You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
Many consumer products—such as deodorants, shaving products, and hair care products—are differentiated to appeal specifically to men or women through differences in packaging, scent, or other product characteristics (see fig. 1). These differences related to gender can affect manufacturing and marketing costs that may contribute to price differences in products targeted to different genders. However, firms may also charge consumers different prices for the same (or very similar) goods and services even when there are no differences in costs to produce. To maximize profits, firms use a variety of techniques to charge prices close to the highest price different consumers are willing to pay. Firms may attempt to get segments of the consumer market to pay a higher price than another segment by slightly altering or differentiating the product. Based on the differentiated products, consumers self-select into different groups according to their preferences and what they are willing to pay. For example, some consumer goods have different versions of what is essentially the same product—except for differences in packaging or features, such as scent—with one version intended for women and another version intended for men. The two products may be priced differently because the firm expects that one gender will be willing to pay more for the product than the other based on preference for certain product attributes. Firms may also use some group characteristic, such as age or gender, to charge different prices because some groups may have differences in willingness or ability to pay. For example, a firm may offer discounted movie tickets to students or seniors, as they may have less disposable income. For the seller the cost of providing the movie is the same for any customer, but the seller is able to maximize its profits by offering tickets to different groups of customers at different prices. A firm’s ability to differentiate prices depends on multiple factors, such as the firm’s market power (so that competitors cannot put downward pressure on prices to eliminate the price differences), the presence of consumer segments with different demands and willingness to pay, and control over the sale of its product so it cannot be easily resold to exploit price differences. In addition, the extent to which consumers pay different prices for the same or similar goods can depend on other factors, such as consumers’: willingness to purchase an item they believe may be priced higher for ability to compare prices and product characteristics and choose a product based on its characteristics rather than its price, choices about whether to purchase a more expensive version of the product (e.g., a branded item versus a cheaper store brand), choices about where to purchase the item (i.e., when different retailers sell the same item at different prices), and use of coupons or promotions. No federal law expressly prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar consumer goods and services targeted to men and women. However, consumer protection laws do prohibit sex discrimination in credit and real estate transactions. Specifically, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants based on sex or certain other characteristics and the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits discrimination in the housing market on the basis of sex or certain other characteristics. ECOA and FHA (collectively known as the fair lending laws) prohibit lenders from, among other things, refusing to extend credit or using different standards in determining to extend credit based on sex. Credit, such as a credit card account or mortgage loan, is generally made available and priced based on a number of risk factors, including credit score, income, and employment history. A borrower with a lower credit score is likely to pay a higher interest rate on a loan, reflecting the greater risk to the lender that the borrower could default on the loan. In addition to the interest rate, borrowing costs for consumers can also include fees and other costs charged by lenders or brokers. However, there may be differences in average outcomes for men and women—such as for availability of credit or interest rates—if there are differences related to gender in the factors that determine creditworthiness, such as income. BCFP, FTC, the federal prudential regulators, and DOJ have the authority to investigate alleged violations of ECOA and are primarily responsible for enforcing the act’s requirements, while HUD and DOJ share responsibility for enforcing the provisions of FHA. Further, BCFP and the prudential regulators oversee regulated entities for compliance with ECOA by, among other things, collecting complaints from the public and through routine inspections of the financial institutions they oversee. HUD and DOJ have the authority to bring enforcement actions for alleged violations of FHA. In 5 out of 10 product categories we analyzed, personal care products targeted to women sold at higher average prices than those targeted to men after controlling for certain observable factors. For 2 of the 10 product categories, men’s versions sold at higher average prices. While the factors we controlled for likely proxy for various costs and consumer preferences, we could not fully observe all underlying differences in costs and demand for products targeted to different genders. As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the gender-based price differences we observed may be attributed to gender bias as opposed to other factors. Women’s versions of personal care products sold at a statistically significant higher average price than men’s versions for 5 of the 10 personal care product categories we analyzed—using two different price measures and after controlling for observable factors that could affect price, such as brands, product size or quantity, promotional expenses (see table 1) and other product-specific attributes (e.g., scent, special claims, form). Because women’s and men’s versions of the same product were frequently sold in different sizes, we compared prices using two price measures: average item price and average price per ounce or count of product. For 2 of the 10 product categories—shaving gel and nondisposable razors—men’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher price using both price measures. For one category (razor blades), women’s versions sold at a statistically significant higher average price per count, but there was no gender price difference using average item prices. Additionally, for two product categories—disposable razors and mass-market perfumes—there were no statistically significant price differences between men’s and women’s products using either price measure. In addition to this analysis of retail price scanner data, we also manually collected advertised online prices for a limited selection of personal care products targeted to women and men from several online retailers. Some price comparisons of advertised online prices for men’s and women’s versions of a product were similar to comparisons of average prices paid based on the Nielsen retail price scanner data. For example, for three pairs of comparable underarm deodorants, the women’s deodorant was listed at a higher price per ounce on average than the men’s deodorant (see app. II). In addition, for one pair of shaving gel products we analyzed, the men’s shaving gel was listed at a higher price per ounce on average. However, for both pairs of nondisposable razors we analyzed, the women’s razors were listed at a higher average price per count than the men’s razors. This contrasted with the Nielsen data showing that men’s nondisposable razors sold at higher prices on average than women’s. An important limitation of our analysis of these advertised prices is that we were unable to determine the extent to which consumers actually paid these prices and in what volume the products were sold, and our results are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers. Though we found that the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences we identified, we do not have sufficient information to determine the extent to which these gender- related price differences were due to gender bias as opposed to other factors. Versions differentiated to appeal to men and women can result in different costs for the manufacturer. Our econometric analysis controlled for many observable factors related to costs, such as product size, promotional activity, and packaging type. We also controlled for many product attributes such as forms, scents, and special claims that products make to account for underlying manufacturing cost differences. In addition, we controlled for brands, which can reflect consumer preferences. However, we do not have firm-level data on all cost differences—for example, those related to advertising and packaging. As a result, we could not determine the extent to which the price differences we observed may be explained by remaining cost differences between men’s and women’s products. We also do not have the data to determine the extent to which men and women have different demands and willingness to pay for a product, which would be expected to affect the prices firms charge for differentiated products. For example, some academic experts we spoke with said that women may value some product attributes, such as design and scent, more than men do. If products differentiated to incorporate those attributes do not result in different costs, then differences in prices could be part of a firm’s pricing strategy based on the willingness of one gender to pay more than another. The conditions necessary for firms to be able to implement a strategy of price differentiation likely exist for the personal care products we analyzed. First, our analysis suggests that due to industry concentration, there is limited market competition for the 10 personal care products we analyzed. With more market power, firms can more easily set different prices for different consumer segments. Second, firms have the ability to segment the market for personal care products by tailoring product characteristics related to gender, such as by labeling the product as women’s deodorant or men’s deodorant, or by altering scent or colors. Third, while men and women are able to freely purchase a product targeted to the opposite gender, certain factors may limit the extent to which this occurs. For example, some product differences such as scents may discourage one gender from buying products targeted to another gender. In addition, consumers may find it difficult and time- consuming to compare prices for similar men’s and women’s products because of the ways they are differentiated (such as product size and scents) and because they may be sold in different parts of a store. We reviewed studies that compared prices for men and women in four markets where the product or service is not differentiated by gender: mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs. First, we reviewed studies on mortgage and small business credit that analyzed interest rates and access to credit to identify any differences for men and women. Second, we reviewed studies that compared prices quoted to men and women in auto purchase and repair markets. However, several of these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable. Studies we reviewed found that women as a group pay higher interest rates on average than men in part due to weaker credit characteristics. After controlling for borrower credit characteristics and other factors, three studies did not find statistically significant differences in interest rates between men and women for the same type of mortgage, while one study found that women paid higher mortgage rates for certain subprime loans. In addition, one study found that female borrowers defaulted less frequently on their loans than male borrowers with similar credit characteristics, suggesting that women as a group may pay higher mortgage rates than men relative to their default risk. While these studies attempted to control for factors other than gender or sex that could affect borrowing costs, several lacked important data on certain borrower risk characteristics. For example, several studies we reviewed rely on Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) data, which did not include data on risk factors such as borrower credit scores that could affect analysis of disparities between men and women. Also, several studies analyzed nonrepresentative samples of loans, such as subprime loans or loans originated more than 10 years ago, which limits the generalizability of the results (see table 2). Three of the studies we reviewed found that while women on average were charged higher interest rates on mortgage loans than men, this difference was not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. For example, one study found that differences in mortgage interest rates between men and women became insignificant after controlling for differences in how men and women shop for mortgage rates. The authors used data from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) to analyze the effect on interest rates of mortgage features, borrower characteristics such as gender, and market conditions. However, their analysis did not include data on some borrower credit characteristics such as credit score and debt-to-income ratio that could affect borrowing costs. Another study found that women were charged higher interest rates for subprime loans made in 2005, but once the authors controlled for observed risk characteristics there was no evidence of disparity in interest rates by gender of the borrower in the subprime market. However, the authors’ data did not include any fees paid at loan origination, which could affect the overall cost of borrowing. A third study that examined disparities between men and women in subprime loans found no significant evidence that gender affected the cost of borrowing within the subprime market, though it did find that women—particularly African American