word ``death'' to make the definition 
consistent with the statutory language. Section 3(a)(14) of the CPSA 
already defines ``risk of injury'' as ``a risk of death, personal 
injury, or serious or frequent illness.''
    We also decline to use the phrase ``substantial risk of serious 
injury'' to qualify the types of harm or risk of harm that may be 
placed into the Database. Such phrase is used once in 16 CFR 1115.13(c) 
to describe a firm's initial obligation to report hazards under section 
15(b) of the CPSA. It applies to manufacturers, importers, retailers, 
and distributors who have received information that reasonably supports 
the conclusion that one of the factors in section 15(b) of the CPSA has 
been met. The phrase has no relevance to the types of information 
included in a report of harm.
    Comment 5--One commenter states that the Commission should 
establish criteria for making determinations about risks of harm, 
arguing that speculative assertions or unsubstantiated opinions that a 
consumer could have been injured, without any supporting factual 
information indicating a nexus between the product or incident and a 
discernable and credible risk of injury, cannot provide the CPSC with 
the necessary basis for making the required determination to include 
these reports in the Database.
    Response--The Commission has many years of experience categorizing 
harm or hazards and their risks related to the use of a consumer 
product based on a reported incident scenario. We will continue to rely 
on our expertise to review reports of harm submitted for inclusion in 
the Database and will determine whether the minimum requirements for 
publication are met.
    Comment 6--One commenter states that the proposed rule does not 
delineate how the Commission will determine ``harm'' or ``report of 
harm,'' and it does not define ``risk.''
    Response--Section 6A(g) of the CPSA defines ``harm,'' and we will 
adhere to this definition. We have maintained a database on injuries 
and risks of injury associated with the use of consumer products for 
many years, and will use our experience in reviewing reports of harm to 
ensure that the minimum requirements for inclusion in the Database are 
met. ``Risk,'' by itself, is not defined in the proposed rule or in the 
CPSA, but section 3(a)(14) of the CPSA defines ``risk of injury'' as 
``a risk of death, personal injury, or serious or frequent illness.''
    Proposed 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.
    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it with one grammatical change.
    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 transmitted by the CPSC to the manufacturer or private 
labeler.
    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it without change.
    Proposed 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 any injury, illness, 
or death, or any risk of injury, illness, or death as determined by the 
Commission relating to the use of the consumer product.
    We received comments regarding the definition of ``harm'' used in 
the proposed rule. As noted above in response to Comments 3 through 6, 
we are making minor modifications to the definition of ``harm'' as 
contained in section 6A(g) of the CPSA. Thus, we have finalized the 
definition of ``report of harm'' with one grammatical change, changing 
``an injury'' to ``any injury.'' We also changed the comma to a 
semicolon after the first occurrence of the word ``death'' and inserted 
a comma after the second occurrence of the word ``death'' to ensure 
that the definition in the final rule is more consistent with the 
definition of ``harm'' in the statute.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.6(b)(9) would define ``submitter of a report of 
harm'' as any person or entity that submits a report of harm.

[[Page 76835]]

    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it without change.
    Section 1102.6(b)(10) of the proposed rule would define ``voluntary 
recall notice'' to mean any notice to the public by the Commission 
relating to a voluntary corrective action, including a voluntary recall 
of a consumer product taken by a manufacturer in consultation with the 
Commission.
    No comments were received related to this definition, and we have 
finalized it without change.
    Comment 7--One commenter objects to use of the term ``victim'' in 
the proposed rule. The commenter states that the use of such a term 
implies a criminal or civil wrong, and suggests use of the word 
``consumer'' as a more neutral term.
    Response--We will not remove the term ``victim'' in the final rule, 
but agree that the term may be confusing to some without further 
clarification. We have used the term ``victim'' for many years to 
describe persons actually suffering a harm or risk of harm related to 
the use of a consumer product as compared to others who simply may have 
purchased or observed the product being used. The term ``victim'' is 
used on the current incident reporting form to collect information 
about the individual who was injured or exposed to a possible product 
related hazard. In the context of that form, the use of the term 
``victim'' does not imply a criminal or a civil wrong. Thus, for 
purposes of this rule, ``victim'' continues to refer to any individual 
exposed to harm or risk of harm related to a possible product related 
hazard, and the term does not imply that the product caused an 
incident.

