CONSUMER 

PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION

Agency Faces 

Challenges in 

Responding to New 

Product Risks

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2012

GAO-13-150

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-150, a report to 

congressional committees 

December 2012 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Agency Faces Challenges in Responding to New 

Product Risks

Why GAO Did This Study

Growing numbers of consumer product

recalls in 2007 and 2008, particularly of 

imported toys and children’s products, 

focused increased attention on CPSC. 

In the 2012 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, Congress directed 

GAO to analyze the potential safety 

risks associated with new and 

emerging consumer products. CPSC’s 

approach focuses on new hazards, 

which could be risks associated with

both new and existing products. 

Therefore, this report evaluates the 

authority and ability of CPSC to (1) stay 

generally informed about new risks

associated with consumer products and 

use available information to identify 

product hazards, and (2) assess and 

address new risks posed by consumer 

products in a timely manner.

GAO reviewed CPSC’s statutory and 

regulatory authorities to respond to 

product hazards; reviewed agency 

documents on risk assessment; 

reviewed CPSC corrective actions; and

met with agency officials and 

representatives from national 

consumer, industry, and legal

organizations with expertise in 

consumer product safety and risk 

assessment. GAO observed CPSC’s 

testing facility and demonstrations of 

its information system upgrades.

What GAO Recommends

To better enable CPSC to target

unsafe consumer products, Congress 

may wish to amend section 29(f) of 

CPSA to allow CPSC greater ability to 

enter into information-sharing 

agreements with its foreign 

counterparts that permit reciprocal

terms on disclosure of nonpublic 

information. CPSC supported this 

matter. 

What GAO Found

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has broad authority to 

identify, assess, and address product risks, but faces some challenges in 

identifying and responding to new risks in a timely manner. CPSC uses various 

means to stay informed about risks that may be associated with new or existing 

products. These methods include (1) market surveillance activities for imported 

products, retail stores, and Internet sales; and (2) formal agreements and various 

activities with other agencies. However, certain legal restrictions may hamper

CPSC’s ability to stay informed about new product hazards to public health and 

safety. Specifically, because of certain restrictions in the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), CPSC cannot agree to allow foreign agencies to disclose 

nonpublic information they receive from CPSC. While the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) allows CPSC greater freedom to disclose 

information to U.S. courts, Congress, and state and local agencies, CPSC has 

been unable to complete information-sharing agreements with foreign 

counterparts as envisioned because it cannot offer its counterparts reciprocal

terms on disclosure of nonpublic information. Due to the growing number of 

imported consumer products, this restriction on sharing information may hinder 

CPSC’s ability to identify risks from new products in a timely manner, possibly 

leading to injury and death if unsafe products enter the U.S. market. CPSC also 

faces challenges in collecting and analyzing large quantities of data in order to 

identify potential product risks. Some sources CPSC uses to identify injuries or 

death are dated—for example, death certificates can be 2 or more years old—or 

contain limited information about the product involved in the incident. To respond 

to these challenges, the agency has key efforts under way. First, CPSC is 

upgrading its data management system. According to CPSC, the upgrades are

designed to enhance CPSC’s efficiency and effectiveness, enable a more rapid 

dissemination of information, and allow consumers to search the database 

through a publicly available Internet portal. CPSC officials expect the upgrades to 

be completed in fiscal year 2013 and fully operational in fiscal year 2014.

Second, in response to a CPSIA requirement, CPSC is working with Customs 

and Border Protection to test a new approach for identifying unsafe consumer 

products at the ports. CPSC port investigators have found this approach to be 

effective and have prevented hundreds of consumer products that were in 

violation of U.S. safety rules or found to be hazardous from entering commerce. 

Timeliness of CPSC’s actions to assess and address new risks depends on the 

specific product or hazard. For example, the simplest assessments may only 

take a few days, such as testing a product for lead content. More complex 

assessments can take years to complete, such as tracking potential chronic 

hazards from certain chemicals and nanotechnology (which involves the ability to 

control matter at the scale of one billionth of a meter) because no standard 

method for measuring toxicity associated with nanotechnology currently exists.

CPSC uses various approaches to address product hazards, including 

conducting compliance activities, developing mandatory safety standards, and 

educating the public about safety hazards and safe practices. CPSC can take 

action to address a product hazard more quickly if it is addressing a known 

hazard. However, addressing a new or emerging risk can take CPSC years 

because it may need to develop new standards or approaches. 