women—were more likely to have subprime loans. The authors found that, even after controlling for some financial characteristics and loan terms, single African American women were more likely than non-Hispanic white couples to have subprime loans. One study analyzed subprime loans made by one large lender from 2003 through 2005 and found that women paid more for subprime mortgages than men after controlling for some risk factors. This study found that women had higher average borrowing costs—as measured by annual percentage rate—than men, and controlling for credit characteristics such as credit scores and debt-to-income ratios did not fully explain the differences. However, the authors did not control for other factors that could also affect borrowing costs, such as differences in education, shopping behaviors, and geographic location. Additionally, a research paper found that female-only borrowers—that is, where the only borrower is a woman—default less than male-only borrowers with similar loans and credit characteristics. The authors found that female-only borrowers on average pay more for their mortgage loans because they generally have weaker credit characteristics, such as lower income, and also because a higher percentage of these mortgage loans are subprime. However, after controlling for credit characteristics such as credit score, loan term, and loan-to-value ratio, among others, the analysis showed that these weaker credit characteristics do not accurately predict how well women pay their mortgage loans. Since pricing is tied to credit characteristics and not performance, women may pay more relative to their actual risk than do similar men. Studies we reviewed on small business loans generally did not find differences in interest rates, though some found differences in denial rates and other accessibility issues between female- and male-owned firms. Most of the studies we reviewed used data from the 1993, 1998, or 2003 Survey of Small Business Finances (SSBF), which could limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today. A study that analyzed data from the 1993 SSBF did not find evidence that businesses owned by women paid more for credit than firms owned by white men. However, when the authors took into account the market concentration and competition, they found that white female-owned firms experienced increased denial rates in less competitive markets. In addition, the study found that women may avoid applying for credit in those markets because of the fear of being denied. For example, almost half of all small business owners who needed credit reported that they did not apply for credit, and these rates were even higher for businesses owned by women and minorities. Other studies found that women may have less access to small business credit than men, in part because of higher denial rates and because they may not apply for credit out of fear of rejection. For example, one study found that women-owned firms have higher loan denial rates compared with men; however, this is mainly due to differences in business characteristics of female- and male-owned firms. The authors also found that even when denial rates are the same for small businesses with similar characteristics, women’s loan application rates are lower, suggesting that women may be discouraged from applying for credit by the higher overall denial rates for female-owned firms. Another study by one of the same authors examined the reasons why female borrowers may be discouraged from applying for a business loan compared to male business owners and found that it was mainly because they fear that their application will be rejected. A third study by the same author found that women in general did not have less access to credit than men, though newer female-owned firms received significantly lower loan amounts than requested compared to their male-owned counterparts. Similarly, the study also found that women with few years of experience managing or owning a business received significantly lower loan amounts compared with men with similar years of experience. A fourth study looked at six different types of loans, including lines of credit, and found that white women were significantly more likely than white men to avoid applying for a loan because they assume they would be denied. However, once the authors’ model controlled for education differences, all gender disparities in applying for credit disappeared, though white women were still less likely than white men to have loans. Studies we reviewed on auto purchases and repairs found that a seller’s expectation of what customers are willing to pay and how informed they seemed can differ by gender, which can affect the price customers are quoted. However, these studies were published in 1995 and 2001, which may limit the applicability or relevance of their findings today. The 2001 study we reviewed on auto purchases found that though women paid higher prices than men for car purchases on average, these differences declined when cars were purchased online. The authors suggest that this may be because Internet consumers can effectively convey their level of price knowledge and therefore may seem better informed to the sellers. They also suggest it could be because the dealerships have less information about online consumers and their willingness to pay, which may limit the extent of price differentiation. The 1995 study on auto purchases found that the dealers quoted significantly lower prices to white males than to female or African American test buyers using identical, scripted bargaining strategies in part because dealers may have made assumptions about women’s willingness to bargain for lower prices. We also reviewed one study on auto repairs that found that women were quoted higher prices than men if they seemed uninformed about the cost of car repair when requesting a quote, but the price differences disappeared if the study participant mentioned an expected price. The study suggests that a potential explanation for this result could be that auto repair shops expect women to accept a price that is higher than the market average and men to accept a price below it. BCFP and HUD have responsibilities to monitor consumer complaints in the consumer credit and housing markets, respectively. Additionally, FTC monitors complaints about the consumer credit and consumer goods markets. All three agencies play a role in potentially monitoring or addressing issues of gender-related price differences and have online complaint forms for submission of consumer complaints: BCFP collects and reviews consumer complaints about financial products and services and provides complaints and related data in its Consumer Complaint Database. In 2017 BCFP received approximately 320,200 consumer complaints. The products that generated the most complaints in 2017 were “Credit or consumer reporting,” “Debt collection,” and “Mortgage." According to BCFP officials, BCFP also analyzes loan and demographics data collected through HMDA and other data sources to monitor and identify market trends. In addition, BCFP and the federal financial regulators examine fair lending practices of the institutions they regulate, and these examinations have uncovered sex discrimination in credit products by FDIC and NCUA. FTC receives complaints and the complaints are stored in the Consumer Sentinel Network, a database of consumer complaints received by FTC, as well as those filed with other federal and state agencies and organizations, such as mass marketing fraud complaints from the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The complaints in the Consumer Sentinel Network focus on consumer fraud, identity theft, and other consumer protection matters, such as debt collection, and can include complaints related to consumer credit markets. HUD receives consumer complaints about potential FHA violations through its website, via its toll-free phone hotline, and in writing. HUD monitors those complaints through its online HUD Enforcement Management System. HUD investigates all complaints for which it has jurisdictional authority. HUD may monitor complaints to identify trends, but HUD officials stated that the agency does not generally monitor consumer credit and housing market data, absent a specific complaint. In cases where HUD has jurisdictional authority under FHA, HUD offers conciliation between the parties. If resolution is not reached, and HUD determines there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the parties may elect to have the matter heard in U.S. District Court or at HUD. In their oversight of federal antidiscrimination statutes, BCFP officials said they have not identified significant consumer concerns about price differences based on a consumer’s sex or gender. FTC and HUD officials identified some examples of concerns of this nature. For example, FTC has taken enforcement actions alleging unlawful race- and gender-related price differences. HUD has also identified several cases where pregnant women and their partners applied for a mortgage while the woman was on maternity leave, and the couple’s mortgage loan application was denied. BCFP, FTC, and HUD have received few consumer complaints about price differences related to sex or gender, according to our analysis of a sample of each agency’s 2012–2017 complaint data (see table 3). In separate samples of 100 gender-related complaints at BCFP, HUD, and FTC, we found that 0, 4, and 1 complaint, respectively, were related to price differences based on sex or gender. Three of the complaints from HUD also cited differences in price based on other protected classes (such as race or ethnicity). Half of the academic experts and consumer groups we interviewed told us that in some markets it is difficult for consumers to observe and compare prices paid by other consumers, such as when prices are not posted or can be negotiated (e.g., car sales). In such cases, consumers may not know if other consumers are paying a higher or lower price than the price quoted to them. Most academic experts also told us that when consumers are aware that price differences could exist, they may make different decisions when making purchases. Additionally, officials from BCFP noted that price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify, or that consumers may not know where to complain. The consumer education resources of BCFP, FTC, and HUD provide general consumer education resources on discrimination (i.e., consumer user guide or a website) and consumer awareness. Officials from BCFP and HUD said they have not identified a need to develop other consumer education resources specific to gender-related price differences. For example, BCFP’s print and online consumer education materials are intended to inform consumers of their rights and protections related to credit discrimination, which includes discrimination based on sex or gender. The three agencies’ consumer education materials also provide advice that could help consumers avoid paying higher prices regardless of their gender—such as home-buying resources and resources on comparison shopping. However, the agencies have not developed additional educational resources focused specifically on potential gender- related price differences in part because few complaints on this topic have been collected in their databases, agency officials told us. FTC officials noted that it tries to focus its education efforts on topics that will have the greatest benefit to consumers, often determined by information it gathers through complaints and investigations. Representatives of five consumer groups and industry associations told us that they have received few complaints about gender-related price differences. However, four consumer groups noted that low concern could be the result of consumers being unaware of price differences related to gender. For example, as indicated above, price differences related to gender may be difficult for consumers to identify when they cannot determine whether they are paying a higher price than others. Representatives of two retailing industry associations similarly stated that they have not heard concerns about price differences related to gender. In response to consumer complaints or concerns about gender disparities in pricing, at least one state (California) and two municipalities (Miami- Dade County and New York City) have passed laws or ordinances to prohibit businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar goods or services solely based on gender (see table 4). In addition, two of these laws included requirements related to promoting price transparency. California enacted the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices for the same or similar services based on a consumer’s gender. The law also requires certain businesses to display price information and disclose prices upon request, according to state officials with whom we spoke. Similarly, in 1997, Miami-Dade County passed the Gender Pricing Ordinance, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices based solely on a consumer’s gender (though businesses are permitted to charge different prices if the goods or services involve more time, difficulty, or cost). In the same year, it also passed an ordinance that prohibits dry cleaning businesses from charging different prices for similar services based on gender. This ordinance also requires those businesses to post all prices on a clear and conspicuous sign, according to county officials with whom we spoke. State and local officials we interviewed identified benefits and challenges associated with these laws. For example, California, New York City, and Miami-Dade County officials noted that these laws give them the ability to intervene to address pricing practices that may lead to discrimination based on gender. In addition, California state officials said that the state’s efforts to implement the Gender Tax Repeal Act helped to improve consumer awareness about gender price differences. However, officials from California and Miami-Dade County cited challenges associated with tracking relevant complaints. For example, Miami-Dade