B. Proposed Subpart B--Content Requirements

1. Proposed Sec.  1102.10--Reports of Harm
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10 would explain the requirements for reports 
of harm to be included in the Database.
a. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)--Who May Submit
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a) would identify the category of submitters 
specified in section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA and further clarify the 
persons who may fall within each of the identified groups. The list of 
persons under each category is not exclusive, and the proposed lists 
are intended to provide a greater understanding of the type of person 
or entity that could fall within each category of submitter.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(1) would state that the term 
``consumers'' includes not only users of consumer products, but also 
family members, relatives, parents, guardians, friends, and observers 
of a consumer product being used.
    We received one comment related to this section, and other comments 
relating to the definitions under proposed Sec.  1102.10(a) resulting 
in a revision to the definition of ``consumers'' as described in 
response to Comment 8 through 17.
    Comment 8--Several commenters state that the interpretation of 
``consumer'' should not be so broad as to include those persons who 
were not injured by the product or who are not reliable reporters of 
the incident, such as those persons lacking firsthand knowledge of the 
product, its manufacturer, or the injury. The commenters also state 
that the proposed interpretation of ``consumer'' expands the potential 
for inaccurate information in the Database and goes beyond a reasonable 
interpretation of the term. Some commenters note, however, that 
information from these sources could be collected for the Commission's 
use, but should not be included in the Database.
    Response--The plain statutory language does not require a submitter 
of a report of harm to have ``firsthand knowledge.'' We have chosen an 
interpretation of ``consumer'' that comports with our experience in 
maintaining a database of consumer product incident reports. 
Historically, we have received reports of harm from any and all 
consumers in order to protect individuals who may use or enjoy consumer 
goods. Currently, parents, guardians, and family members are a major 
and important source of information collected for the most vulnerable 
segments of the population. In the most basic example, if the user of a 
consumer product is killed or seriously injured in the incident, or is 
an infant, he or she will be unable to enter the incident report. 
Parents, for example, may enter information related to consumer 
products used by their children, regardless of whether they personally 
witnessed the incident or purchased the product. Other consumers may 
possess important product safety information and, as a practical 
matter, the Commission does not have the resources to ascertain whether 
every submitter of a report of harm has firsthand knowledge or actually 
used the product. Therefore, following our current practice of 
receiving reports of harm from any and all consumers serves the purpose 
and intent of the Database and of our primary statutory mission, which 
is to protect consumers from unsafe products. Furthermore, a 
manufacturer is free to post a comment indicating whether they know if 
the submitter had firsthand knowledge or not. For these reasons, we 
disagree that inclusion of inaccurate information will necessarily 
result from our definition of ``consumer.'' Moreover, everyone who 
submits reports of harm to the Database is legally obligated to provide 
truthful and accurate information as evidenced by their verification 
that they have done so.
    We also note that reports of harm received from individuals in some 
of the other statutory categories, such as other government agencies, 
health care professionals, and public safety entities, will likely lack 
firsthand knowledge about an incident. For example, a physician who 
treats an individual who was injured by a consumer product is unlikely 
to have witnessed how or when the injury occurred, but the statute 
permits the physician to submit a report of harm. If we find that false 
and fraudulent reports are being submitted for inclusion in the 
Database, we will consider what legal actions to take to address the 
problem and proceed accordingly.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(2) would state that the definition of 
``local, state, or federal government agencies'' includes, but is not 
limited to, local government agencies, school systems, social services, 
child protective services, state attorneys general, state agencies, and 
all executive and independent federal agencies as defined in Title 5 of 
the United States Code.
    No comments were received on this provision, and we have finalized 
it with only typographical changes.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(3) would state that the definition of 
``health care professionals'' includes, but is not limited to, medical 
examiners, coroners, physicians, nurses, physician's assistants, 
hospitals, chiropractors, and acupuncturists.
    No comments were received on this provision, and we have finalized 
it with one grammatical change.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(4) would state that the definition of 
``child service providers'' includes, but is not limited to, day care 
centers, day care providers, pre-kindergarten school, and child care 
providers.
    No comments were received on this provision, and we have finalized 
it with minor modifications changing ``day care'' to ``child care.''
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(5) would state that the definition of 
``public safety entities'' includes, but is not limited to, police, 
fire, ambulance, emergency medical services, federal, state, and

[[Page 76836]]

local law enforcement entities, and other public safety officials.
