The Internet of Things and Consumer Product Hazards, 13122-13124 [2018-06067]
Download as PDF
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
13122
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2018 / Notices
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to:
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC–2018–0006, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Khalisa Phillips, Psychologist, Division
of Human Factors, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 5 Research
Place, Rockville, MD 20850–3213;
telephone: 301–987–2592; email:
KPhillips@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) staff,1 with input from the Child
and Family Research Section staff at the
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD) within
the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
has revised the current (2002) Age
Determination Guidelines: Relating
Children’s Ages to Toy Characteristics
and Play Behavior, based on a literature
review, parent toy survey, and
observational study of children from
multiple age groups playing with select
toys. The draft revised guidance
document, Guidelines for Determining
Age Appropriateness of Toys, addresses
toys that have come onto the market
since the last update and provides
changes to the recommended age group
for certain classic toys. Many toy-related
injuries could be prevented by agelabeling products for the age group for
whom they are intended. Providing the
consumer product toy industry with
better age-grading guidance, and
describing how these principles can be
applied to their products, can help
reduce product-related incidents and
reduce costly compliance and
enforcement actions.
The draft guidance document is
intended for CPSC staff, industry
stakeholders, third party testing
laboratories, and manufacturers in the
consumer product toy sector. The draft
guidance can be tailored to meet the
needs of a particular toy, recognizing
that not all guidance applies to all
products. The draft guidance document
is not a rule and does not establish
legally enforceable responsibilities.
The draft guidance document is
available on the Commission’s website
at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/
DRAFT%20Age%20Determination%
20Guidelines%20for%20Toys.
pdf?xc38j_e7mgBIBA.wPVonS_Q0_
MN3fYHz, and from the Commission’s
Office of the Secretary, at the location
1 This document was prepared under the
direction of CPSC staff and has not been reviewed
and does not necessarily reflect the views of the
Commission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Mar 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
notice.
The Commission invites comments on
the draft document, ‘‘Determining Age
Appropriateness of Toys.’’ Specifically,
the Commission is seeking comments on
the recommended age groups for all toys
that have been added to or changed in
the document since the last update, and
on the research methodology and
analyses performed in the study. See
‘‘Draft Summary Table for Updating Age
Determination Guidelines for Toys’’
(available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/Draft%20Summary%
20Spreadsheet%20for%20Updating%
20Age%20Determination%
20Guidelines%20for%20Toys.
xlsx?uQIGW9pCK4nDRnWBjiYUyUaMG
99bNQAH) for a list of all toys and
respective age recommendations; and
‘‘CPSC Toy Guidelines: Research
Document’’ (available at https://
www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Draft%
20Research%20Document%20for%
20Updating%20Age%
20Determination%20Guidelines%
20for%20Toys.pdf?0ap6_dYUWpkLn.
Bqc.S2qXpJJnr3Ll3N) for a summary of
research methods and analyses
performed in the study. Comments
should be submitted by June 11, 2018.
Information on how to submit
comments can be found in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018–06066 Filed 3–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC–2018–0007]
The Internet of Things and Consumer
Product Hazards
U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing and
request for written comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission,
or we) will conduct a public hearing to
receive information from all interested
parties about potential safety issues and
hazards associated with internetconnected consumer products. The
information received from the public
hearing will be used to inform future
Commission risk management work.
The Commission also requests written
comments.
DATES: The Commission hearing will
begin at 10 a.m., on May 16, 2018, and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will conclude the same day. The
Commission hearing will also be
available through a webcast, but viewers
will not be able to interact with the
panels and presenters through the
webcast. Requests to make oral
presentations and the written text of any
oral presentations must be received by
the Office of the Secretary not later than
5 p.m., on May 2, 2018. The
Commission will accept written
comments, as well, through June 15,
2018.
The hearing will be in the
Hearing Room, 4th Floor of the Bethesda
Towers Building, 4330 East-West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Requests to make oral presentations,
and texts of oral presentations, should
be captioned: ‘‘The Internet of Things
and Consumer Products Hazards,’’ and
sent by email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or
mailed or delivered to the Office of the
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East-West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814, no later than 5
p.m. on May 2, 2018.