County’s online complaint form includes a narrative section but does not ask for the complainant’s gender. Consumers do not always identify their gender in the narrative or state that that was the reason for their treatment. Additionally, officials from California and Miami-Dade County stated that seeking out violations would be very resource-intensive, and they rely on residents to submit complaints about violations. We provided a draft of this report to BCFP, DOJ, FTC, and HUD. BCFP, FTC, and HUD provided technical comments on the report draft, which we incorporated where appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, BCFP, DOJ, FTC, HUD, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. We used a multivariate regression model to estimate the effect of gender (to which a product is targeted to) on the price of that product while controlling for other factors that may also affect the product’s price. The factors that we controlled for were the product size, promotional and packaging costs, and other product characteristics discussed in detail later. We used scanner data from the Nielsen Company (Nielsen) for calendar year 2016 and analyzed the following 10 product categories: (1) underarm deodorants, (2) body deodorants, (3) shaving cream, (4) shaving gel, (5) disposable razors, (6) nondisposable razors, (7) razor blades, (8) designer perfumes, (9) mass-market perfumes, and (10) mass-market body sprays. We estimated the following regression model for each of our 10 product categories: P=α+β*Male + λ* Size + θ*Owner +η*Promotion+ μ*X + δ*Y + ε The dependent variable P in the above equation represents price. For our analysis, we constructed two measures of price. The first is the item price, estimated as the total dollar sales of an item (each item is depicted by a unique Universal Product Code (UPC) in the Nielsen data), divided by the total units sold of that item. The second measure of price that we use is price per ounce or price per count. This is estimated as the item price divided by the total quantity of product, where quantity or size depicts the number of ounces (as in the case of fragrances) or the count of blades in razor blade packs. The total quantity of the product is the ounces or counts of one item multiplied by the number of items included in a specific product configuration. For example, a 2-pack of deodorant sticks where each deodorant stick is 2.7 ounces would be a total quantity of 5.4 ounces. The variable Male in the above equation is an indicator variable depicting whether the product is designated as a “men’s” product in the Nielsen data. It is represented as a value of “1” for men’s products and a value of “0” for women’s products. The co-efficient for this variable, parameter β, would therefore show the price difference between a men’s and women’s product. A negative value would imply a lower price for products designated as men’s products. The variable Size represents the most appropriate specification of the size of the product. Owner is a set of indicator variables representing all the brand owners selling a particular product. The brand of a product can be expected to have a substantial effect on prices for the kind of products we analyze because brands can be a proxy for quality for some consumers. However, we also found that firms often create gender-specific brands, so holding brands constant rendered most gender-based price comparisons infeasible. To overcome this, we hold owners instead of brands constant for our price comparison analysis. The variable Promotion represents the percentage of dollar sales that were sold on any type of promotion. This variable proxies for promotional costs to some extent based on the assumption that the greater the proportion of sales due to promotional activity, the greater the promotional costs. The variables X represent a set of indicator variables for packaging characteristics such as package delivery method (for example, roll-on or aerosol spray deodorants) or package shape (for example, bottle, tube, or can). We expect these characteristics to proxy for different costs associated with different packaging methods. The variables Y represent a set of indicator variables representing different product characteristics (for example, forms such as gel stick or smooth solid and claims such as “active cooling” or “anti-wetness” for underarm deodorants, and blade types such as “triple edge” and “flexible six” for razors). These product characteristics may proxy for some underlying manufacturing costs or even consumer preferences. Since firms may create gender-specific product attributes—scents like “sweet petals” and “pure sport” or razor head types and colors to differentiate products between genders—we did not always keep every product attribute constant when comparing prices. The idiosyncratic error term is represented by ε. All of our regressions are weighted, with the proportion of units sold for a particular item in that year as the weight. This is because, for personal care products, there are large differences in units sold of various product types and brands, and therefore it not useful to compare simple un- weighted average prices. For example, for one company the highest selling men’s deodorant stick sold almost 12 million units in 2016, and the highest selling women’s deodorant stick sold over 8 million units. The average units sold for underarm deodorants as a whole was just over 300,000 units, and 1,000 products out of a total of almost 3,000 products had less than 100 units sold in 2016. The linear model we used has the usual shortcomings of being subject to specification bias to the extent the relationship between price and each of the independent variables is not linear. The model also does not include complete data on costs, such as advertising and packaging, or consumers’ willingness to pay, both of which have an effect on the price differences. The model may thus also be subject to omitted variable bias. In addition, the model may have some endogeneity issues to the extent the product characteristics themselves are influenced by consumers’ willingness to pay for some of those product features. To reduce the impact of any model misspecifications or heteroscedasticity, we used the robust (or Huber-White sandwich) estimator. We estimated the regression model above for each of the 10 products separately and for each of the two measures of price. We used Nielsen’s in-store, retail price scanner data, which include information on total volume sold and dollar sales for items purchased at 228 retailers including grocery stores, drug stores, mass merchandisers (such as Target), dollar stores, club stores (such as Sam’s Club), and convenience stores. The data capture 82 percent of all U.S. sales. Nielsen also projects sales for the remaining noncooperating retailers, and that information is included in this dataset. We excluded some very small brands that did not have enough units sold from our regression analysis in order to avoid outliers. These brands usually had less than 50,000 units sold over the entire year, and for some products they represented less than 1 percent of all units sold. We found that average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women’s products than for men’s in 5 out of 10 personal care products. In 2 categories, men’s versions sold at a significantly higher price. One category had mixed results based on two price measures analyzed, and two others showed no significant gender price differences. A summary of our regression results is presented in table 5. We manually collected prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from the websites of four online retailers that also operated physical store locations. We selected comparable pairs of similar men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were sold at most or all of the four retailers. The products were selected based on several comparability factors such as brand, product claims, and number of blades in a razor. For two 1-week time periods in January and March 2018, we collected prices manually between 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. (ET) over two 7-day time periods. We collected listed prices and did not adjust the prices for any promotions that were available, such as online coupons or buy-one-get-one-free offers. Table 6 presents the results of our online price collection. These results have important limitations: The average prices shown are not generalizable to the broader universe of prices for these products sold at other times or by other online retailers. The data reflect prices advertised to consumers rather than the prices consumers actually paid. The data do not capture the volume of sales for each item for each retailer; in our analysis, we weighted all advertised prices equally across the retailers. As a result, differences we found within these advertised prices may not have translated into comparable differences in prices female and male consumers paid for these products online. The prices do not reflect any promotional discounts, volume discounts, or other discounts that may have been available to some or all consumers. This report examines (1) how prices compared for selected categories of consumer goods that are differentiated for men and women, and potential reasons for any significant price differences; (2) what is known about the extent to which men and women may pay different prices in, or experience different levels of access to, markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender; (3) the extent to which federal agencies have identified and taken steps to address any concerns about gender-related price differences; and (4) state and local government efforts to address concerns about gender-related price differences. To compare prices for selected goods that are differentiated for men and women, we purchased and analyzed Nielsen Company (Nielsen) data on retail prices paid for 10 personal care product categories for calendar year 2016. The product categories included underarm deodorants, body deodorants (typically sold as a spray), disposable razors, nondisposable razors, razor blades, shaving creams, shaving gels, and three categories of fragrances. We selected these categories of personal care products because they are commonly purchased consumer goods that were categorized by gender in the Nielsen data. The women’s and men’s versions of personal care products we selected are generally more similar in terms of the form, size, and packaging in comparison to certain other consumer product categories that are also differentiated by gender, such as clothing. We used regression models to analyze data on retail prices paid for the 10 categories of personal care products differentiated for women and men. To assess the reliability of the Nielsen data, we reviewed relevant documentation and conducted interviews with Nielsen representatives to review steps they took to collect and ensure the reliability of the data. In addition, we electronically tested data fields for missing values, outliers, and obvious errors. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. For more details on the methodology for, and limitations of, our analysis of these retail price data, see appendix I. We also manually collected listed prices for 16 pairs of selected personal care products from four different retailer websites over two 7-day periods in January and March 2018. For each pair, we selected comparable men’s and women’s products that were differentiated by product attributes, such as scent or color, and were commonly sold across retailers. For more details on our online price data collection and the limitations associated with interpreting the results, see appendix II. To examine what is known about the extent to which men and women may be offered different prices or access for the same goods or services, we reviewed academic literature identified through a literature search covering the last 25 years. To identify existing studies from peer-reviewed journals, we conducted searches using subject and keyword searches of various databases, such as EconLit, Scopus, ProQuest, and Social SciSearch. We also used a snowball search technique—meaning we reviewed relevant academic literature cited in our selected studies—to identify additional studies. We performed these searches and identified articles from December 2016 to April 2018. From these searches, we identified 21 studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals or research institutions’ publications from 1995 through 2016 and were relevant to gender-related price differences for the same products. We reviewed and assessed each study’s evaluation methodology based on generally accepted social science standards. See the bibliography at the end of this report for a list of the 21 studies. We then summarized the research findings. A GAO economist read and assessed each study, using the same data collection instrument. The assessment focused on information such as the types of disparities examined, the research design and data sources used, and methods of data analysis. The assessment also focused on the quality of the data used in the studies as reported by the researchers and any limitations of data sources for the purposes for which they were used. A second GAO economist reviewed each completed data collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information included. As a result, the 21 studies that we selected for our review met our criteria for methodological quality. We found the studies we reviewed to be reliable for purposes of determining what is known about price differences for the same products. However, these studies have important limitations, such as using nonrepresentative data samples, and the results are not generalizable. To examine the federal role in overseeing gender-related price differences, we reviewed relevant federal statutes and agency guidance, and interviewed officials from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). To help identify the extent of concerns about gender-related price differences, we interviewed representatives from eight consumer groups, three industry associations, and four academic experts. Additionally, we reviewed a sample of consumer complaints from databases managed by BCFP, FTC, and HUD (Consumer Complaint Database, Consumer Sentinel Network, and Enforcement Management System, respectively). Complaints were submitted by consumers across the United States about various financial products, housing grievances, and other consumer protection concerns. To identify our universe of gender-related consumer complaints in BCFP and FTC databases, we used the following search terms that targeted sex or gender discrimination: discriminat, unfair, treat, decept, abus, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, sex, female, woman, women, man, men, male, gender, and sex. HUD’s consumer complaint database is categorized by protected class (e.g., race, sex, national origin), so we did not need to use search terms to identify gender-related complaints. For the years 2012 through 2017, we identified 6,117 BCFP consumer complaint narratives; 10,472 FTC consumer complaints narratives; and 5,421 HUD consumer complaint narratives that were relevant to our scope. We then drew a stratified random probability sample of 100 gender-related consumer complaints from each database. To determine which complaints in our samples were about price differences related to gender or sex, two team members read through each complaint narrative and coded whether or not the complainant’s narrative indicated that they felt that they paid or were charged more because of their gender or sex. A third team member conducted a final review of the results, and made a final determination in cases where there were differences in the first two team member’s assessments. With this probability sample, each member of the study population had a nonzero probability of being included, and that probability could be computed for any member. We followed a probability procedure based on random selections and our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (with a margin of error of 5.9 percent). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing documentation and interviewing agency officials about the databases used to collect these complaints. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of identifying complaints of gender- related price differences. To explore state and local efforts to address concerns about gender- related price differences, we conducted a literature search and identified three state or local laws or ordinances that specifically address gender- related price differences: California, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and New York City, New York. We reviewed these laws and ordinances and interviewed officials from these jurisdictions to discuss motivations for, oversight of, and the impact of these laws. We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to August 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For each of 10 personal care product categories we analyzed, we compared the overall average prices for women’s products and men’s products using two measures of average price: average item price and average price per ounce or count. While the second price measure adjusts the average price for quantity of product, these comparisons did not take into account the effect on price of differences in product brand, packaging, and other characteristics. As shown in table 7, adjusting the average item price to account for differences in product quantity (ounces or count) significantly affected the size and magnitude of gender price differences for several product categories. This is because men’s products in the dataset were frequently larger in size or count compared with women’s products in the same category. For example, women’s disposable razors sold for 11 percent less than those targeted to men when we compared average item prices. However, when we compared average price per count of razors, women’s disposable razors sold for 19 percent more on average than men’s. This is because women’s disposable razors had on average about one fewer razor per package. In 5 out of 10 product categories, women’s versions of the product on average sold for a higher price per ounce or count than men’s and these differences were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level for 4 products and at the 90 percent level for one product. Information about sales and relative sizes of different products targeted to men and women are presented in table 8 below. This appendix provides additional details about the consumer complaint processes at the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Consumers with a complaint about unfair treatment related to gender could submit a complaint to one of these agencies. BCFP and FTC monitor consumer complaints related to violations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, while HUD and the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate housing discrimination complaints under the Fair Housing Act. These complaints could be about price differences because of gender. Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, John Fisher (Assistant Director), Jeff Harner (Analyst in Charge), Vida Awumey, Bethany Benitez, Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Kelsey Kreider, and Kelsey Sagawa made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Abigail Brown, Michael Hoffman, Jill Lacey, Oliver Richard, Tovah Rom, and Paul Schmidt. We reviewed literature to identify what is known about the extent to which female and male consumers may face different prices or access in markets for credit and goods and services that are not differentiated based on gender. This bibliography contains citations for the 20 studies and articles that we reviewed that compared prices or access for female and male consumers in markets where the product is not differentiated by gender (mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs). Asiedu, Elizabeth, James A. Freeman, and Akwasi Nti-Addae. “Access to Credit by Small Businesses: How Relevant Are Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?” The American Economic Review, vol. 102, no. 3 (2012): 532- 537. Ayers, Ian and Peter Siegelman. “Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car.” The American Economic Review, vol. 85, no. 3. (1995): 304-321. Blanchard, Lloyd, Bo Zhaob, and John Yinger. “Do lenders discriminate against minority and woman entrepreneurs?” Journal of Urban Economics 63 (2008): 467–497. Blanchflower, David G., Phillip B. Levine, and David J. Zimmerman. “Discrimination in the Small-Business Credit Market.” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 85, no. 4 (2003): 930-943. Busse, Meghan R., Ayelet Israeli, and Florian Zettelmeyer. “Repairing the Damage: The Effect of Price Expectations on Auto Repair Price Quotes.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 19154 (2013). Cavalluzzo, Ken S., Linda C. Cavalluzzo, and John D. Wolken. “Competition, Small Business Financing, and Discrimination: Evidence from a New Survey.” The Journal of Business, vol. 75, no. 4 (2002): 641- 679. Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu. “Do Women Pay More for Mortgages?” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 43 (2011): 423-440. Cheng, Ping, Zhenguo Lin, and Yingchun Liu. “Racial Discrepancy in Mortgage Interest Rates.” The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, vol. 51 (2015): 101-120. Cole, Rebel, and Tatyana Sokolyk. “Who Needs Credit and Who Gets Credit? Evidence from the Surveys of Small Business Finances”. Journal of Financial Stability, vol. 24 (2016), 40-60. Coleman, Susan. “Access to Debt Capital for Women- and Minority- Owned Small Firms: Does Educational Attainment Have an Impact?” Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 9, no. 2 (2004): 127-143. Duesterhas, Megan, Liz Grauerholz, Rebecca Weichsel, and Nicholas A. Guittar. “The Cost of Doing Femininity: Gendered Disparities in Pricing of Personal Care Products and Services,” Gender Issues, vol. 28, (2011): 175-191. Goodman, Laurie, Jun Zhu, and Bing Bai. “Women Are Better than Men at Paying Their Mortgages.” Urban Institute, Research Report (2016). Haughwout, Andrew, et al. “Subprime Mortgage Pricing: The Impact of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender on the Cost of Borrowing.” Brookings- Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (2009): 33-63. Mijid, Naranchimeg. “Gender differences in Type 1 credit rationing of small businesses in the US.” Cogent Economics & Finance, vol. 3 (2015). Mijid, Naranchimeg. “Why are female small business owners in the United States less likely to apply for bank loans than their male counterparts?” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, vol. 27, no. 2 (2015): 229- 249. Mijid, Naranchimeg and Alexandra Bernasek. “Gender and the credit rationing of small businesses.” The Social Science Journal, vol. 50 (2013): 55-65. Morton, Fiona Scott, Florian Zettelmeyer, and Jorge Silva-Risso. “Consumer Information and Price Discrimination: Does the Internet Affect the Pricing of New Cars to Women and Minorities?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 8668 (2001). O’Connor, Sally. “The Impact of Gender in the Mortgage Credit Market.” University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Doctoral Dissertation (1996). Van Rensselaer, Kristy N., et al. “Mortgage Pricing and Gender: A Study of New Century Financial Corporation.” Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, vol. 18, no. 4 (2014): 95-110. Wyly, Elvin and C.S. Ponder. “Gender, age, and race in subprime America.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 21, no. 4 (2011): 529-564. Zimmerman Treichel, Monica and Jonathan A. Scott. “Women-Owned Businesses and Access to Bank Credit: Evidence from Three Surveys Since 1987.” Venture Capital, vol. 8, no. 1 (2006): 51-67.

 

 Report 2:
According to the National Inventory of Dams, as of January 2016 there are approximately 90,500 dams in the United States and about 2.5 percent of these (approximately 2,100 dams) are associated with hydropower projects. Hydropower projects are owned and operated by both non-federal entities—such as private utility companies, municipalities, and state government agencies—or federal government agencies—primarily the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation. Collectively, these dams associated with hydropower projects account for about 8 percent of the total electric generating capacity in the United States. Hydropower projects generally consist of one or more dams and other key components associated with hydroelectric power generation and water storage, and are uniquely designed to accommodate watersheds, geology, and other natural conditions present at the time of construction. These components include both those that allow operators to adjust reservoir water levels, such as spillways and gates, as well as those that produce and distribute electricity, such as transmission lines and powerhouses, among others. (See fig. 1.) The Federal Power Act provides for FERC’s regulatory jurisdiction over a portfolio of about 1,000 non-federal hydropower projects comprising over 2,500 dams. While FERC does not construct, own, or operate dams, it licenses and provides oversight of non-federal hydropower projects to promote their safe operation. Licensees are responsible for the safety and liability of dams, pursuant to the Federal Power Act, and for their continuous upkeep and repair using sound and prudent engineering practices. FERC officials in each of the agency’s five regional offices work directly with licensees to help ensure these projects comply with licenses and meet federal guidelines for dam safety. In addition, stakeholder groups such as the Association of State Dam Safety Officials can assist licensees in staying current on federal and state dam laws and regulations, dam operations and maintenance practices, and emergency action planning, among other things. FERC’s regulations, supplemented by its Operating Manual and Engineering Guidelines, establish a framework for its dam safety oversight approach. FERC’s Operating Manual provides guidelines for the FERC staff performing inspections that are aimed at ensuring that structures are safe, are being properly maintained, and are being operated safely. FERC’s Engineering Guidelines provides FERC staff and licensees with procedures and criteria for the review and analysis of license applications, project modification proposals, technical studies, and dam designs. For example, one chapter presents guidelines for FERC staff to use to determine the appropriateness and level of geotechnical investigations and studies for dams. The Engineering Guidelines states that every dam is unique and that safety analysis of each dam require that engineers apply technical judgement based on their professional experience. As part of FERC’s safety oversight approach, it assigns a hazard classification to each dam in accordance with federal guidelines that consider the potential human or economic consequences of the dam’s failure. The hazard classification does not indicate the structural integrity of the dam itself, but rather the probable effects if a failure should occur. Depending on the hazard classification, the extent of and the frequency of safety oversight activities can vary. Low hazard dams are those where failure —an uncontrolled release of water from a water-retaining structure—would result in no probable loss of human life but could cause low economic and/or environmental losses. Significant hazard dams are those dams where failure would result in no probable loss of human life, but could cause economic loss, environmental damage, or other losses. High hazard dams are those dams where failure would probably cause loss of human life. FERC has designed a multi-layered oversight approach that involves both independent and coordinated actions with dam owners and independent consultants. Key elements of this approach include ensuring licensees have a safety program in place, conducting regular safety inspections, reviewing technical analyses, and