    No comments were received on this provision, and we have finalized 
it with one change for clarity. In response to comments relating to the 
definitions under proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(6), we added ``and 
professionals, including consumer advocates and individuals who work 
for nongovernmental organizations, consumer advocates, consumer 
advocacy organizations, and trade associations so long as they have a 
public safety purpose'' to the end of the definition.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(6) would add ``Others'' to the list of 
submitters. The ``Others'' category is intended to include those 
persons who may not fit clearly within an identified category, but who 
may otherwise file a report as a ``consumer.'' The ``Others'' category 
would include, but is not limited to, attorneys, professional 
engineers, investigators, nongovernmental organizations, consumer 
advocates, consumer advocacy organizations, and trade associations.
    We received several comments on proposed Sec.  1102.10(a)(6). Many 
commenters misinterpreted the proposal as an expansion of the list of 
people who can submit reports. This was not the intention. The proposal 
states, the five statutory categories of submitters are quite broad 
and, given that breadth, we had concluded that the list was intended to 
be nonrestrictive. See 75 FR at 29162. Currently, persons listed as 
examples under ``Others'' file reports of harm with us using our online 
incident reporting form by self-reporting as ``consumers.'' However, 
anyone can be classified as a consumer even if they are also acting as 
a doctor, lawyer, investigator, consumer advocate, or trade 
complainant. Moreover, many individuals who report to us work for 
organizations with a public health and safety purpose and, thus may be 
included under the category ``public safety entity.'' Since most if not 
all of the people listed in the ``Others'' category can fit in the 
categories Congress listed, we have deleted reference to ``Others'' in 
response to the comments.
    Comment 9--Some commenters state that adding ``Others'' is contrary 
to the plain meaning of the statute. The commenters argue that section 
6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA expressly limits who may submit reports, so the 
Commission is acting outside its authority by adding an ``Others'' 
category.
    Response--Congress listed five broad categories of submitters and 
we have the authority to interpret these categories. As discussed 
above, the term ``consumer'' is quite broad, and we have consistently 
interpreted it in this rulemaking to include any and all consumers. 
This interpretation comports with our mission to protect individuals 
who may use or enjoy consumer products. Most of the persons and 
entities captured in the ``Others'' category are covered by the five 
broad categories of submitter listed in the statute. We have decided to 
delete the reference to ``Others.''
    Comment 10--Some commenters argue that section 6A(b)(2)(B) of the 
CPSA, which establishes the minimum requirements for reports of harm to 
be included in the Database, uses the phrase ``at a minimum'' to set a 
floor to which the Commission may add requirements. Because this ``at a 
minimum'' language is missing from section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA, the 
commenters claim that we cannot add ``Others'' as a category of 
submitters.
    Response--The five categories of submitters set forth in section 
6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA are so broad that they include most submitters, 
eliminating the need to state that these categories are ``at a 
minimum.'' Nevertheless, the category of ``Others'' will be deleted.
    Comment 11--Some commenters state that adding an ``Others'' 
category contradicts existing regulations that require incident reports 
to be verified by those with personal or firsthand knowledge. The 
commenters argue that including reports from those without such 
knowledge would reduce the Database to a blog consisting of hearsay 
reports from people without personal knowledge who have a vested 
interest in increasing the number and severity of negative reports. The 
commenters state that there is no indication that Congress intended to 
override the Commission's long-standing requirements for verification 
of information it intends to make public.
    Response--Congress provided a clear indication that the requirement 
in section 6(b) to take reasonable steps to assure accuracy does not 
apply to reports of harm included in the Database. Section 6A(f)(1) of 
the CPSA specifically provides that the provisions of sections 6(a) and 
(b) of the CPSA do not apply to reports of harm. Instead, verification 
is required for reports of harm as described in section 6A(b)(B)(v) of 
the CPSA, where a person submitting a report must verify that it is 
``true and accurate to the best of the person's knowledge.'' This 
requirement is set forth in Sec.  1102.10(d)(7) of the final rule. 
Moreover, Congress intended for the Database to include reports by 
those without ``firsthand knowledge'' or ``personal knowledge,'' as the 
statute expressly allows reports of harm to be submitted by those 
unlikely to have personal knowledge, such as other government agencies 
and public safety entities. However, Congress implemented three 
mechanisms to help control inaccuracies: The ability of the 
manufacturer to comment as set forth in section 6A(c)(2)(A) of the 
CPSA; the ability to remove material inaccuracies as set forth in 
section 6A(c)(4) of the CPSA; and the disclaimer requirement provided 
in section 6A(b)(5) of the CPSA.