You may submit written comments,
identified by Docket No. CPSC–2018–
0007, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit
electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
(email), except through
www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic
comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written
submissions by mail/hand delivery/
courier to: Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 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. All
comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other
personal information provided, to:
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit
confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or
protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public. If
furnished at all, such information
should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM
27MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2018 / Notices
www.regulations.gov, and insert the
docket number CPSC–2018–0007, into
the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
Patricia Adair, Director, Risk
Management Group, Office of Hazard
Identification and Reduction, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
4330 East-West Hwy., Room 813,
Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301–
504–7335; Email: padair@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
There has been an increase in the
number of consumer products with a
connection to the internet that can
transmit or receive data, upload or
download operating software or
firmware, or communicate with other
internet-connected devices. This
connected environment is commonly
called ‘‘the Internet of Things’’ (IoT).
This internet connectivity within and
among products holds the promise of
many benefits for consumers. However,
internet connectivity is also capable of
introducing a potential for harm (a
hazard) where none existed before the
connection was established. The
consumer hazards that could
conceivably be created by IoT devices
include: Fire, burn, shock, tripping or
falling, laceration, contusion, and
chemical exposure. We do not consider
personal data security and privacy
issues that may be related to IoT devices
to be consumer product hazards that
CPSC would address.
The growth of IoT-related products is
a challenge for all CPSC stakeholders to
address. Regulators, standards
organizations, and business and
consumer advocates must work
collaboratively to develop a framework
for best practices. To that end, the
Commission will hold a public hearing
for all interested parties on consumer
product safety issues related to IoT.
Broadly speaking, the product safety
challenges of IoT products appear to fall
into two main categories:
1. Prevention or elimination of
hazardous conditions designed into
products intentionally or without
sufficient consideration, e.g., high-risk
remote operation or network enabled
control of products or product features.
Such products function as intended on
delivery with unreasonable levels of
risk, or have design defects that were
not considered or were disregarded
before delivery. In many ways, the
preventive or corrective work related to
such products can be seen as traditional
activity for industry and for the CPSC.
However, the high rate of growth,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Mar 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
unlimited scope of application, and
limited experience with such products
present new safety challenges.
2. Preventing and addressing
incidents of hazardization.
Hazardization is the situation created
when a product that was safe when
obtained by a consumer but which,
when connected to a network, becomes
hazardous through malicious, incorrect,
or careless changes to operational code.
Managing these kinds of hazards may
lead industry and regulators to examine
policies related to code encryption and
security, authorized access to
programming, and defensive measures
(and countermeasures) for device
software. This is a non-traditional area
of product safety activity for the
consumer product industry and for the
CPSC.
Examples of hazards created by an
internet-connected product include:
• Remote operation: For example, the
remote activation of the heating
elements on a cooktop could create a
fire or burn hazard.
• Unexpected operating conditions:
For example, a product might work
safely on delivery, but a software/
firmware code is changed (malicious or
otherwise) during subsequent network
access, creating a hazard where none
existed before, such as a robotic vacuum
cleaner that suddenly begins operating
much faster than expected.
• Loss of a safety function: For
example, if an integrated home security
and safety system fails to download a
software update properly, the default
condition may be to deactivate the
system, resulting in disabling the smoke
alarms without the consumer’s
knowledge.
• Hazard is created from an intended
product feature: For example, a cooktop
that might be remotely controlled could
start a fire.
Multiple parties can be involved in
creating IoT devices. For example the
hardware designer, software developer,
application generator, and third party
programmer who creates a useful
function for the device could all be
separate parties. These parties may or
may not interact collaboratively, or may
not even be aware of each other’s
activities.
CPSC’s authority covers the types of
product hazards described above.
Therefore, this hearing will not address
personal data security or privacy
implications of IoT devices.
II. Areas for Discussion
The Commission is interested in
discussion about consumer product
hazards enabled by an internet
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13123
connection. The areas for discussion
include:
• Do current voluntary standards
and/or safety regulations address safety
hazards specific to IoT-connected
devices?
• How can IoT-connected devices be
subject to safety standards (or a set of
design principles) to prevent injury?
• What types of devices would need
such controls or supervisory systems,
and what type would not, if any?
• Who should develop such
standards or create a set of design
principles?
• Should certification to appropriate
standards be required before IoT devices
are allowed in the marketplace?
• What are the industry’s best
practices for predicting potential
hazards caused by IoT-connected
devices? What controls or supervisory
systems are necessary to mitigate these
potential hazards?
• What controls or supervisory
systems are available to mitigate
potential hazards caused by misuse of
IoT-connected devices, such as
preventing the disabling of a safety
feature?
• What controls or supervisory
systems on products are necessary to
prevent injuries from unintended
consequences of misinstallation, failed
update, operational changes over time,
or misuse of an internet connection?