analyzing safety as a part of project relicensing. (See fig. 2.) Licensee’s dam safety program. According to FERC guidance, licensees have the most important role in ensuring dam safety through continuous visual surveillance and ongoing monitoring to evaluate the health of the structure. Beyond this expectation for continuous oversight, FERC requires licensees of high and significant hazard dams to have an Owner’s Dam Safety Program. FERC dam safety inspection. The dam safety inspection, also called operation inspection, is a regularly-scheduled inspection conducted by a FERC regional office project engineer primarily addressing dam and public safety. FERC’s Operating Manual establishes the frequency that a FERC engineer conducts dam safety inspections. Independent consultant inspection and potential failure mode analysis. FERC requires licensees to hire a FERC-approved independent consulting engineer to inspect and evaluate high hazard dams and certain types of dams above a certain height or size and submit a report detailing the findings. Additionally, FERC requires the licensee of a high or significant hazard dam to conduct a potential failure mode analysis. A potential failure mode analysis is an exercise to identify and assess all potential failure modes under normal operating water levels and under extreme conditions caused by floods, earthquakes, and other events. FERC relicensing of projects. FERC issues hydropower licenses for the construction of new hydropower projects, and reissues licenses for existing projects when licenses expire. Licensees may submit applications for a new license for the continued operation of existing projects as part of a process known as relicensing. During relicensing, in addition to the power and development purposes for which FERC issues licenses, FERC must evaluate safety, environmental, recreational, cultural, and resource development among other factors when evaluating projects, according to its guidance. In addition, FERC requires licensees to conduct various engineering studies related to dam performance in accordance with FERC safety requirements. Required engineering studies focus on dam performance as affected by hydrology, seismicity, and dam stability. Licensees may also produce engineering studies, such as a focused spillway assessment, for their own operations or at the request of FERC. We found, based on our analysis of the 42 dam safety inspections we reviewed, that FERC staff generally conducted and collected information from these inspections consistent with guidance in its Operating Manual. According to FERC’s Operating Manual, staff’s approach to conducting these inspections and collecting information is to include preparing for the inspection by reviewing documents, conducting a field inspection of the dam and associated project components, and discussing inspection findings with licensees and with FERC supervisors. Preparation for inspection: We found that FERC staff generally met document review requirements in preparation for safety inspections of the 42 dams we reviewed. (See table 1.) According to the Operating Manual, FERC staff are to review safety-related information contained in documents such as potential failure mode analyses and hazard potential classifications. For example, we found that staff documented their review of the most recent independent consultant inspection report and potential failure mode analysis for each of the 16 high hazard dams we reviewed. FERC staff told us that they generally used checklists when preparing for these inspections. For example, some of the staff told us they tailor the checklist included in the Operating Manual, based on the dam’s type, characteristics, and hazard classification. Additionally, for each of the dams in our sample, staff stated that they prepared for the inspection by reviewing prior inspection reports and recommendations. Field inspection: We found that FERC staff generally met requirements for reviewing project components and documenting their findings from field inspections of the 42 dams we reviewed. (See table 2.) According to the Operating Manual, FERC staff are to conduct visual inspections of the dam, typically alongside the licensee, to assess the dam and project components by observing their condition and identifying any safety deficiency or maintenance requirement. Also during the inspection, FERC staff are to compare current conditions of the dam and project components to those described in prior inspection reports, and as applicable, collect information on the licensee’s progress towards resolving deficiencies and maintenance issues that can affect safety. To assess safety, FERC staff we interviewed stated that they primarily rely on their engineering judgment. Inspection findings: According to our interviews with FERC staff from selected projects, we found that staff generally followed FERC guidance in discussing inspection findings with licensees and supervisors prior to preparing inspection reports to document their findings. According to the Operating Manual, following the dam safety inspection, FERC staff are to discuss the inspection with the licensee, giving direction on how to address any findings. Additionally, upon returning to the office, staff are to discuss inspection findings with their supervisors who may suggest additional actions. FERC staff are then to develop a dam safety inspection report that documents observations and conclusions from their pre-inspection preparation and their field inspection and identifies follow-up actions for the licensee. We found that FERC staff prepared inspection reports to document findings from the 42 dam safety inspections we reviewed. In response to inspection findings, FERC requires licensees to submit a plan and schedule to remediate any deficiency, actions that FERC staff then reviews, approves, and monitors until the licensees have addressed the deficiency. While we found that FERC staff conducted inspections and collected inspection findings consistently in the files we reviewed, FERC’s approach to recording information varies across its regions, thus limiting the usefulness of the information. FERC’s approach to recording inspection information relies on multiple systems to record inspection information and affords broad discretion to its staff on how to characterize findings, such as whether to track inspection findings as maintenance issues or as safety deficiencies. As related to systems for recording inspection information, FERC staff use the Data and Management System (DAMS), the Office of Energy Projects-IT (OEP-IT) system, as well as spreadsheets. In particular, according to FERC staff: Four out of FERC’s five regional offices use DAMS—which is primarily a workload tracking tool—to track plans and schedules associated with safety investigations and modifications as well as inspection follow-up items. FERC staff stated that since the inspection information in DAMS is recorded as narrative text in a data field instead of as discrete categories, sorting or analysis of the information is difficult. One regional office uses OEP-IT to track safety deficiencies while the system is more widely used across FERC to track licensees’ compliance with the terms and conditions of their licenses. Three out of FERC’s five regional offices also use spreadsheets and other tools that are not integrated with DAMS or OEP-IT to track inspection information and licensee progress toward resolving safety deficiencies. FERC staff said that use of these different systems to record deficiencies identified during inspections limits their ability to analyze safety information. For example, according to FERC officials, OEP-IT was not designed to track safety deficiency information and is not compatible with DAMS for use in tracking information on a national level. Furthermore, because spreadsheets and other tools are specific to the regional office in which they are used, FERC staff does not use the information they contain for agency-wide analysis. Concerning decisions on how to characterize inspection findings, FERC staff relies on professional judgment, informed by their experience and the Engineering Guidelines, to determine whether to track inspection findings as a safety deficiency or as a maintenance item, according to FERC officials. With input from their supervisors, FERC staff also determines what information to record and how to track the status of the inspection finding. For example, staff assigned to a dam at a FERC- licensed project in New Hampshire observed concrete deterioration on several parts of the dam and its spillway and asked the licensee to monitor all concrete surfaces, making repairs as necessary. According to staff we interviewed, regional staff and supervisors decided not to identify this as a deficiency to be tracked in DAMS because concrete deterioration is normal and to be expected in consideration of the area’s harsh winter weather. In contrast, staff assigned to a dam at a FERC- licensed project in Minnesota observed concrete deterioration on several parts of the project, including the piers and the powerhouse walls, and entered the safety item in DAMS as requiring repair by the licensee. FERC officials stated they are comfortable with the use of professional judgement to classify and address inspection findings because it is important to allow for consideration of the characteristics unique to each situation and how they affect safety. FERC’s approach to recording inspection information is inconsistent because FERC has not provided standard language and procedures about how staff should record and track deficiencies including which system to use. Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should design an entity’s information system and related control activities to achieve objectives and control risks. In practice, this means that an agency would design control activities—such as policies and procedures—over the information technology infrastructure to support the completeness, accuracy, and validity of information processing by information technology. FERC officials acknowledged that there are inconsistent approaches in where and how staff record safety deficiency information, approaches that limit the information’s usefulness as an input to its oversight. While the agency has not developed guidance, officials stated that FERC plans to take steps to improve the consistency of recorded information by replacing the OEP-IT system with a new system, tentatively scheduled for September 2018, that will have a specific function to track dam safety requirements. However, this new system will not replace the functions of DAMS, which FERC will continue to use to store inspection information. The two will exist as parallel systems with the eventual goal of the two systems’ sharing information. By developing standard language and procedures to standardize the recording of information collected during inspections, FERC officials could help ensure that the information shared across these systems is comparable, steps that would allow FERC to identify the extent of and characteristics associated with common safety deficiencies across its entire portfolio of regulated dams. Moreover, with a consistent approach to recording information from individual dam safety inspections, FERC will be positioned to proactively identify comparable safety deficiencies across its portfolio and to tailor its inspections towards evaluating them. While FERC uses inspection information to monitor a licensee’s efforts to address a safety deficiency for an individual dam, FERC has not analyzed information collected from its dam safety inspections to evaluate safety risks across the entire regulated portfolio of dams. For example, FERC has not reviewed inspection information to identify common deficiencies among certain types of dams. Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to their objectives. These standards note that one method for management to identify risks is the consideration of deficiencies identified through audits and other assessments. Dam safety inspections are an example of such an assessment. As part of such an approach, the agency analyzes risks to estimate their significance, which provides a basis for responding to the risk through specific actions. Furthermore, in our previous work on federal facilities, we have identified that an advanced use of risk management involving the ability to gauge risk across a portfolio of facilities could allow stakeholders to comprehensively identify and prioritize risks at a national level and direct resources toward alleviating them. FERC officials stated that they have not conducted a portfolio-wide analysis in part due to the inconsistency of recorded inspection data and because such an evaluation has not been a priority compared to inspecting individual dams. According to officials, the FERC headquarters office collects and reviews information semi-annually from each of its five regional offices on the progress of outstanding dam investigations and modifications in those regions. FERC’s review is designed to monitor the status of investigations on each individual dam but does not analyze risks across the portfolio of dams at the regional or national level. For example, officials from the New York Regional Office stated they do not perform trend analysis across the regional portfolio of dams under their authority, but they compile year-to-year data for each separate dam to show any progression or changes from previous data collected from individual dams. A portfolio-wide analysis could help FERC proactively identify safety risks and prioritize them at a national level. FERC officials stated that a proactive analysis of its portfolio could be useful to determining how to focus its inspections to alleviate safety risks, but it was not an action that FERC had taken to date. The benefits of a proactive analysis, for example, could be similar to those FERC derived from the analysis it conducted in reaction to the Oroville Dam incident. To conduct this analysis, FERC required 184 project licensees, identified by FERC regional offices as having spillways similar