View GAO-13-150. For more information, 

contact Alicia Puente Cackley, 202-512-8678, 

cackleya@gao.gov
Page i GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Letter 1 

Background 3

CPSC Uses Several Mechanisms to Stay Informed about New 

Product Hazards, but Statutory Provisions Constrain Its Ability 

to Identify Risks 10

Timeliness of CPSC’s Actions to Assess and Address New Risks 

Depends on the Specific Product or Hazard 30

Conclusion 45

Matter for Congressional Consideration 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 47

Appendix II CPSC’s and Other Agencies’ Coordinated Responses to 

Hazards Posed by Defective Chinese Drywall 49

Appendix III Comments from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 51

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables

Table 1: Key CPSC Information Sources to Facilitate Timely 

Identification of Consumer Product Hazards, Fiscal 

Year 2011 21

Table 2: Examples of Different Types of Products Tested and 

Typical Time Frames to Perform Testing 34

Figures

Figure 1: CPSC Incident Intake/Screening Process 25

Figure 2: CPSC Review and Assessment Process 32

Figure 3: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Fire pots and Gel 

Fuel, 2001 to 2012 39

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Figure 4: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Magnets, 2006 to 

2012 44

Figure 5: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Problem Drywall, 

2008 to 2011 50

Abbreviations

ANPR Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CCA chromated copper arsenate

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CHAP Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel

CPSA Consumer Product Safety Act

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act

CPSRMS Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FDA Food and Drug Administration

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IT information technology

MOU memorandum of understanding

NEISS National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

NIH National Institutes of Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

State Department of State

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 20, 2012

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Chairman

The Honorable Jerry Moran

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Services 

and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson

Chairwoman

The Honorable José E. Serrano

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Financial Services 

and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Growing numbers of consumer product recalls in 2007 and 2008, 

particularly of toys and other children’s products, focused increased 

attention on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). As 

globalization and technological advances expand the range of products 

on the market, the challenge of overseeing and regulating the thousands 

of product types becomes all the more complex. Some risks include the 

growth of global supply chains that assemble products across a vast web 

of interconnected geographies as well as the difficulty of identifying 

product hazards among hundreds of containers entering U.S. ports. 

According to CPSC, the value of U.S. imports under its jurisdiction 

reached about $637 billion in 2010 and about four out of five consumer 

product recalls involved imported products, making imports a critical focus 

of the agency. These challenges are likely to grow in the future. In 

response to the growing concerns about unsafe consumer products, on 

August 14, 2008, Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act (CPSIA) to reform CPSC and strengthen its authority to 

enforce consumer product safety standards.1

 

1

Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (2008). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC continues to face significant public scrutiny about its ability to 

properly assess risks related to consumer products and take appropriate 

action in a timely manner. CPSC’s risk management process includes 

obtaining information about consumer products from various sources, 

identifying risks, assessing those risks, and taking actions to address them. 

The process focuses on risks associated with both new and existing 

products. How quickly CPSC identifies, assesses, and addresses a 

particular product hazard depends on several factors, including whether or 

not a particular product risk is within their authority and ability to address.

In the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress directed us to 

analyze the potential safety risks associated with new and emerging 

consumer products, including chemicals and other materials used in their 

manufacture, taking into account CPSC’s ability and authority to identify, 

assess, and address such risks in a timely manner and keep abreast of 

the effects of new and emerging consumer products on public health and 

safety.2

To address these objectives, we reviewed CPSC’s statutory and 

regulatory authority related to identifying, assessing, and addressing new 

risks associated with consumer products. We reviewed CPSC’s policy on 

establishing priorities, procedures, strategic plan, performance and 

accountability reports, budget operating plans, and incident and 

compliance data, as well as relevant prior GAO reports. We reviewed 

existing information about CPSC data systems and interviewed agency 

officials knowledgeable about the data. Based on our review of 

documentation, we believe the data are reliable for our purposes. To 

assess CPSC’s authority to obtain and share information that could help 

identify new hazards posed by consumer products, we reviewed our prior 

work on CPSC’s authorities and legislation related to the agency.

This report evaluates the authority and ability of CPSC to (1) stay 

generally informed about new risks associated with consumer products 

and use available information to identify product hazards, and (2) assess 

and address new risks posed by consumer products in a timely manner.

3

 

2

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Division C - Financial Services and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Title V, Pub. L. No. 112-74, § 503, 125 Stat. 786, 

908 (2011). CPSC defines a new product as a redesign of an already existing product or a 

product entering commerce for the first time.

We 

3

We previously have reported on CPSC’s authorities, and we discuss specific authorities 

as appropriate throughout this report. See GAO, Consumer Safety: Better Information and 

Planning Would Strengthen CPSC’s Oversight of Imported Products, GAO-09-803 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2009). 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

met with CPSC officials to discuss their authorities and their ability to 

identify, assess, and address risk, including all of CPSC’s current 

commissioners and the Chairman.4

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through 

December 2012 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.

To assess certain measures of 

timeliness, we reviewed CPSC’s performance goals and obtained 

information on time frames for risk assessments. We toured CPSC’s 

testing laboratory in Rockville, Maryland, and observed various tests 

conducted as part of CPSC’s risk assessment process. Additionally, we 

interviewed national consumer and industry organizations and legal 

professionals that have expertise in consumer product safety. See 

appendix I for additional information on our scope and methodology.