    Comment 12--Some commenters state that, other than consumers, the 
other categories of submitters listed in sections 6A(b)(1)(A)(2) 
through (b)(1)(A)(5) of the CPSA have various legal obligations to 
accurately and objectively record and report safety incidents, 
injuries, and suspected child abuse as part of their professional 
responsibilities. The commenters claim that adding an ``Others'' 
category will increase inaccurate reports of harm being entered into 
the Database and will also increase the possibility of duplicative 
reports being entered about the same incident.
    Response--Everyone who reports information to the Database, whether 
a consumer, governmental entity, health care professional, child care 
provider or public safety entity, has a legal obligation to provide 
accurate information and will be required to verify that they have done 
so. For example, attorneys are subject to numerous ethical obligations 
and are likely to have a legal obligation to submit a report of harm if 
the client directs them to do so. As another example, 18 U.S.C. 1001 
makes the knowing and willful submission of a materially false, 
fictitious or fraudulent report to a government agency criminal. In our 
experience, the category of submitter is more indicative of the type of 
detail that can be provided about an incident, rather than the quality 
or veracity of the data entered. Moreover, nothing in section 6A of the 
CPSA dictates that the individual who enters reports of harm be someone 
who purchased or used a product or who has a legal responsibility to 
report safety incidents to another government agency. Such a limitation 
would not serve the purpose of the Database. For these reasons and 
because the categories of ``consumer'' and ``public safety entity'' 
include most of the persons and entities listed in the proposed rule as 
reporting under the ``Others'' category, the commenters' concerns are 
unpersuasive.
    With regard to duplicative reports, we note that the statutory list 
of submitters

[[Page 76837]]

allows for the submission of multiple reports of harm about the same 
incident because a consumer can submit a report as well as their health 
professional. In the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of 
Conference on the CPSIA, the Conferees recognized the value of possible 
multiple reports regarding the same incident because they ``could 
provide different relevant details and that information from those 
reports could be helpful to the public.'' The Database system software 
is designed to look for potential duplicates and multiple reports and 
to display them to staff. Commission staff will review potential 
duplicate and multiple reports and ``associate'' them, where 
appropriate, so that all reports on one incident will be reflected. As 
explained more fully below under Sec.  1102.10(d), we are adding one 
more required field: ``Incident date'' so that Database users are 
provided a date, or approximate date, of the incident. We are also 
clarifying the field, ``Category of submitter,'' by separating it from 
the verification requirement and displaying it in the Database as 
another required field so that Database users can see the category of 
submitter of the report of harm. We already had required this field in 
the NPR, but now we are separating it from the required verification. 
Such information should make the perspective of the submitter 
transparent and assist the agency in locating duplicate reports.
    Comment 13--Some commenters state that adding an ``Others'' 
category of submitter is unreasonable and contrary to sound public 
policy. The commenters claim that the Database's purpose is to advance 
public safety by better informing consumers of potential product 
hazards, and that Congress selected reporters who contribute to this 
purpose--``those who use or observe the use of the consumer product 
(and thus the resulting harm or risk of harm) and those who may be 
involved in treating or responding to the harm.'' Congress chose to 
exclude those persons who may be commercially or financially motivated 
to submit reports of harm.
    Response--Having decided that the five statutory categories of 
submitters include most of those individuals who had previously been 
included in the ``Others'' category, these persons shall be permitted 
to submit reports to the Database. The purpose of the Database is to 
provide timely access to safety-related consumer product incidents. The 
timeliness of the data release is a crucial aspect of the Database. 
Congress has expressed a public policy favoring prompt disclosure of 
these incidents in the interest of public safety. Indeed, Congress 
would not have us refuse to publish reports of harm involving deaths 
and serious injuries simply because the report was submitted by the 
consumer's counsel or the consumer's survivors. Accordingly, our 
evaluation of what is ``unreasonable and contrary to sound public 
policy'' differs from the commenters' evaluation. Our goal is to 
provide the public with timely product safety information, which would 
not be served by excluding valid reports of harm based on criteria that 
have little or nothing to do with the quality or validity of a report.