• Have IoT-related incidents and
injuries already occurred? Please
describe the injury scenario and the
severity of any injuries. How would IoTrelated incidents be distinguished from
other incidents?
• Are incident-collection systems set
up to collect IoT-related incident data?
• Are there ways CPSC can
collaborate with other federal agencies
to address potential safety hazards
related to IoT?
• Are there ways CPSC can
collaborate with outside stakeholders to
address potential safety hazards related
to IoT?
• How can CPSC educate consumers
on the proper use of IoT-connected
devices?
• Some of the consumer hazards that
could conceivably be created by IoT
devices are: Fire, burn, shock, tripping
or falling, laceration, contusion, and
chemical exposure. Are there other
hazards that could be introduced into
consumer products through enabling an
internet connection?
• For products whose remote
operation could create a hazard to
consumers, should internet connectivity
specifically prevent remote operation?
• How do IoT software development
methods address potential product
E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM
27MRN1
13124
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2018 / Notices
failures that may create hazards to
consumers?
• What steps should be taken to
prevent an internet connection from
creating a hazard to consumers after a
product’s purchase (or lease) and
installation?
• What role should safety standards
or design guidelines play in keeping IoT
devices from creating new hazards to
consumers? Should these standards be
voluntary or mandatory?
• What role should government play
in keeping consumers safe regarding IoT
devices?
• Will policies to prevent
hazardization of IoT products require or
benefit from strong international
cooperation?
• How should the Commission
consider responsibilities for hazards or
injuries among the various contributors
to an internet-connected product
associated with an incident?
• How should the Commission
consider responsibilities for hazards or
injuries resulting from
interdependencies between products
(e.g., communications protocol between
networked alarm and smart home hub)?
• For recalls involving IoT devices,
what are different ways companies can
communicate notice to consumers who
own the IoT devices?
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with NOTICES
III. The Hearing
Through this notice, the Commission
invites the public to provide
information on how internet-connected
products can result in hazards to
consumers, and what actions the
Commission can take to eliminate or
mitigate those hazards. The purpose of
the public hearing on IoT is to provide
interested stakeholders a venue to
discuss potential safety hazards created
by a consumer product’s connection to
IoT or other network-connected devices;
the types of hazards (e.g., electrical,
thermal, mechanical, chemical) related
to the intended, unintended, or
foreseeable misuse of consumer
products because of an IoT connection;
current standards development;
industry best practices; and the proper
role of the CPSC in addressing potential
safety hazards with IoT-related
products. CPSC’s authority covers the
types of product hazards described
above. Therefore, this hearing will not
address personal data security or
privacy implications of IoT devices.
To request the opportunity to make an
oral presentation, see the information
under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections
of this notice. Participants should limit
their presentations to approximately 10
minutes, excluding time for questioning
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:07 Mar 26, 2018
Jkt 244001
by the Commissioners. To avoid
duplicate presentations, groups should
designate a spokesperson, and the
Commission reserves the right to limit
presentation times or impose further
restrictions, as necessary.
should be sent to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra,
DoD Desk Officer, at Oira_submission@
omb.eop.gov. Please identify the
proposed information collection by DoD
Desk Officer and the Docket ID number
and title of the information collection
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
You may also submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by the following method:
[FR Doc. 2018–06067 Filed 3–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick
C. Licari.
Defense Acquisition Regulations
System
[Docket Number DARS–2018–0002; OMB
Control Number 0704–0483]
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Defense Acquisition
Regulations System, Department of
Defense (DoD).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Defense Acquisition
Regulations System has submitted to
OMB for clearance, the following
proposal for collection of information
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
DATES: Consideration will be given to all
comments received by April 26, 2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title, Associated Forms and OMB
Number: Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement (DFARS),
Independent Research and Development
Technical Descriptions; OMB Control
Number 0704–0483.
Affected Public: Businesses or other
for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
obtain or retain benefits.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Reporting Frequency: On occasion.
Number of Respondents: 77.
Responses per Respondent: 87.
Annual Responses: 6,699.
Average Burden per Response: .5
hours.
Annual Burden Hours: 3,350.
Needs and Uses: DFARS 231.205–18
requires contractors to report
independent research and development
projects to DTIC using the DTIC’s online
IR&D database. The inputs must be
updated at least annually and when the
project is completed.
OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet
Seehra.
Comments and recommendations on
the proposed information collection
Written requests for copies of the
information collection proposal should
be sent to Mr. Licari at: WHS/ESD
Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center
Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite
03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Jennifer L. Hawes,
Regulatory Control Officer, Defense
Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2018–06078 Filed 3–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 17–20]
Arms Sales Notification
Defense Security Cooperation
Agency, Department of Defense.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Arms sales notice.