CPSC was created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to 

regulate certain consumer products and address those that pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury; assist consumers in evaluating the 

comparative safety of consumer products; and promote research and 

investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, 

injuries, and illnesses. CPSC’s jurisdiction is broad, covering thousands 

of types of manufacturers and consumer products used in and around the 

home and in sports, recreation, and schools. CPSC does not have 

jurisdiction over some categories of products, including automobiles and 

other on-road vehicles, tires, boats, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, food, 

drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and pesticides. Other federal 

 

4

The Consumer Product Safety Act established CPSC as an independent regulatory 

commission. The act provides for the appointment by the President of five commissioners 

for staggered 7-year terms. One of these commissioners may be designated the 

Chairman, who directs all the executive and administrative functions of the agency. See 

generally 15 U.S.C. § 2053. As of November 2012, CPSC was led by three 

commissioners. 

Background

CPSC’s Authorities and 

Mission
 

Page 4 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

agencies—including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Coast Guard, Department of Justice, Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA)—have jurisdiction over these products.

CPSC has broad authorities for identifying, assessing, and addressing 

risks associated with consumer products. The Consumer Product Safety 

Act (CPSA) consolidated federal safety regulatory activity relating to 

consumer products within CPSC. As a result, in addition to its 

responsibilities for protecting against product hazards in general, CPSC 

administers the following laws that authorize various performance 

standards for specific consumer products:5

• the Flammable Fabrics Act, which among other things, authorizes 

CPSC to prescribe flammability standards for clothing, upholstery, and 

other fabrics;6

• the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which establishes the 

framework for the regulation of substances that are toxic, corrosive, 

combustible, or otherwise hazardous;7

• the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, which authorizes 

CPSC to prescribe special packaging requirements to protect children 

from injury resulting from handling, using, or ingesting certain drugs 

and other household substances;8

 

5

See Consumer Product Safety Act § 30, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207, 1231 

(classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2079); Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007, § 1403, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, 1795 (classified at U.S.C. § 8003). 

6

Act of June 30, 1953, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 111 (classified, as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1191 

et seq.). 

7

Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372 (July 12, 1960) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1261 et seq.). Under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act, CPSC is authorized to 

declare a substance to be hazardous and to regulate the labeling of substances which are 

declared to be hazardous. 15 U.S.C. § 1261(f)(1)(B) and § 1262. 

8

Pub. L. No. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (Dec. 30, 1970) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1471 et seq.).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

• the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956, which mandates CPSC to 

prescribe safety standards for household refrigerators to ensure that 

the doors can be opened easily from the inside;9

• the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act of 2007, which 

establishes mandatory safety standards for swimming pool and spa 

drain covers, as well as a grant program to provide states with 

incentives to adopt pool and spa safety standards;10

• the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention Act of 2008, which 

establishes safety standards for child-resistant closures on all portable 

gasoline containers.

and

11

• the Child Safety Protection Act of 1994, which requires the banning or 

labeling of toys that pose a choking risk to small children and the 

reporting of certain choking incidents to the CPSC.12

In 2008 CPSIA mandated that CPSC develop an approach, not later than 

August 2010, to identify products imported into the United States that are 

most likely to violate consumer product safety statutes enforced by the 

Commission. CPSIA specifically requires that CPSC develop this 

methodology in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) using information from shipment data from the International Trade 

Data System and other databases. CPSC was required to incorporate this 

approach into its information technology (IT) modernization plan, to move 

to a single integrated data system intended to upgrade the data systems 

that support CPSC’s regulatory activities. The act also required that 

CPSC use this information to examine ways to identify possible 

shipments of violative consumer products and share this information with 

 

9

Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 70 Stat. 953 (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1211 

et seq.). Under the act, it is unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction 

into interstate commerce any household refrigerator, unless it is equipped with a device 

enabling the door to be opened from the inside and which conforms with the standards 

prescribed by CPSC. 15 U.S.C. § 1211. 

10Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title XIV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1794 (Dec. 19, 2007) (classified at 15 

U.S.C. §§ 8001 et seq.).

11Pub. L. No. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602 (July 17, 2008) (classified as a note to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2056). 

12Pub. L. No. 103-267, 108 Stat. 722 (June 16, 1994) (classified, as amended, at 15 

U.S.C. § 1278).
 

Page 6 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CBP to prevent such items from entering the marketplace. CPSC has 

subsequently reported on its efforts to develop this approach for import 

surveillance.13

While CPSC has statutory authority to regulate many types of products, it 

does not have authority to require pre-approval of products before they 

enter the U.S. market.

These efforts are discussed in greater detail later in this 

report.