    Nothing in the statute states that product safety information can 
come only from those who ``use or observe the use'' of the consumer 
product, and/or those who may be involved ``in treating or responding'' 
to the harm. Creating an artificial limitation that is not present in 
the statute would conflict with our experience in maintaining a 
database on the safety of consumer products. As explained above, not 
all submitters will personally use the consumer product or view the 
incident; however, that does not make their report invalid (i.e., 
parents of minor children, relatives of victims who died or were 
seriously injured as a result of the incident, friends and family of 
elderly or disabled persons, and attorneys whose clients were killed or 
seriously injured may also submit reports). Persons included in the 
``Others'' category may not have viewed the incident, but still may 
have a distinct, educated, and valuable understanding of the facts, 
either learned from the victim, or derived from investigation and 
analysis. Moreover, as a practical matter, the Commission cannot 
research every submission to the Database to determine who submitted 
it, whether they used or observed the use of the product, or whether 
they have some other bias or financial interest.
    The fact that a submitter may have a professional interest in the 
report does not negate the truth of the report. If the Commission 
determines that a report is false, it will be removed or corrected. If 
the Commission determines that false incident reports are being filed, 
we will consider what legal actions to take to address the problem and 
proceed accordingly.
    Comment 14--Some commenters say that limiting submitters to the 
five statutorily enumerated categories is supported by the legislative 
history of section 6A of the CPSA. The commenters state that the House 
and Senate versions of the bill were different regarding who could 
submit reports of harm. The Senate version originally permitted ``other 
nongovernmental sources'' to submit reports of harm for inclusion in 
the Database, but this version was not incorporated into the final 
bill. Thus, the commenters suggest that the removal of this provision 
indicates the intent to exclude ``Others'' from submitting reports of 
harm.
    Response--We have previously noted the breadth of the entities 
listed in the statute that can file a report of harm and our conclusion 
that the list is intended to be nonrestrictive. 75 FR at 29162. The 
original Senate version of the bill also stated that health care 
professionals include ``physicians, hospitals, and coroners'' and that 
public safety entities include ``police and fire fighters.'' All of 
these entities were removed in the final legislation. Nevertheless, we 
are unwilling to interpret section 6A of the CPSA as prohibiting 
physicians, hospitals, coroners, police, and fire fighters from 
submitting reports of harm. Having decided to remove the ``Others'' 
category, we conclude this comment is now moot.
    Comment 15--Some commenters state that if the Commission intends to 
use section 6A(b)(3) of the CPSA [pertaining to additional information] 
to add reports of harm from ``Others'' to the Database, then the 
Commission must find that inclusion of those reports of harm are ``in 
the public interest,'' and that the reports must also meet the 
requirements of sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. Adding an ``Others'' 
category under section 6A(b)(1)(A) of the CPSA, the commenters allege, 
improperly evades the requirements for including additional information 
under section 6A(b)(3) of the CPSA, and makes that section superfluous.
    Response--We interpret section 6A(b)(3) of the CPSA to mean that, 
in addition to the information required to be in the Database, 
including reports of harm, manufacturer comments, and recall notices, 
any additional categories of information must be in the public interest 
and subject to sections 6(a) and (b) of the CPSA. This interpretation 
is set forth in Sec.  1102.16, which includes other categories of 
information in the Database other than reports of harm, manufacturer 
comments, and recall notices. Our interpretation is that additional 
information does not refer to reports of harm because all reports of 
harm meeting the minimum requirements for publication already are 
included in the Database. Additional categories of information could 
include, for example, internal CPSC reports, such as in-depth 
investigations, and product safety assessments.
    Comment 16--Some commenters state that if the Commission includes 
reports of harm in the Database submitted by those in the proposed 
``Others'' category,

[[Page 76838]]

then the increase in such submissions will ``significantly increase the 
costs and burdens on both the Commission and manufacturers and 
distributors of consumer products to review, verify, and respond to the 
filings.''
    Response--This comment is speculative and contrary to our research 
and experience. We review every report of harm and send the reports to 
manufacturers for comment under section 6(c) of the CPSA. Thus, even if 
we could choose to exclude reports of harm from ``Others'' in the 
Database, we would still collect this information for our use, and 
would still send it to manufacturers under section 6(c) of the CPSA. 
Accordingly, we do not believe that the submission of reports of harm 
by ``Others'' would have significantly increased costs or burdens, and 
we will receive such reports from most of those submitters under one of 
the five enumerated categories in the statute.
    Comment 17--Several commenters state that while reports of harm 
from those in an ``Others'' category may not be placed in the Database, 
the Commission may collect and use such reports for other hazard 
analysis purposes.