The Department of Defense is
publishing the unclassified text of an
arms sales notification.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pamela Young, (703) 697–9107,
pamela.a.young14.civ@mail.mil or
Kathy Valadez, (703) 697–9217,
kathy.a.valadez.civ@mail.mil; DSCA/
DSA–RAN.
This
36(b)(1) arms sales notification is
published to fulfill the requirements of
section 155 of Public Law 104–164
dated July 21, 1996. The following is a
copy of a letter to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Transmittal
17–20 with attached Policy Justification
and Sensitivity of Technology.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 22, 2018.
Shelly Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
E:\FR\FM\27MRN1.SGM
27MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13122-13124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06067]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC-2018-0007]
The Internet of Things and Consumer Product Hazards
AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public hearing and request for written comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC, Commission,
or we) will conduct a public hearing to receive information from all
interested parties about potential safety issues and hazards associated
with internet-connected consumer products. The information received
from the public hearing will be used to inform future Commission risk
management work. The Commission also requests written comments.
DATES: The Commission hearing will begin at 10 a.m., on May 16, 2018,
and will conclude the same day. The Commission hearing will also be
available through a webcast, but viewers will not be able to interact
with the panels and presenters through the webcast. Requests to make
oral presentations and the written text of any oral presentations must
be received by the Office of the Secretary not later than 5 p.m., on
May 2, 2018. The Commission will accept written comments, as well,
through June 15, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The hearing will be in the Hearing Room, 4th Floor of the
Bethesda Towers Building, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.
Requests to make oral presentations, and texts of oral presentations,
should be captioned: ``The Internet of Things and Consumer Products
Hazards,'' and sent by email to [email protected], or mailed or
delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, no later than 5
p.m. on May 2, 2018.
You may submit written comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-
2018-0007, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted
by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The
Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 820, 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. All comments received may be posted
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal information provided, to:
www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to:
[[Page 13123]]
www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2018-0007, into
the ``Search'' box, and follow the prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Adair, Director, Risk
Management Group, Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Hwy., Room 813,
Bethesda, MD 20814. Telephone: 301-504-7335; Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
There has been an increase in the number of consumer products with
a connection to the internet that can transmit or receive data, upload
or download operating software or firmware, or communicate with other
internet-connected devices. This connected environment is commonly
called ``the Internet of Things'' (IoT). This internet connectivity
within and among products holds the promise of many benefits for
consumers. However, internet connectivity is also capable of
introducing a potential for harm (a hazard) where none existed before
the connection was established. The consumer hazards that could
conceivably be created by IoT devices include: Fire, burn, shock,
tripping or falling, laceration, contusion, and chemical exposure. We
do not consider personal data security and privacy issues that may be
related to IoT devices to be consumer product hazards that CPSC would
address.
The growth of IoT-related products is a challenge for all CPSC
stakeholders to address. Regulators, standards organizations, and
business and consumer advocates must work collaboratively to develop a
framework for best practices. To that end, the Commission will hold a
public hearing for all interested parties on consumer product safety
issues related to IoT.
Broadly speaking, the product safety challenges of IoT products
appear to fall into two main categories:
1. Prevention or elimination of hazardous conditions designed into
products intentionally or without sufficient consideration, e.g., high-
risk remote operation or network enabled control of products or product
features. Such products function as intended on delivery with
unreasonable levels of risk, or have design defects that were not
considered or were disregarded before delivery. In many ways, the
preventive or corrective work related to such products can be seen as
traditional activity for industry and for the CPSC. However, the high
rate of growth, unlimited scope of application, and limited experience
with such products present new safety challenges.
2. Preventing and addressing incidents of hazardization.
Hazardization is the situation created when a product that was safe
when obtained by a consumer but which, when connected to a network,
becomes hazardous through malicious, incorrect, or careless changes to
operational code. Managing these kinds of hazards may lead industry and
regulators to examine policies related to code encryption and security,
authorized access to programming, and defensive measures (and
countermeasures) for device software. This is a non-traditional area of
product safety activity for the consumer product industry and for the
CPSC.
Examples of hazards created by an internet-connected product
include:
Remote operation: For example, the remote activation of
the heating elements on a cooktop could create a fire or burn hazard.