14 Because CPSC regulates consumer products 

after they enter the market, identifying new products and any new 

hazards that may be associated with new products is difficult. Generally, 

CPSC can require every manufacturer of an imported product subject to a 

consumer product safety rule to issue a certificate that certifies based on 

reasonable laboratory testing that the product complies with all rules, 

bans, standards or regulations.15

Under several of the acts that it administers, CPSC’s primary mission is to 

protect consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from 

consumer products under its jurisdiction. To achieve its mission, CPSC 

uses various approaches captured under five strategic goals: (1) to 

provide leadership in safety; (2) to reinforce a commitment to prevention; 

(3) to engage in rigorous hazard identification; (4) to provide a decisive 

response to identified product hazards; and (5) to raise awareness of 

safety issues and CPSC capabilities.

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC is authorized to evaluate 

a consumer product to determine whether the product creates what the 

act calls a “substantial product hazard” or whether the Commission 

should issue a consumer product safety standard or ban by regulation to 

 

13CPSC, Staff Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 222 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Risk Assessment Methodology (Bethesda, MD.: 

Sept. 9, 2011).

14See, CPSC Nanomaterial Statement (“the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) does 

not require the premarket registration or approval.”); CPSC Drywall Information Center, 

http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/faqs.html (“CPSC does not have the legal authority to 

perform premarket testing and approval of products.”) Although, CPSC does not have 

premarket approval authority it does have the authority to stop items from entering the 

U.S. customs territory if the product, among other requirements, fails to meet applicable 

consumer product safety rules. 15 U.S.C. § 2066(a). 

15CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk.16 CPSC considers the risks 

associated with a consumer product and assesses whether a particular 

risk is known or is a new or emerging hazard. New hazards can be 

associated with either a new or existing product. For example, a new 

hazard could materialize in the form of new material used to manufacture 

a type of product already in existence. To address product hazards, 

CPSC can issue regulations that establish performance or labeling 

standards for consumer products, often referred to as mandatory 

standards. CPSC refers to products subject to such mandatory standards 

as regulated products. Those regulated products that do not comply with 

mandatory standards are referred to as violative products. In contrast, 

many consumer products that are under CPSC’s jurisdiction are subject 

to voluntary standards, which are generally determined by standardsetting organizations, with input from government representatives and 

industry groups, and are also referred to as consensus standards. 

Unregulated products are those products not subject to any mandatory 

standards and may include those covered by voluntary standards, which 

do not have the force of law. However, many voluntary standards are 

widely accepted by industry.17

 

16CPSA defines a substantial product hazard as a failure to comply with an applicable 

consumer product rule that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public, or a product 

defect, which (because of the pattern of defect, the number of defective products 

distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk, or other circumstances) creates 

substantial risk of injury to the public. 

The 1981 amendments to the Consumer 

Product Safety Act require CPSC to defer to a voluntary standard—rather 

than issue a mandatory standard—if CPSC determines that the voluntary 

standard adequately addresses the hazard and that there is likely to be 

substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. As a result, voluntary 

standard development is an important tool in CPSC’s hazard-reduction 

efforts. In some cases, Congress has enacted a specific statutory 

requirement for CPSC to create a mandatory standard, or convert a 

voluntary standard to a mandatory standard. For instance, CPSA, as 

amended by CPSIA, mandated the conversion of voluntary standards for 

17See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role in Voluntary 

Standards Development Should Be Considered, GAO-12-582 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 

2012). We previously have reported that voluntary standards may benefit manufacturers 

by giving consumers added confidence in a product, providing some degree of protection 

from product liability, and allowing manufacturers to benefit from the safety expertise 

developed by voluntary standards groups. In addition, although federal law does not 

compel manufacturers to comply with voluntary standards, state or local regulations may

incorporate some voluntary standards regarding consumer products, and some retailers 

prefer to carry only those goods that comply with the applicable voluntary standards.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

durable infant and toddler products, all-terrain vehicles, and children’s 

toys to mandatory standards.

18

CPSC has established criteria for setting agency priorities and selecting 

potential hazards to address.19

• the frequency and severity of injuries resulting from the hazard;

These criteria, which are incorporated into 

the agency regulations, include the following:

• the cause of the hazard, which should be analyzed to help determine 

the extent to which injuries can reasonably be expected to be reduced 

or eliminated through CPSC action;

• the number of chronic illnesses and future injuries predicted to 

result from the hazard;

• preliminary estimates of costs and benefits to society resulting 

from CPSC action;

• unforeseen nature of the risk, which refers to the degree to which 

consumers are aware of the hazard and its consequences;

• vulnerability of the population at risk (such as children and the 

elderly);

• probability of consumer exposure to the product hazard; and

• other additional criteria to be considered at the discretion of CPSC.

CPSC’s regulations do not specify whether any particular criterion should 

be given more weight than the others or that all criteria must be applied to 

every potential hazard. However, CPSC officials have noted that a 

product hazard that could result in death is typically granted the highest 

priority.