to the failed spillway at the Oroville Dam, to assess the spillways’ safety and capacity. According to FERC officials, these assessments identified 27 dam spillways with varying degrees of safety concerns. They stated that FERC’s spillway assessment initiative was a success because they were able to target a specific subgroup of dams within the portfolio and identify these safety concerns at 27 dam spillways. FERC officials stated that they are working with the dam licensees to address these safety concerns. A similar and proactive approach based on analysis of common deficiencies across the portfolio of dams under FERC’s authority could also help to identify any safety risks that may not have been targeted during the inspections of individual dams and prior to a safety incident. As directed by FERC, licensees and their consultants develop and review, or update, various engineering studies related to dam performance to help ensure their dams meet FERC requirements and remain safe. FERC regulations and guidelines describe the types and frequency of studies and analyses required based on dams’ hazard classifications. For all high hazard and some significant hazard dams, existing studies are to be reviewed by each licensee’s consultants every 5 years, as part of the independent consultant inspection and accompanying potential failure mode analysis. According to FERC officials, for those significant hazard dams that do not require an independent consultant inspection and for low hazard dams, FERC’s regulations and guidelines do not require any studies, but in practice FERC directs many licensees to conduct them. FERC also may request engineering studies in response to dam safety incidents at other projects, or engage a board of consultants to oversee the completion of a study. For example, as previously noted, following the Oroville Dam incident in 2017, FERC requested a special assessment of all dams with spillways similar to the failed spillway at the Oroville Dam. To develop these studies, all six of the consultants we interviewed stated that they follow guidelines provided by FERC and other dam safety agencies. Specifically, they stated that they use FERC’s Engineering Guidelines, which provide engineering principles to guide the development and review of engineering studies. In recognition of the unique characteristics of each dam, including its construction, geography, and applicable loading conditions, the Guidelines provides consultants with flexibility to apply engineering judgment, and as a result, the approach that licensees and their consultants use and the focus of their reviews of engineering studies may vary across regions or projects. For example, one independent consultant we interviewed noted that seismicity studies are not highlighted during the independent consultant inspections for projects in the Upper Midwest in comparison to projects in other areas of the country because the region is not seismically active, but that inspections do look closely at ice loads during the winter months. To create these studies, we found that licensees and their consultants generally use data from other federal agencies and rely on available modeling tools developed by federal agencies and the private sector to evaluate dam performance. For example, many of the engineering studies we reviewed rely on data from the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to estimate precipitation patterns and the U.S. Geological Survey to estimate seismic activity. In addition, licensees and their consultants use modeling tools and simulations, such as those developed by the Corps to estimate hydrology, to develop engineering studies. FERC staff noted that the engineering studies developed by licensees and their consultants generally focus on the analysis of extreme events, such as earthquakes and floods. In reference to extreme events, FERC staff said that both actual past events and likely future events are considered in determining their magnitude. FERC staff noted the probable maximum flood—the flood that would be expected to result from the most extreme combination of reasonably possible meteorological and hydrological conditions—as an example of a dam design criterion that is based on application of analysis of extreme events. In describing the efficacy of probable maximum flood calculations, FERC officials stated that they had not observed a flood that exceeded the probable maximum flood calculated for any dam and noted that their Engineering Guidelines provides a conservative approach to estimating the probable maximum flood and other extreme events. FERC officials stated that requiring a conservative approach to estimating extreme events helps to mitigate the substantial uncertainty associated with these events, including in consideration of emerging data estimating the effects of climate change on extreme weather events. Once developed, engineering studies we reviewed often remained in effect for a number of years, until FERC or the licensee and its consultant determined an update was required. For example, we found that the hydrology studies were 20 years or older for 17 of the 42 dams in our review, including for 9 of the 16 high hazard dams in our sample. FERC’s Engineering Guidelines states that studies should be updated as appropriate. For example, FERC’s Engineering Guidelines on hydrology studies state that previously accepted flood studies are not required to be reevaluated unless it is determined that a re-analysis is warranted. The Guidelines notes that FERC or the consultant may consider reanalyzing the study for several reasons, including if they identify (1) significant errors in the original study; (2) new data that may significantly alter previous study results; or (3) significant changes in the conditions of the drainage basin. FERC staff and consultants we interviewed stated that age alone is not a primary criterion to update or replace studies and that studies should be updated as needed depending on several factors including age, new or additional data, and professional judgment. Consultants we interviewed identified some limitations that can affect their ability to develop engineering studies for a dam. For example, they noted that some dams may lack original design information, used prior to construction of the dam, which includes the assumptions and calculations used to determine the type and size of dam, the amount of water storage capacity, and information on the pre-construction site geology and earthquake potential. FERC officials estimated that for a large percentage of the dams they relicense, the original information is no longer available. For example, according to the report from the independent forensic team investigating the Oroville Dam incident and as previously noted, some design drawings and construction records for the dam’s spillway could not be located and some other documents that were available were not included in the most recent independent consultant inspection report submitted to FERC. To overcome the lack of original design information, FERC told us that licensees and their consultants may use teams of experts, advanced data collection techniques, and other modern methods, where feasible, to assess the dam’s ability to perform given current environmental conditions. In cases where design or other engineering information is incomplete, consultants stated that they generally recommend the licensee conduct additional studies based on the risk presented by the missing information but also noted that the financial resources of a licensee may affect its willingness and ability to conduct additional studies. However, FERC officials stated that FERC staff are ultimately responsible for making decisions on whether additional engineering studies are needed to evaluate a dam’s performance. FERC has established policies and procedures that use formal guidance, and permit the use of professional judgment, to evaluate and review engineering studies of dam performance submitted by licensees and their consultants. FERC officials in both the headquarters and regional offices emphasized that their role as the regulator is to review and validate engineering studies developed by the licensee and their consultants. FERC generally does not develop engineering studies as officials noted that dam safety, including the development of engineering studies, is primarily the licensee’s responsibility. To carry out their responsibility to ensure public safety, FERC staff stated they use procedures and criteria in the FERC Engineering Guidelines to review engineering studies and apply professional judgment to leverage their specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities to support their determinations of dam safety. FERC’s Engineering Guidelines provides a framework for the review of engineering studies, though the Guidelines recognizes that each dam is unique and allows for flexibility and exemptions in their use. Moreover, the Guidelines notes that analysis of data is useful when evaluating a dam’s performance, but should not be used as a substitute for judgment based on experience and common sense. Because FERC’s Engineering Guidelines allows for the application of professional judgment, the methods used to review these studies vary depending on the staff, the region, and individual dam characteristics. For example, FERC staff said that when they review consultants’ assumptions, methods, calculations and conclusions, in some cases they may decide to conduct a sensitivity analysis if—based on the staff’s judgment—they need to take additional steps to validate or confirm factors of safety for the project. FERC officials also stated that staff may conduct their own independent analyses, as appropriate, such as evaluating a major structural change to the dam or validating submitted studies. For example, as part of its 2016 review of the Union Valley Dam in California, FERC staff validated the submitted hydrology study by independently calculating key inputs, such as precipitation rates and peak floods, to evaluate the dam’s performance and verify the spillway’s reported capacity. In addition, FERC has established various controls to help ensure the quality of its review, including using a risk-based review process, assigning multiple staff to review the studies, and rotating staff responsibilities over time. We have previously found in our reporting on other regulatory agencies that practices such as rotating staff in key decision-making roles, and including at least two supervisory staff when conducting oversight reviews help reduce threats to independence and regulatory capture. Risk-based review process. FERC’s review approach is risk-based, as the frequency of staff’s review of these studies is based on the hazard classification of the dam as well as professional judgment. FERC relies on three primary engineering studies (hydrology, seismicity, and stability), and others as appropriate, which form the basis for determining if a dam is safe. In addition, FERC requires licensees to hire a FERC-approved independent consulting engineer at least every 5 years to inspect and evaluate high hazard and other applicable dams and submit a report detailing the findings as part of the independent consultant inspection process. In general, for the dams we reviewed, we found that FERC staff reviewed engineering studies for dams subject to independent consultant inspections (which are typically high or significant hazard dams) more frequently than those engineering studies associated with dams for which FERC does not require an independent consultant inspection (typically low hazard dams). For example, we found FERC staff had reviewed the most recent hydrology studies for all 22 high and significant hazard dams in our sample subject to independent consultant inspections within the last 6 years and documented their analysis. According to FERC officials, for dams not subject to an independent consultant inspection, FERC staff review engineering studies on an as needed basis, depending on whether the underlying assumptions and information from the previous studies are still relevant. For example, for the 20 dams in our study not subject to an independent consultant inspection, we found that most (15) of these studies were reviewed by FERC within the past 10 years, usually during the project’s relicensing. Multiple levels of supervisory review. As part of FERC’s quality control and internal oversight process, multiple FERC staff are to review the studies produced by the licensee and its consultant, with the number of successive reviews proportional to the complexity or importance of the study, according to FERC officials. FERC’s Operating Manual establishes the general procedure for the review of engineering studies. To begin the review process, the staff assigned to a dam is to review the engineering study and prepares an internal memo on its findings; that memo is then to be reviewed for accuracy and completeness by both a regional office Branch Chief, and the Regional Engineer. If necessary, Washington, D.C., headquarters office staff are to review and approve the final memo. Upon completion of review, FERC staff are to provide a letter to the licensee indicating any particular areas where additional information is needed or where more studies are needed to evaluate the dam’s performance. According to FERC officials, each level of review adds successive quality control steps performed by experienced staff. We have previously found in reporting on other regulatory agencies that additional levels of review increases transparency and accountability and diminishes the risk of regulatory capture. Rotation of FERC staff responsibilities. As part of an internal quality control program to help minimize the risk of missing important safety- related items, FERC officials told us they rotate staff assignments and responsibilities approximately every 3 to 4 years. According to FERC officials, this practice decreases the chance that a deficiency would be missed over time due to differences in areas of engineering expertise between or among staff. We have previously found