Unexpected operating conditions: For example, a product
might work safely on delivery, but a software/firmware code is changed
(malicious or otherwise) during subsequent network access, creating a
hazard where none existed before, such as a robotic vacuum cleaner that
suddenly begins operating much faster than expected.
Loss of a safety function: For example, if an integrated
home security and safety system fails to download a software update
properly, the default condition may be to deactivate the system,
resulting in disabling the smoke alarms without the consumer's
knowledge.
Hazard is created from an intended product feature: For
example, a cooktop that might be remotely controlled could start a
fire.
Multiple parties can be involved in creating IoT devices. For
example the hardware designer, software developer, application
generator, and third party programmer who creates a useful function for
the device could all be separate parties. These parties may or may not
interact collaboratively, or may not even be aware of each other's
activities.
CPSC's authority covers the types of product hazards described
above. Therefore, this hearing will not address personal data security
or privacy implications of IoT devices.
II. Areas for Discussion
The Commission is interested in discussion about consumer product
hazards enabled by an internet connection. The areas for discussion
include:
Do current voluntary standards and/or safety regulations
address safety hazards specific to IoT-connected devices?
How can IoT-connected devices be subject to safety
standards (or a set of design principles) to prevent injury?
What types of devices would need such controls or
supervisory systems, and what type would not, if any?
Who should develop such standards or create a set of
design principles?
Should certification to appropriate standards be required
before IoT devices are allowed in the marketplace?
What are the industry's best practices for predicting
potential hazards caused by IoT-connected devices? What controls or
supervisory systems are necessary to mitigate these potential hazards?
What controls or supervisory systems are available to
mitigate potential hazards caused by misuse of IoT-connected devices,
such as preventing the disabling of a safety feature?
What controls or supervisory systems on products are
necessary to prevent injuries from unintended consequences of
misinstallation, failed update, operational changes over time, or
misuse of an internet connection?
Have IoT-related incidents and injuries already occurred?
Please describe the injury scenario and the severity of any injuries.
How would IoT-related incidents be distinguished from other incidents?
Are incident-collection systems set up to collect IoT-
related incident data?
Are there ways CPSC can collaborate with other federal
agencies to address potential safety hazards related to IoT?
Are there ways CPSC can collaborate with outside
stakeholders to address potential safety hazards related to IoT?
How can CPSC educate consumers on the proper use of IoT-
connected devices?
Some of the consumer hazards that could conceivably be
created by IoT devices are: Fire, burn, shock, tripping or falling,
laceration, contusion, and chemical exposure. Are there other hazards
that could be introduced into consumer products through enabling an
internet connection?
For products whose remote operation could create a hazard
to consumers, should internet connectivity specifically prevent remote
operation?
How do IoT software development methods address potential
product
[[Page 13124]]
failures that may create hazards to consumers?
What steps should be taken to prevent an internet
connection from creating a hazard to consumers after a product's
purchase (or lease) and installation?
What role should safety standards or design guidelines
play in keeping IoT devices from creating new hazards to consumers?
Should these standards be voluntary or mandatory?
What role should government play in keeping consumers safe
regarding IoT devices?
Will policies to prevent hazardization of IoT products
require or benefit from strong international cooperation?
How should the Commission consider responsibilities for
hazards or injuries among the various contributors to an internet-
connected product associated with an incident?
How should the Commission consider responsibilities for
hazards or injuries resulting from interdependencies between products
(e.g., communications protocol between networked alarm and smart home
hub)?
For recalls involving IoT devices, what are different ways
companies can communicate notice to consumers who own the IoT devices?
III. The Hearing
Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to provide
information on how internet-connected products can result in hazards to
consumers, and what actions the Commission can take to eliminate or
mitigate those hazards. The purpose of the public hearing on IoT is to
provide interested stakeholders a venue to discuss potential safety
hazards created by a consumer product's connection to IoT or other
network-connected devices; the types of hazards (e.g., electrical,
thermal, mechanical, chemical) related to the intended, unintended, or
foreseeable misuse of consumer products because of an IoT connection;
current standards development; industry best practices; and the proper
role of the CPSC in addressing potential safety hazards with IoT-
related products. CPSC's authority covers the types of product hazards
described above. Therefore, this hearing will not address personal data
security or privacy implications of IoT devices.
To request the opportunity to make an oral presentation, see the
information under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice.
Participants should limit their presentations to approximately 10
minutes, excluding time for questioning by the Commissioners. To avoid
duplicate presentations, groups should designate a spokesperson, and
the Commission reserves the right to limit presentation times or impose
further restrictions, as necessary.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2018-06067 Filed 3-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P