 

1815 U.S.C. §§ 2056a, 2056b, and 2089.

1916 C.F.R. § 1009.8 (2012).

CPSC’s Criteria for 

Establishing Agency 

Priorities
 

Page 9 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Risk management is a primary function throughout the Commission, but 

certain offices have specific responsibilities for identifying, assessing, and 

addressing product hazards. CPSC’s Office of Hazard Identification and 

Reduction is tasked with responsibility for identifying emerging hazards 

that can be addressed by agency projects, warnings, mandatory or 

voluntary standards, and public awareness campaigns. This office also 

provides technical support to the Office of Compliance and Field 

Operations, which is responsible for capturing information about regulated 

products and substantial product hazards and conducts compliance and 

administrative enforcement activities under the acts that CPSC 

administers.20 The Office of Compliance and Field Operations has 

responsibility for identifying and addressing safety hazards for consumer 

products already in commerce, promoting industry compliance with 

existing safety rules, and conducting administrative litigation seeking 

remedies that may include public notice and refund. The office receives 

information about potential product hazards through industry reporting 

requirements and through its own investigation of defective products.21

The CPSIA required that CPSC establish and maintain a database on the 

safety of consumer products and other products or substances regulated 

by the Commission and that it improve its IT architecture. In response,

CPSC created a public database, which is accessible through the Internet 

at SaferProducts.gov and allows consumers to directly report productrelated incidents. SaferProducts.gov was launched in March 2011 and is 

integrated with CPSC’s larger, internal Consumer Product Safety Risk 

Management System (CPSRMS). To address the requirement to upgrade 

its IT architecture, CPSC is currently implementing improvements to 

CPSRMS. CPSC officials have described this system as a centralized, 

integrated data environment that upgrades its legacy systems to support 

multiple efforts at the agency, such as its case management and 

 

20The Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction and the Office of Compliance and 

Field Operations report to CPSC’s Office of Executive Director for Safety. 

21The Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of 

a consumer product to inform the Commission if they obtain information that reasonably 

supports the conclusion that the product contains a defect that could create a substantial 

product hazard. CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089.

CPSC’s Organizational 

Structure for Managing 

Risks

CPSC’s Information 

System Modernization
 

Page 10 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

investigative processes.22 When fully integrated, CPSRMS will replace 

CPSC’s historically segmented data systems with a unified information 

technology system. The updated system is intended to allow CPSC to 

analyze data from multiple sources in a centralized location to identify 

emerging consumer product safety hazards. The purpose of this 

centralization component of CPSC’s IT modernization effort is to improve 

its ability to collect and analyze the hazard information it receives from 

consumers and other data sources. CPSC has reported that modernizing 

its IT systems will improve efficiency by connecting separate data 

systems, reducing or eliminating manual and redundant processing, and 

eliminating redundant and inefficient steps required to code the 

information and to share the information with businesses. In addition to 

this modernization effort, CPSC is developing an automated system to 

improve its ability to target imported products by integrating data from 

both CPSC and CBP. This system will also be integrated into CPSRMS.

CPSC gathers information about new and emerging risks through several 

means, such as surveiling retail markets and coordinating with other 

agencies. CPSC could also potentially obtain nonpublic information on 

product-related hazards from its foreign counterparts, but its legal 

restrictions on public disclosure of information have hampered its ability to 

establish information-sharing agreements. Further, CPSC collects data on 

product-related injuries and deaths from a variety of sources, such as

consumer reports and death certificates, and as discussed above is 

currently working to improve the system it uses to manage these data. 

Finally, CPSC has another effort under way to improve its surveillance of 

imported products, which could prevent violative products from entering 

the U.S. markets.

CPSC uses multiple mechanisms to stay informed about new and 

emerging risks from consumer products, especially new products entering 

the market. CPSC’s market surveillance activities are one primary 

mechanism staff use to track new products entering the markets, 

 

22CPSC’s legacy systems and databases are currently comprised of multiple 

disconnected databases that are not linked so investigations are not integrated. 

Additionally, these systems do not have a case management function to track the 

progress of an investigation throughout the agency.

CPSC Uses Several 

Mechanisms to Stay 

Informed about New 

Product Hazards, but 

Statutory Provisions 

Constrain Its Ability 

to Identify Risks

CPSC Uses Various Means 

to Stay Informed about 

New Product Risks
 

Page 11 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

including surveillance of imported products entering the United States, 

retail stores, and the Internet:

• Import surveillance, which is discussed in greater detail later in this 

report, targets products before they enter the market and is CPSC’s 

stated key activity to address the challenge of overseeing and 

regulating the thousands of product types under its jurisdiction. Import 

surveillance activities include scrutiny of import documentation and 

physical screening of products at the ports.

• CPSC field program surveillance includes compliance monitoring of 

specified products with CPSC requirement to ensure conformance. 