    Response--As explained above, we believe that reports of harm 
submitted by most of those included in the ``Others'' category should 
be included in the Database under the five categories enumerated by the 
statute. We do not have the authority to exclude valid reports of harm 
from the Database. No valid public health and safety reason exists to 
exclude data that meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in the 
Database. Such an action would be contrary to the purpose and intent of 
the Database. We are focusing on the quality of the data submitted, as 
opposed to who submitted the report. Preserving reports of harm 
submitted by consumers in the ``Others'' category strictly for 
Commission use would not serve the purpose of timely providing the 
public with access to product safety information.
b. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b)--Manner of Submission
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b) would describe how a report of harm can 
be submitted for inclusion in the Database. Section 6A(b)(2)(A) of the 
CPSA requires that the Commission establish electronic, telephonic, and 
paper-based means for submitting a report of harm for inclusion in the 
Database. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  1102.10(b) would describe four 
methods (Internet, telephone, electronic mail, and paper) for 
submitting reports. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b)(1) also would explain 
that submitters using the Internet will use an electronic form 
specifically developed to collect the report of harm in the Database. 
Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b)(2) would further explain how submissions over 
the telephone will be accepted. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b)(3) and (b)(4) 
would explain how the Commission will deal with email, facsimile, and 
written submissions. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(b)(5) would give the 
Commission the flexibility to provide other means of submission if new 
means become available.
    The proposed rule left open for the final rule the office names and 
contact information to use for email, facsimile, and paper submissions 
of reports of harm. Accordingly, Sec.  1102.10(b) has been finalized 
with several additions. First, we included the appropriate office names 
and contact information in Sec.  1102.10(b)(3) and (b)(4). Second, we 
made a grammatical correction to use the short name for the Database 
adopted in Sec.  1102.6(b)(4).
c. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(c)--Size Limits of Reports of Harm
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(c) would impose potential size limits on 
reports of harm where the size of such reports of harm, including 
attachments, might negatively impact the technological or operational 
performance of the system.
    No comments were received on this section, which we have finalized 
without change.
d. Proposed Sec.  1102.10(d)--Minimum Requirements for Publication
    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 would identify the minimum required categories 
of information stated in sections 6A(b)(2)(B)(i) through (v) of the 
CPSA, and further elaborate on the type of information included under 
each category.
    We received several comments generally related to the minimum 
requirements for publication, which resulted in no substantive changes 
to the final rule. On our own initiative, however, we have made a 
grammatical correction to the full name of the Database and added the 
words ``Publicly Available'' to the full name of the Database.
    Comment 18--One commenter states that the Commission should remind 
submitters to only file reports of harm for incidents of which they 
have firsthand knowledge, and actively should discourage complaints 
based on hearsay.
    Response--For the reasons set forth in response to Comment 8 above, 
we will not restrict submissions of reports of harm for inclusion in 
the Database to only those who have firsthand knowledge. Reports of 
harm that meet the statutory minimum requirements for inclusion, and 
the requirements as set forth in Sec.  1102.10(d) of the final rule, 
will be included in the Database.
    Comment 19--Some commenters suggest that the final rule impose a 
time limit on when reports of harm may be included in the Database, to 
exclude old or stale data. Several commenters suggest a time limit of 
one year from the incident date, claiming that over time, data becomes 
inherently suspect.
    Response--As a matter of statutory interpretation, we have decided 
to allow submitters to enter reports of harm about product related 
incidents regardless of when the incident occurred because Congress 
imposed no limitation in section 6A of the CPSA. Because many consumer 
products have a long use period, and many consumer products are 
purchased second hand or used rather than new, it is important to 
collect and maintain information on these products over time. Moreover, 
in our experience, consumers sometimes fail to submit a report of harm 
until after a recall is announced in the media. Regardless of the date 
of occurrence and the date of entry, all reports of harm must meet the 
minimum requirements for inclusion in the Database as set forth in 
section 6A of the CPSA and Sec.  1102.10(d) of the final rule. 
Moreover, as set forth in response to Comment 30 below, the Commission 
has decided to require the incident date, or an approximate incident 
date, to include a report of harm in the Database. Users can determine 
for themselves what weight to accord an incident that is entered long 
after the date of occurrence. If a manufacturer or private labeler 
believes that the date of the incident is relevant to users of the 
Database, it may highlight this fact in its comment to the report of 
harm.
    Comment 20--Several commenters note that the proposed rule does not 
indicate how long reports of harm and associated comments will remain 
in the Database. The commenters state that the final rule should impose 
a time limit after which information will be removed from the Database 
to ensure that the information remains helpful. The commenters also 
state that unless data has a time limit or sunset period, the Database 
may become overloaded with outdated information. The commenters suggest 
that if no recall occurs within one year of a report being entered, 
then the information should be removed but remain available through a 
FOIA request. Alternatively, the commenters

[[Page 76839]]

suggest that the Commission could tag information as ``active reports'' 
and ``resolved reports.''
