3 ms·

What you wrote is true of everything any product does, isn’t it? It’s fine to discuss the scope of the agency and how something would fit with their existing gu

What you wrote is true of everything any product does, isn’t it? It’s fine to discuss the scope of the agency and how something would fit with their existing guidelines and rulings.

cormacrelf 5y ago
The post Meph504 responded to claimed it was reportable. You’re now talking about whether the agency would or should take any action. I don’t think either encompasses “any product”. The people who work at the agency are sane and actually interested in making an impact with their work, not forcing themselves to drown in a flood of useless warnings. In the simplest terms: it’s clearly dangerous, you should tell the agency.
floatingatoll 5y ago
It’s absolutely fine to discuss the scope of the agency’s response to legitimate reports, but a comment upthread questioned the legitimacy of the report. A child was endangered by an interaction with a device; so, the report is legitimate. Whether it deserves a response in the form of regulatory action is absolutely worth discussion, and is what I consider to be the primary question raised by this event, but that question has no bearing on whether it should be reported.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  I do see your point. I apologize if you already knew this, but the top level comment was quoting a mandate for the production and supply chain, not consumers. There isn’t a standard for consumer complaints other than presumably not to maliciously tie up resources. As you noted, the agency triages consumer complaints. The comment you’re discussing did not allege such a complaint would be spurious and stuck to debating the applicability of the supply chain mandate to what happened, though I think they also thought it was a consumer guideline. Here’s more context for where the original quote came from: “Every manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of a consumer product distributed in commerce who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that its product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death is required to notify the Commission immediately. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3). The requirement that notification occur when a responsible party “obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that” its product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death is intended to require firms to report even when no final determination of the risk is possible. Firms must carefully analyze the information they obtain to determine whether such information “reasonably supports” a determination that the product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. (See § 1115.12(f) for a discussion of the kinds of information that firms must study and evaluate to determine whether they have an obligation to report.) Firms that obtain information indicating that their products present an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death should not wait for such serious injury or death to actually occur before reporting.”
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    I misunderstood the assertion being made; thank you for clarifying, and my apologies to the commenter in question. I continue to stress the “always report” point, though, as it’s important to get people to overcome the Bystander Effect — so that someday, if/when their own child is put at risk by a device, they remember and report.

What you wrote is true of everything any product does, isn’t it? It’s fine to discuss the scope of the agency and how something would fit with their existing guidelines and rulings.

cormacrelf 5y ago

The post Meph504 responded to claimed it was reportable. You’re now talking about whether the agency would or should take any action. I don’t think either encompasses “any product”. The people who work at the agency are sane and actually interested in making an impact with their work, not forcing themselves to drown in a flood of useless warnings. In the simplest terms: it’s clearly dangerous, you should tell the agency.

floatingatoll 5y ago

It’s absolutely fine to discuss the scope of the agency’s response to legitimate reports, but a comment upthread questioned the legitimacy of the report. A child was endangered by an interaction with a device; so, the report is legitimate. Whether it deserves a response in the form of regulatory action is absolutely worth discussion, and is what I consider to be the primary question raised by this event, but that question has no bearing on whether it should be reported.

1123581321 5y ago
I do see your point. I apologize if you already knew this, but the top level comment was quoting a mandate for the production and supply chain, not consumers. There isn’t a standard for consumer complaints other than presumably not to maliciously tie up resources. As you noted, the agency triages consumer complaints. The comment you’re discussing did not allege such a complaint would be spurious and stuck to debating the applicability of the supply chain mandate to what happened, though I think they also thought it was a consumer guideline. Here’s more context for where the original quote came from: “Every manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of a consumer product distributed in commerce who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that its product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death is required to notify the Commission immediately. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3). The requirement that notification occur when a responsible party “obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that” its product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death is intended to require firms to report even when no final determination of the risk is possible. Firms must carefully analyze the information they obtain to determine whether such information “reasonably supports” a determination that the product creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. (See § 1115.12(f) for a discussion of the kinds of information that firms must study and evaluate to determine whether they have an obligation to report.) Firms that obtain information indicating that their products present an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death should not wait for such serious injury or death to actually occur before reporting.”
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  I misunderstood the assertion being made; thank you for clarifying, and my apologies to the commenter in question. I continue to stress the “always report” point, though, as it’s important to get people to overcome the Bystander Effect — so that someday, if/when their own child is put at risk by a device, they remember and report.