Surveillance and inspections are done at the manufacturer, importer, 

and retail locations.

• CPSC’s retail surveillance includes targeted activities to identify 

potentially unsafe products, such as children’s products with unsafe 

lead content and unsafe electrical products, as well as some products 

subject to mandatory standards. This retail surveillance includes instore screening of products to ensure they are appropriately labeled 

and are contained in proper child-resistant packaging when required. 

At times, such as for holiday sales, CPSC field staff also screen 

certain products to find out if they meet generally accepted industry 

voluntary standards.

• CPSC compliance staff also conduct searches of the Internet, to 

monitor the compliance of certain product sales. Since many firms sell 

their products exclusively from Internet websites, this surveillance 

functions as the primary CPSC oversight of these sellers.

Staff also attend trade shows to target possible products of interest by 

observing what new products are coming to market. These visits may be 

announced or unannounced.

Another mechanism CPSC has relied on for keeping informed about new 

and emerging risks is its agreements with other federal and state 

agencies to research various emerging issues.23

 

23Section 27(g) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. § 2076(g)).The 

Commission is authorized to enter into contracts with governmental entities, private 

organizations, or individuals for the conduct of activities authorized under this act. 

For example, CPSC 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

participates in a federal effort to leverage its limited staff resources with 

larger research efforts under way on nanomaterials, as part of the 

National Nanotechnology Initiative.24 CPSC has a joint agreement with 

EPA to research the health effects of nanotechnology in consumer 

products.25

CPSC is also working with the National Science Foundation and EPA, 

which has funded and supported the development of two university-based 

Centers for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology. CPSC staff 

support this research to use new techniques to characterize 

nanomaterials in selected consumer products and quantify exposures to 

humans.

This effort is part of a larger international research project 

intended to provide a systematic, multidisciplinary approach, including 

both experimental and computational tools and projects, for predicting 

potential human and environmental risks associated with a range of 

nanomaterials (i.e., silver and titanium dioxide). 

26

 

24Launched in 2001, the Nanotechnology Initiative is an interagency research effort 

involving 25 federal agencies, including CPSC. This initiative is intended to bring together 

the expertise needed to advance the broad and complex field of nanotechnology and to 

create a framework for common research goals and to leverage agencies’ resources. See 

GAO, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental, 

Health and Safety Research, 

Under a CPSC interagency agreement with the National 

Science Foundation and EPA, a related project is under way that is 

designed to synthesize data to develop a risk assessment framework for 

nanomaterials used in consumer products. CPSC also has a collaborative 

research effort with the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

GAO-12-427 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012) and Food 

Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be 

Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), GAO-10-246 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2010). 

25There is a growing use of compounds and materials that have been produced using 

nanotechnologies, which directly manipulate matter at the atomic level and fabricate 

molecules and materials that could not have been produced in the past. Nanomaterials 

are defined as materials/particles that range from 1 to 100 nanometers in length. Although 

they may have the same name as a material currently in use, because of their small size, 

these new materials may demonstrate different physical and chemical properties. Some of 

these new nanomaterials are being used in consumer products with the stated purpose of 

improving the performance and durability.

26Nanomaterials represent a wide range of compounds that may vary significantly in their 

structural, physical, and chemical properties, and potentially in their behavior in the 

environment and in the human body. Because of the wide variation in potential health

effects and the lack of data on exposure and toxicity of specific nanomaterials, CPSC has 

been unable to make any general statements about the potential consumer exposures to 

or the health effects that may result from exposure to nanomaterials during consumer use 

and disposal. 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(NIST). CPSC signed an interagency agreement with NIST in 2011 to 

develop protocols to assess the potential release of nanoparticles into the 

indoor air from various consumer products and determine the potential 

exposure to people. Measurement protocols do not exist yet to 

characterize these particle emissions or to assess the properties of the 

emitted particles that may relate to any health impacts. Under this 

agreement, NIST will begin testing to assess the properties of nano-sized 

particles. At the completion of this project, CPSC staff expect to complete 

a status report on the measurement protocols developed for laboratory 

testing for the release of nanoparticles from consumer products, as well 

as for testing in actual residences. Additionally, CPSC is working with the 

National Library of Medicine to identify approaches to expand and 

improve a database to provide information on nanomaterials in consumer 

products.27

Staff also use other channels to exchange information about consumer 

products with other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 

FDA, within the Department of Health and Human Services, the 

Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 

EPA, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

CPSC staff participate in product safety committees with these agencies. 

For example, staff serve on the Chemical Selection Working Group 

sponsored by NIH/National Cancer Institute, as well as the Federal 

Liaison Group on Asthma and the National Cancer Advisory Board. Staff 

also participate in multiple working groups sponsored by the National 

Institute for Environmental Health and Safety and the National Toxicology 

One researcher emphasized that this database is quite 

important to further research efforts because companies are not required 

to report whether nanomaterials are used in their products.