    Response--Setting a time limit or expiration date for reports of 
harm and related comments is inconsistent with the purpose of the 
Database. Certain hazard patterns may not emerge from the data within a 
specific time limit. Many consumer products have a long use period, and 
many consumer products are purchased used. Accordingly, it is important 
to collect and maintain information on products over time.
    Moreover, there is no easy way to determine across all industries 
and all products when data about products may lose importance. For 
example, durable infant products, which may be purchased used, may 
become the subject of incident reports years after a product was 
purchased or even recalled. We have several examples of children being 
seriously injured by products that were recalled for the defect many 
years before. Consumers should have access to all data that the 
Commission has on file when they research recalls and reports of harm 
made about consumer products in the Database. As for the suggestion of 
making information available through FOIA, we believe that such a 
change would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the Database and 
would compel us to allocate resources to respond to FOIA requests 
concerning data that should be made available in the Database. Finally, 
as set forth in Sec.  1102.10(i) of the final rule, all reports of harm 
submitted to the Commission become official records of the Commission 
in accordance with 16 CFR Sec.  1015.1 and will be treated in 
accordance with that regulation, which defines agency records for 
purposes of the FOIA.
    Comment 21--Several commenters state that the minimum information 
required to submit a report of harm for inclusion in the Database in 
Sec.  1102.10(d) is not detailed enough to allow those reviewing the 
report to understand the incident adequately, to weed out duplicate 
reports, and to promote investment in the report and Commission 
activities by the submitter. One commenter states that, without more 
detailed information, manufacturers will not be able to respond 
meaningfully to reports of harm, which will mean that the Database 
contains inaccurate information about their products. Thus, in cases 
where the incident details are insufficient to make a determination of 
why an event occurred, one commenter believes that the Commission 
should not publish the report in the Database.
    Response--We decline to amend the rule as suggested by the 
commenters. Determining why an incident occurred can sometimes be a 
time-consuming process; yet section 6A of the CPSA established 
procedural requirements that are measured in days. Congress is 
requiring us to create an ``incident'' database of ``reports of harm,'' 
not causation determinations. Section 6A of the CPSA requires reports 
of harm to be posted in the Database quickly. Thus, we cannot refrain 
from processing or publishing reports of harm to determine why an 
incident occurred.
    In response to comments on the proposed rule, however, we are 
clarifying that one additional minimum field requirement was added in 
the proposed rule, and has been maintained in the final rule, the 
``Category of submitter.'' We have considered comments on this issue, 
as described below, and decided to display this field in the Database. 
Also, in response to comments, we have decided to require an additional 
field ``Incident date'' for inclusion in the Database. These two 
additional field requirements will assist users in distinguishing 
duplicate or multiple reports and in determining what, if any, weight 
to give a particular report of harm. Moreover, these two additional 
pieces of information should be readily available and typically known 
by submitters of a report about a consumer product. On balance, those 
additional requirements should not deter a submitter from entering a 
legitimate report of harm.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(d)(1), ``Description of the consumer 
product,'' would require a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish a 
product identified in a report of harm as a consumer product, a 
component of a consumer product, or a product or substance regulated by 
the Commission. This description could include the name (including the 
brand name) of the product. Other information, such as where the 
product was purchased, price paid, model, serial number, date of 
manufacture (if known), date code, or retailer, is identified as 
information that would be helpful to the description of a consumer 
product, but not required.
    We received several comments about this section of the proposed 
rule, and for clarity we have finalized the rule with grammatical 
changes to reflect the original intent of the provision that certain 
information in the description of the consumer product will be 
optional.
    Comment 22--Some commenters state that the proposed rule does not 
require a product name, model number, manufacture date, date code, date 
of purchase, or other descriptive information about a product. The 
commenters assert that the statute requires that the Database be 
searchable by date, product description, model name, and manufacturer's 
name to the extent practicable; therefore, at a minimum, a report of 
harm must contain a model number and a product name. Some commenters 
state that poor product identification will make it impossible for a 
manufacturer to comment, and that requiring that the information be 
included will make the Database more useful and less misleading.