in our reporting on other regulatory agencies that strategies such as more frequently rotating staff in key roles can help reduce the risk to supervisory independence and regulatory capture. Some FERC regional offices have developed practices to further enhance their review of these studies. For example, the New York Regional Office established a subject matter expert team that helps review dams with unusually complex hydrology issues. This team was created, in part, because FERC staff noted that some of the hydrology studies conducted in the 1990s and 2000s were not as thorough as they would have wanted, and warranted a re-examination. Currently, the New York Regional Office is reviewing the hydrology analysis associated with 12 dam break studies to determine if the hydrology data used in developing these studies were as rigorously developed and validated. According to the FERC staff in this office, utilizing a team of subject matter experts has reduced Regional Office review time and improved the hydrology studies’ accuracy. FERC staff in the New York Regional Office also told us that they are working with other regional offices on setting up similar technical teams. For example, FERC staff in the New York Regional Office have been working with the Portland Regional Office to set up a similar team. FERC procedures require the use of engineering studies at key points over the dam’s licensing period to inform components of its safety oversight approach, including during the potential failure mode analyses of individual dams as well as during relicensing. Potential failure mode analysis. The potential failure mode analysis is to occur during the recurring independent consultant inspection and is conducted by the licensee’s independent consultant along with other key dam safety stakeholders. As previously explained, the analysis incorporates the engineering studies and identifies events that could cause a dam to potentially fail. During the potential failure mode analysis, FERC, the licensee, the consultant, and other key dam safety stakeholders are to refer to the engineering studies to establish environmental conditions that inform dam failure scenarios, the risks associated with these failures, and their consequences for an individual dam. Further, according to a FERC white paper on risk analysis, FERC is beginning to use information related to potential failure modes as inputs to an analysis tool that quantifies risks at each dam. With this information, FERC expects to make relative risk estimates of dams within its inventory and establish priorities for further study or remediation of risks at individual dams, according to the white paper. Relicensing. During relicensing, FERC staff are to review the engineering studies as well as information such as historical hydrological data and extreme weather events, which also inform their safety evaluation of the licensee’s application. FERC officials also stated that as a result of their relicensing review, they might alter the articles of the new license before it is issued should their reviews indicate that environmental conditions affecting the dam’s safety have changed. We found that FERC generally met its requirement to evaluate dam safety during the relicensing process for the 42 dams we reviewed. During the relicensing process, we found that for the dams we reviewed, FERC staff review safety information such as the past reports, inspections, and studies conducted by FERC, the licensee, and independent consultants and determine whether or not a dam owner operated and maintained its dam safely. According to FERC staff, the safety review for relicensing is generally a summary of prior safety and inspection information, rather than an analysis of new safety information, unless the licensee proposes a change to the operation or structure. FERC’s review during relicensing for the high hazard and significant hazard dams we reviewed was generally consistent with its guidance and safety memo template, though the extent of its review of low hazard dams varied. (See fig. 3.) For example, for the 22 high and significant hazard dams we reviewed, the safety relicensing memos followed the template and nearly all included summaries of hydrology studies, stability analyses, prior FERC inspections, and applicable independent consultant reports. For the 20 low hazard dams, FERC staff noted that some requirements in the template are not applicable or have been exempted and therefore were not reviewed during relicensing. While low hazard dams were more inconsistently reviewed during relicensing, FERC staff also noted that there has been a recent emphasis to more closely review, replace, or conduct engineering studies, such as the stability study, for low hazard dams during relicensing. Moreover, FERC staff told us that the safety risks associated with these dams are minimal, as the failure of a low hazard dam, by definition, does not pose a threat to human life or economic activity. According to FERC staff, if a licensee proposed altering the dam or its operations in any way as part of its application for a new license, FERC staff would review the proposed change and may recommend adding articles to the new license prior to its issuance to ensure dam safety. FERC officials noted that, as part of their review, any structural or operational changes proposed by the licensee during relicensing are reviewed by FERC. These officials also noted that FERC generally recommends modifications to the licensees’ proposed changes prior to their approval and inclusion in the new license. However, FERC officials noted that, in some cases, additional information is needed prior to approving the structural or operational change to ensure there are no risks posed by the changes. In those instances, FERC may recommend that articles be added to the new license, that require the licensee to conduct additional engineering studies of the issue and submit them to FERC for review and approval. For example, during the relicensing of the Otter Creek project in Vermont in 2014, the licensee proposed changes to the project’s operation resulting from construction. As a result, FERC’s staff recommended adding a number of articles to the license, including that the licensee conduct studies to evaluate the effect of the change on safety and to ensure safety during construction. During relicensing, third parties—such as environmental organizations, nearby residents and communities, and other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—may provide input on various topics related to the project, including safety. However, FERC officials said that very few third parties file studies or comments related to dam safety during relicensing. FERC’s template and guidance do not specifically require the consideration of such analyses as part of its safety review, and we did not identify any safety studies submitted by third parties for dams or reviewed by FERC in our sample. According to FERC officials, when stakeholders submit comments during relicensing, the comments tend to focus on environmental aspects of the project, such as adding passages for fish migration. Further, FERC is not required under the Federal Power Act to respond to any comments, including those related to dam safety, from third parties, according to FERC officials. However, according to FERC officials, courts have held that the Administrative Procedure Act precludes an agency from arbitrarily and capriciously ignoring issues raised in comments. Furthermore, these officials stated that if a court determines that FERC did not sufficiently address issues raised during the relicensing process, its orders are subject to being reversed and remanded by applicable United States courts of appeals. Moreover, FERC officials noted that the information needed to develop third party safety studies, such as the dam design drawings and engineering studies, are property of the licensee, rather than FERC. In addition, this information may not be readily available to third parties or the public if FERC designates it as critical energy infrastructure information, which would preclude its release to the general public. FERC staff we interviewed stated that there have been no instances where the Commission denied a new license to a licensee as a result of its safety review during relicensing. FERC staff stated that given the frequency of other inspections, including the FERC staff inspections, and independent consultant inspections, it is unlikely staff would find a previously unknown major safety issue during relicensing. FERC staff told us that rather than deny a license for safety deficiencies, FERC will keep a dam owner under the terms of a FERC license to better ensure the licensee remedies existing safety deficiencies. Specifically, FERC staff noted that under a license, FERC can ensure dam safety by (1) closely monitoring the deficiency’s remediation progress through its inspection program, (2) adding license terms in the new license tailored to the specific safety deficiency, and (3), as necessary, pursuing compliance and enforcement actions, such as civil penalties or stop work orders, to enforce the terms and conditions of the license. For example, prior to and during the relicensing of a FERC-licensed project in Wisconsin in 2014, FERC’s review identified that the spillway capacity was inadequate. While the project was relicensed in 2017 without changes to the spillway, FERC officials stated that they have been overseeing the plans and studies of the remediation of the spillway through their ongoing inspection program. However, if an imminent safety threat is identified during the relicensing review, FERC officials stated that they will order that the licensee take actions to remedy the issue immediately. Moreover, FERC officials noted that, if necessary, a license can be revoked for failure to comply with the terms of its license. FERC designed a multi-layered safety approach—which uses inspections, studies, and other assessments of individual dams—to reduce exposure to safety risks. However, as the spillway failure at the Oroville Dam project in 2017 demonstrated, it is not possible to eliminate all uncertainties and risks. As part of a continuing effort to ensure dam safety at licensed projects, FERC could complement its approach to evaluating the safety of individual dams by enhancing its capability to assess and identify the risks across its portfolio of licensed dams. Specifically, while FERC has collected and stored a substantial amount of information from its individual dam safety inspections, FERC’s approach to recording this information is inconsistent due to a lack of standard language and procedures. By clarifying its approach to the recording of information collected during inspections, FERC officials could help ensure that the information recorded is comparable when shared across its regions. Moreover, the absence of standard language and procedures to consistently record inspection information impedes a broader, portfolio- wide analysis of the extent of and characteristics associated with common safety deficiencies identified during FERC inspections. While FERC has not yet conducted such an analysis, a proactive assessment of common safety inspection deficiencies across FERC’s portfolio of licensed dams— similar to its identification of dam spillways with safety concerns following the Oroville Dam incident—could help FERC and its licensees identify safety risks prior to a safety incident and to develop approaches to mitigate those risks. We are making the following two recommendations to FERC: FERC should provide standard language and procedures to its staff on how to record information collected during inspections, including how and where to record information about safety deficiencies, in order to facilitate analysis of safety deficiencies across FERC’s portfolio of regulated dams. (Recommendation 1) FERC should use information from its inspections to assess safety risks across its portfolio of regulated dams to identify and prioritize safety risks at a national level. (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to FERC for review and comment. In its comments on the draft report, FERC said it generally agreed with the draft report’s findings and found the recommendations to be constructive. FERC said that it would direct staff to develop appropriate next steps to implement GAO’s recommendations. These comments are reproduced in appendix IV. In addition, FERC provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairman of FERC and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at 202-512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. FERC seeks to ensure licensees’ compliance with FERC regulations and license requirements, including remediating safety deficiencies, by using a mix of preventative strategies to help identify situations before they become problems and reactive strategies such as issuing penalties. As part of its efforts, FERC published a compliance handbook in 2015 that provides an overall guide to compliance and enforcement of a variety of license requirements, including dam safety. The handbook includes instructions for implementing FERC rules, regulations, policies, and programs designed to ensure effective compliance with license conditions, which include dam safety, to protect and enhance beneficial public uses of waterways. FERC developed a range of enforcement actions, that include holding workshops to encourage compliance and issuing guidance, that increase in severity depending on the non- compliance issue. (See fig. 4.) More broadly, FERC’s guidance directs officials to determine enforcement actions and time frames for those actions on a case-by-case basis, depending on the characteristics of the specific compliance issue. According to FERC officials, many of these safety compliance discussions are handled informally. In addition, their compliance approach emphasizes activities that assist, rather than force, licensees to achieve compliance, according to its guidance. These activities include facilitating open lines of communication with licensees, participating