 

27Founded in 1836, the National Library of Medicine, located on the campus of the 

National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, is considered to have the world’s 

largest biomedical library. The National Library of Medicine, the National Institutes of 

Health, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provide information 

online for thousands of consumer products in the Household Products Database 

(http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov). This database provides information to consumers, 

scientists, and other stakeholders on the chemicals contained in brand-name products 

and the potential health effects of these chemicals.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Program.28 CPSC staff co-chair the Interagency Lead-based Paint Task 

Force, working with EPA and HUD on human exposure to lead. CPSC 

staff also serve on the Core Committee at the Center for Evaluation of 

Risks to Human Reproduction under the National Toxicology Program. 

Staff participate in interagency committees that develop U.S. positions for 

international harmonization on test guidelines developed by the 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, guidance 

documents, and the globally harmonized system for the classification and 

labeling of chemicals.29 Staff also use their professional connections, 

subscribe to professional journals, and attend scientific and consumer 

product safety conferences. For example, CPSC staff maintain contacts 

with individual scientists at FDA on multiple issues, such as phthalates, 

lead, and nanotechnology.30

Furthermore, CPSC has authority to establish advisory committees to 

assist in advising it on new and emerging risks. Such advisory 

committees can be appointed to advise the agency on chronic hazards 

that may contribute to cancer, birth defects, and gene mutations 

associated with consumer products. As required by CPSIA, in 2010 

CPSC appointed a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to review the 

potential effects on children’s health of phthalates and phthalate 

 

28The National Toxicology Program is an interagency program whose mission is to 

evaluate chemical agents of public health concern by developing and applying tools of 

modern toxicology and molecular biology. The program was established because of 

increasing scientific, regulatory, and congressional concerns about the human health 

effects of chemical agents in the environment. 

29The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is to 

promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the 

world. The origins date to the 1960s when 18 European countries plus the United States 

and Canada joined forces to create an organization dedicated to global development. In 

2012, there were 34 member countries.

30The term “phthalate” is used to refer to certain chemicals used as plasticizers for 

products such as floor tiles, wire and cable insulation, and other applications where there 

is a need for a flexible plastic that is tough and durable. Section 108 of CPSIA 

permanently prohibits the sale of any children’s toy or child care article containing more 

than 0.1 percent of each of three specified phthalates: Di-(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 

dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108 of CPSIA also 

prohibits, on an interim basis, the sale of any children’s toy that can be placed in a child’s 

mouth or child care article containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three additional 

phthalates: diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl 

phthalate (DnOP).
 

Page 15 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

alternatives in children’s toys and child care articles.31 The CHAP is 

currently the only operating advisory committee to CPSC. The CHAP is to 

consider the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple phthalates from all 

sources, including personal care products. The CHAP was required by 

CPSIA to submit a final report based on its examination by April 2012.

The CHAP examination is still ongoing and the report is expected to be 

completed in fiscal year 2013. The CHAP must recommend to the 

Commission whether any additional phthalates or phthalate alternatives 

should be declared banned hazardous substances. Within 180 days after 

this recommendation is made, CPSIA requires CPSC to promulgate a 

final rule based on the report. Pending completion of the report, staff are 

to provide a briefing package to the Commission for its consideration of 

whether to continue the interim ban that CPSIA established (effective 

Feb. 10, 2009) for certain phthalates, or whether to regulate other 

phthalates or phthalate substitutes.

Several of CPSC’s strategic goals emphasize working with other federal 

agencies, as well as agencies of state and foreign governments. This 

cooperation is important to the Commission’s effectiveness, particularly in 

light of the large volume of imported products that enter the United States 

each year. One key aspect of interagency cooperation is sharing 

information with CPSC’s counterparts in other countries. CPSC has 

memorandums of understanding (MOU) with several foreign counterparts 

to share publicly available information about unsafe consumer products. 

These agreements provide a formal mechanism for general exchanges of 

information on consumer product safety, and in some cases include plans 

for informational seminars and training programs. For example, CPSC 

has taken the lead with several MOU partners on an international initiative 

to work towards harmonizing global consumer product standards or 

developing similar mechanisms to enhance product safety, known as the 

Pilot Alignment Initiative. This initiative involves staff from the central 

consumer product safety authorities of Australia, Canada, the European 

 

31Under section 108 of CPSIA, CPSC was required to appoint a Chronic Hazard Advisory 

Panel not earlier than 180 days after enactment, that is, after February 10, 2009. CPSIA 

was enacted on Aug. 14, 2008. CPSC appointed scientists to the committee in early 2010

and the first meeting was held in April 2010. 

Statutory Restrictions 

Hamper CPSC’s 

Information-Sharing 

Efforts with Foreign 

Counterparts
 

Page 16 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Union, and the United States.