    Response--We agree that the more information included about a 
product, the easier it will be for the Commission and Database users to 
identify the product. Accordingly, the Database will prompt submitters 
for additional information about the product at issue, including, for 
example, product brand, model number, serial number, and date of 
manufacture. We encourage submitters to enter additional, helpful 
information for product identification in their reports of harm; 
however, we will not require submitters to provide all of the 
information suggested by the commenters. We have amended Sec.  
1102.10(d)(1) to reflect this position. Requiring too much detail about 
a product may deter individuals from submitting reports. In addition, 
we note that section 6A(b)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA states that reports 
that provide a ``description of the consumer product'' meet the 
statutory minimum for product identification. We will review each 
report of harm to ensure that a consumer product over which the 
Commission has jurisdiction is identified. Section 1102.10(d)(1) states 
that ``the description of the consumer product must, at a minimum, 
include a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as a 
consumer product, a component part of a consumer product, or a product 
or substance regulated by the Commission.'' Thus, if we cannot identify 
a consumer product over which we have jurisdiction based on information 
in the report of harm, then the report will not meet the minimum 
requirements for publication.
    As for the commenters' argument regarding the searchability of the 
Database, section 6A(b)(4) of the CPSA does not set forth minimum field 
requirements; rather it describes how users must be able to access data 
that already exists within the Database. In addition, section 6A(b)(4) 
of the CPSA requires that the Commission ``categorize the information 
available in the Database in a manner consistent with the public 
interest and in such manner as it determines to facilitate

[[Page 76840]]

easy use by consumers and shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that 
the Database is sortable and accessible by * * * (B) the name of the 
consumer product * * *; [and] (C) the model name * * *.'' (emphasis 
added). We interpret this language to mean that when a report of harm 
contains information such as a model number, it should be ``sortable 
and accessible'' by such information. Thus, if a report of harm 
contains a model name or number, users will be able to search and sort 
based on this information.
    Comment 23--Some commenters state that the description of a 
consumer product should be detailed enough so that the CPSC, the 
manufacturer, and a user of the Database will be able to identify the 
product.
    Response--We agree that a description of the consumer product 
should be detailed enough to identify the product. Section 
1102.10(d)(1) states that ``the description of the consumer product 
must, at a minimum, include a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish 
the product as a consumer product, a component part of a consumer 
product, or a product or substance regulated by the Commission.'' Each 
report of harm will be reviewed before entry into the Database.
    Comment 24--Some commenters ask us to clarify: (1) What information 
is required for a sufficient product description, and (2) how the staff 
will determine what the product is, and whether to post the report of 
harm in the Database.
    Response--Section 1102.10(d)(1) establishes the minimum 
requirements for a description of the consumer product, and is 
consistent with section 6A(b)(2)(B)(i) of the CPSA, which simply 
requires that the report of harm contain ``a description of the 
consumer product (or other product or substance regulated by the 
Commission) * * *.'' We will review each report of harm before entry 
into the Database. If we cannot distinguish the item described in a 
report of harm as a consumer product within the Commission's 
jurisdiction, then the report of harm will not satisfy the minimum 
requirements for inclusion in the Database.
    Comment 25--Several commenters state that a product UPC Code should 
be required for entry into the Database. Another commenter suggested 
using Global Trade Item Numbers.
    Response--We are interested in refining the ability of the Database 
to identify consumer products using these automatic identification 
technologies and our information technology staff currently is 
evaluating automatic identification technologies for use in future 
software versions of the Database. The rule is drafted broadly enough 
to enable such future operational change.
    Proposed Sec.  1102.10(d)(2) titled ``Identity of the manufacturer 
or private labeler,'' would describe that a report of harm must name a 
manufacturer or private labeler for the report to be published.
    One comment related to this section of the rule was received, which 
resulted in no changes to the final rule. However, on our own 
initiative, we clarified in the second sentence of the description that 
additional contact information may be provided for a manufacturer or 
private labeler, but is not required. Accordingly, the second sentence 
now states: ``In addition to a firm name, identification of a 
manufacturer or private labeler may include, but is not limited to, a 
mailing address, phone number, or electronic mail address.''
    Comment 26--One commenter would require submitters to include 
traceability information in a report of harm. If the traceability 
information does not match to the stated importer, manufacturer, or 
retailer records, the name of that entity should not appear in the 
Database without further investigation and proof that the subject 
product belongs to the named firm, the commenter argued.
    Response--We interpret this comment to mean that if a consumer 
product cannot be verified as belonging to a particular manufacturer or 
priv