in technical workshops, and publishing brochures and guidance documents, among other efforts. Also, according to these officials, FERC works with licensees to provide guidance and warnings of possible non-compliance matters, in order to avoid usage of any enforcement tools, if possible. According to FERC officials, any safety issues that endanger the public will result in immediate penalty or removal of the dam from power generation, but this action is not lightly taken. Additionally, the length of time between when a safety deficiency is identified and is resolved varies substantially depending on the specific project. As stated earlier in this report, FERC works with licensees to determine a plan and schedule for investigating safety issues and making any needed modifications. However, FERC officials stated that the majority of safety compliance issues are resolved within a month. However, FERC officials stated that if a licensee repeatedly does not take steps to address a compliance issue, FERC will explore enforcement actions through a formal process. According to officials, FERC’s enforcement options are based on authorities provided under the Federal Power Act and such options are flexible because of the variation in hazards, consequences, and dams. According to FERC officials, to ensure compliance with safety regulations, if a settlement cannot be reached, FERC may, among other things, issue an order to show cause, issue civil penalties in the form of fines to licensees, impose stop work or cease power generation orders, revoke licenses, and seek injunctions in federal court. Nevertheless, FERC officials stated that there is no specific requirement for how quickly the compliance issues or deficiencies should be resolved and that some issues can take years to resolve. For example, in 2004, the current licensee of a hydroelectric project operating in Edenville, Michigan, acquired the project, which was found by FERC to be in a state of non-compliance at that time. FERC staff made numerous attempts to work with the licensee to resolve the compliance issues. However, they were unable to resolve these issues and as a result issued a cease generation order in 2017, followed in 2018 by a license revocation order. In practice, FERC’s use of these enforcement tools to resolve safety issues has been fairly limited, particularly in comparison to other license compliance issues, according to FERC officials. Since 2013, FERC has issued one civil penalty for a safety-related hydropower violation and has issued compliance orders on eight other projects for safety-related reasons, including orders to cease generation on three projects. For the 14 projects and 42 dams we reviewed, FERC licensees and their consultants used a variety of tools to develop engineering studies of dam performance (see table 3). These tools included programs and modeling tools developed by government agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), as well as commercially available modeling tools. FERC officials stated that they also used a number of the same tools used by its licensees and consultants. Similarly, for the 14 projects and 42 dams we reviewed, FERC licensees and their consultants used a variety of datasets to develop engineering studies of dam performance (see table 4). These datasets included data maintained and updated by various government agencies, including the United States Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. FERC officials stated that they also used a number of the same datasets used by its licensees and consultants. This report assesses: (1) how FERC collects information from its dam safety inspections and the extent to which FERC analyzes it; (2) how FERC evaluates engineering studies of dam performance to analyze safety, and (3) the extent to which FERC reviews dam safety information during relicensing and the information FERC considers. This report also includes information on FERC actions to ensure licensee compliance with license requirements related to dam safety (app. I) and selected models and data sets used to develop and evaluate engineering studies of dam performance (app. II). For each of the objectives, we reviewed laws, regulations, FERC guidance, templates, and other documentation pertaining to FERC’s evaluation of dam safety. In addition, we reviewed an independent forensic team’s assessment of the causes of the Oroville Dam incident, including the report’s analysis of FERC’s approach to ensuring safety at the project, to understand any limitations of FERC’s approach identified by the report. We also reviewed dam safety documentation, including dam performance studies, FERC memorandums, the most recent completed inspection report, and other information, from a non-probability sample of 14 projects encompassing 42 dams relicensed from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. (See table 5.) We selected these projects and dams to include ones that were geographically dispersed, had varying potential risks associated with their potential failure, and had differences in the length of their relicensing process. We developed a data collection instrument to collect information from the dam safety documentation and analyzed data from the sample to evaluate the extent to which FERC followed its dam safety guidance across the selected projects. To develop the data collection instrument, we reviewed and incorporated FERC oversight requirements from its regulations, guidance, and templates. We conducted three pre-tests of the instrument, and revised the instrument after each pre-test. To ensure consistency and accuracy in the collection of this information, for each dam in the sample, one analyst conducted an initial review of the dam safety documentation; a second analyst reviewed the information independently; and the two analysts reconciled any differences. Following our review of the information from the dam safety documentation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with FERC engineering staff associated with each of the 14 projects and 42 dams to obtain information about FERC’s inspections, review of dam performance studies, and analysis of safety during the relicensing of these projects. Our interviews with these FERC staff provided insight into FERC’s dam safety oversight approach and are not generalizable to all projects. We also interviewed FERC officials responsible for dam safety about dam safety practices. In addition, to review how FERC collects information from its dam safety inspections and the extent to which FERC analyzes it, we also reviewed inspection data from FERC’s information management systems from fiscal years 2014 through 2017. To assess the reliability of these data, we reviewed guidance and interviewed FERC officials. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We compared FERC’s approach to collecting, recording and using safety information to federal internal control standards for the design of information systems and related control activities. We also reviewed our prior work on portfolio- level risk management. To evaluate how FERC evaluates engineering studies of dam performance to analyze dam safety, we reviewed FERC policies and guidance. We interviewed six independent consultants having experience inspecting and analyzing FERC-regulated dams to understand how engineering studies of dam performance are developed. We selected consultants who had submitted an inspection report to FERC recently (between December 2017 and February 2018) based on the geographic location of the project they reviewed and experience conducting these inspections, and the number of reports submitted to FERC over this time period. (See table 6.) Our interviews with these consultants provided insight into FERC’s approach to conducting and reviewing studies and are not generalizable to all projects or consultants. To evaluate the extent to which FERC reviews dam safety information during relicensing and the information it considers, we reviewed templates developed by FERC to assess safety during the relicensing and analyzed the extent to which staff followed guidance in these templates for the 14 projects and 42 dams in our sample. We also interviewed stakeholders, including the National Hydropower Association and Friends of the River to obtain general perspectives on FERC’s relicensing approach. Our interviews with these stakeholders provided insight into FERC’s approach to relicensing, and these views are not generalizable across all stakeholders. To review actions to ensure licensee compliance with license requirements related to dam safety, we reviewed FERC’s guidance related to compliance and enforcement and interviewed FERC officials responsible for implementation of the guidance. To review information on models and datasets used to develop and evaluate engineering studies of dam performance, we reviewed dam safety documentation associated with the projects in our sample (described previously), reviewed FERC documentation, and interviewed FERC officials. We conducted this performance audit from July 2017 to October 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Andrew Von Ah, (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Mike Armes (Assistant Director); Matt Voit (Analyst-in-Charge); David Blanding; Brian Chung; Geoff Hamilton; Vondalee Hunt; Rich Johnson; Jon Melhus; Monique Nasrallah; Madhav Panwar; Malika Rice; Sandra Sokol; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: Gender-related price differences occur when consumers are charged different prices for the same or similar goods and services because of factors related to gender. While variation in costs and consumer demand may give rise to such price differences, some policymakers have raised concerns that gender bias may also be a factor. While the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination based on sex in credit and housing transactions, no federal law prohibits businesses from charging consumers different prices for the same or similar goods targeted to different genders. GAO was asked to review gender-related price differences for consumer goods and services sold in the United States. This report examines, among other things, (1) how prices compared for selected goods and services marketed to men and women, and potential reasons for any price differences; (2) what is known about price differences for men and women for products not differentiated by gender, such as mortgages; and (3) the extent to which federal agencies have identified and addressed any concerns about gender-related price differences. To examine these issues, GAO analyzed retail price data, reviewed relevant academic studies, analyzed federal consumer complaint data, and interviewed federal agency officials, industry experts, and academics. Firms differentiate many consumer products to appeal separately to men and women by slightly altering product attributes like color or scent. Products differentiated by gender may sell for different prices if men and women have different demands or willingness to pay for these product attributes. Of 10 personal care product categories (e.g., deodorants and shaving products) that GAO analyzed, average retail prices paid were significantly higher for women's products than for men's in 5 categories. In 2 categories—shaving gel and nondisposable razors—men's versions sold at a significantly higher price. One category—razor blades--had mixed results based on two price measures analyzed, and two others—disposable razors and mass-market perfumes—showed no significant gender price differences. GAO found that the target gender for a product is a significant factor contributing to price differences identified, but GAO did not have sufficient information to determine the extent to which these gender-related price differences were due to gender bias as opposed to other factors, such as different advertising costs. Though the analysis controlled for several observable product attributes, such as product size and packaging type, all underlying differences in costs and demand for products targeted to different genders could not be fully observed. Studies GAO reviewed found limited evidence of gender price differences for four products or services not differentiated by gender—mortgages, small business credit, auto purchases, and auto repairs. For example, with regard to mortgages, women as a group paid higher average mortgage rates than men, in part due to weaker credit characteristics, such as lower average income. However, after controlling for borrower credit characteristics and other factors, three studies did not find statistically significant differences in borrowing costs between men and women, while one found women paid higher rates for certain subprime loans. In addition, one study found that female borrowers defaulted less frequently than male borrowers with similar credit characteristics, and the study suggested that women may pay higher mortgage rates than men relative to their default risk. While these studies controlled for factors other than gender that could affect borrowing costs, several lacked important data on certain borrower risk characteristics, such as credit scores, which could affect analysis of gender disparities. Also, several studies analyzed small samples of subprime loans that were originated in 2005 or earlier, which limits the generalizability of the results. In their oversight of federal antidiscrimination statutes, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Federal Trade Commission, and Department of Housing and Urban Development have identified limited consumer concerns based on gender-related pricing differences. GAO's analysis of complaint data received by the three agencies from 2012–2017 found that they had received limited consumer complaints about gender-related price differences. The agencies provide general consumer education resources on discrimination and consumer awareness. However, given the limited consumer concern, they have not identified a need to incorporate additional materials specific to gender-related price differences into their existing consumer education resources.