Highlights of Comments Received on CPSC Public Database Proposed Rule
The following are highlights of the comments received by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on its May 2010 proposed rule to establish a publicly available and searchable database on the safety of consumer products and other products or substances regulated by CPSC.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 05/25/10 news, 10052524, for BP summary of the proposed rule.)
CPSC Should Only Allow Entity Types Listed in CPSIA to Submit Incident Reports
The National Retail Federation, Toy Industry Association, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Consumer Specialty Products Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many others urged CPSC not to expand the list of those who can submit incident reports for inclusion in the public database beyond those listed in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA).
In other words, CPSC should only allow consumers; local, state, or federal government agencies; health care professionals; child service providers; and public safety entities to submit these reports. It should not, as CPSC has proposed, allow others such as attorneys, professional engineers, investigators, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consumer advocates, consumer advocacy organizations, and trade associations to submit incident reports.
The groups believe that allowing other entities to submit incident reports for inclusion in the database exceeds what is required under the CPSIA and encourages reporting by those without direct, “first-hand” knowledge of the incident.
Should Only Allow Reports of Verifiable Injury/Harm, Rather than “Risks of” Such
Galaxy Fireworks, the National Candle Association and others, state that the terms, “risk of bodily harm" and "risk of injury," should be deleted from the proposed rule. They argue that these terms lack the specificity required for a public access database and CPSC should only allow reports of actual injury incidents or reports that demonstrate a reasonably certain cause and effect.
CPSC Should Ask Targeted Questions, Verify Certain Info to Ensure Accuracy
Several organizations note that factual accuracy and veracity are two fundamental elements underpinning a credible and viable incident database. Some suggestions for ensuring this accuracy include: (i) descriptive data fields; (ii) verifying that the label instructions were followed when using the product; (iii) asking for a brief description of the circumstances of the incident, including how and where the product was being used, how much of it was used, etc.; (iv) checking the validity of submitted addresses; and (v) using technology to prevent mass postings from unauthorized parties.
Should Require Reporting of Model Name, Number
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states that by not requiring the reporting of specific product identification, such as the model name or number, a manufacturer's entire product line could be tarnished without offering useful information to consumers. Therefore, the Chamber urges CPSC to require, instead of just “encouraging,” reporting of the model name or number of the product at issue. It adds that the drop-down menus that CPSC plans to incorporate into the database should assist those submitting reports in providing this necessary information.
Recall Notices Should Not be Mixed with Unverified IncidentReports
Some of the comments noted that including recall notices in the database could confuse users as to what information was and was not verified by CPSC. They note that recall notices stem from verified product hazards and that by including such information among unverified incidentreports by consumers, database users could give allegations in a consumer report undue weight or conversely, discount the seriousness of a verified recall notice. If included, recall notices should be presented in a manner that clearly identifies their verified nature.
Stronger Mechanism Needed for Addressing False, Inaccurate Reports
Numerous organizations stated that the database must have a stronger mechanism for addressing false and inaccurate reports.
Consumers, Consumer Groups Applaud Database
Individual consumers and consumer groups also submitted comments on the proposed rule. They generally applaud the database, saying it will be a helpful tool that will allow consumers to make more informed choices.