32

CPSC’s existing MOUs do not permit the exchange of nonpublic 

information because of specific statutory limitations. When we reported on 

CPSC’s authorities in August 2009, we concluded that CPSC had 

adequate authorities to perform its mission and we made no 

recommendations to change its authorities.

The initiative seeks to reach consensus 

positions among the participants on the hazards to children and potential 

solutions for three products: corded window coverings (i.e., window 

blinds), chair-top booster seats, and baby slings.

33 CPSC concurred with our 

conclusion. CPSIA amended section 29 of CPSA to allow the 

Commission to make publicly available information to any federal, state, 

local, or foreign government agency upon prior certification or agreement 

that the information will be maintained in confidence, as defined in the 

act.34

CPSC’s ability to share information that identifies a specific product or 

manufacturer is subject to several complex statutory provisions. For 

example, section 6 of CPSA imposes significant restrictions on CPSC’s 

ability to publicly disclose information.

At that time, CPSC was working with its foreign counterparts to 

implement its new authorities under CPSIA that allow it to share 

nonpublic information with foreign counterparts. In the course of this 

review, however, we found that when attempting to implement these 

authorities, CPSC has faced certain legal constraints in sharing 

information with its foreign counterparts and has not completed any new 

agreements concerning the exchange of nonpublic information, as they 

had expected at the time of our 2009 report.

35 Section 6(a) generally prohibits 

the disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential commercial and 

financial information.36

 

32CPSC is also a member of the International Consumer Product Health and Safety 

Organization, a global organization of health and safety professionals. Founded in 1993, 

this organization meets annually to exchange ideas, share information, and address 

health and safety concerns affecting all consumers. CPSC participates in various 

committees and is part of the international caucus.

Before publicly disclosing information that would 

33GAO-09-803. 

3415 U.S.C. § 2078. 

3515 U.S.C. § 2055.

36Subject to 18 U.S.C. § 1905 or 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4).
 

Page 17 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

readily identify a manufacturer, CPSC must afford the manufacturer the 

opportunity to designate the information as business confidential—that is, 

information a company considers and designates to be proprietary or 

confidential—and barred from disclosure.37 The CPSA contains an 

additional restriction on the public disclosure of certain regulatory 

information, such as information that identifies a product manufacturer or 

private labeler. Specifically, section 6(b)(1) generally prohibits CPSC from 

publicly disclosing information that would readily identify the product 

manufacturer unless it first takes reasonable steps to assure that the 

information is accurate and that the disclosure is fair in the circumstances 

and reasonably related to carrying out CPSC’s purposes under its 

jurisdiction. The inclusion of section 6(b) grew out of concern about 

damage that manufacturers would incur if the agency released inaccurate 

information about the manufacturers’ products. Before publicly disclosing 

the information, CPSC must give the manufacturer advance notice and 

the opportunity to comment on the disclosure of the information, which 

adds more time before CPSC can publicly respond to a potential product 

hazard. If CPSC decides to disclose information that the manufacturer 

claims to be inaccurate, it generally must provide 5 days advance notice 

of the disclosure, and the manufacturer may bring suit to prevent the 

disclosure.38 CPSC has issued a rule that interprets the public disclosure 

restrictions of section 6(b) as covering disclosures to any person unless 

specified exceptions apply.39

Section 29(e) of CPSA permits CPSC to disclose accident or investigation 

reports to officials of other federal, state, and local agencies engaged in 

 

37“Confidential information” means information that contains or relates to a trade secret or 

other matter referred to in 18 U.S.C. §1905 or that is subject to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(4). If 

CPSC disagrees with such a designation and determines that the information is not 

business confidential, the manufacturer has the right to contest the Commission’s 

determination. A private labeler has similar rights. ”Private labeler” is a legal reference to a 

company that licenses or sells products under their private label but does not manufacture 

the product.

38Private labelers have similar rights under this section. 

39See CPSA Sec. 6(b)(4) (15 U.S.C. § 2055(b)(4)). See also 16 C.F.R. § 1101.12. There 

are several exceptions to the section 6 disclosure restrictions. Section 6 excludes 

disclosures to Commission officials, employees, agents, representatives, and contractors. 

It also excludes disclosures in connection with judicial or administrative proceedings under 

CPSA or with respect to products CPSC has reasonable cause to believe violate a 

consumer product safety rule or similar rule or a provision of CPSA or other CPSCenforced statute.
 

Page 18 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

health, safety, or consumer protection activities, but only if businessconfidential information is removed and the recipient agency agrees to 

maintain certain confidentiality restrictions. Section 29(f) of CPSA, as 

amended by CPSIA, authorizes CPSC to disclose certain information to 

foreign government agencies in addition to federal, state, and local 

government if the recipient agency certifies in writing in advance that the 

information will be kept confidential.40

Both Senate and House of Representatives committee reports on CPSIA 

legislation provided the rationale and expectation underlying the 

provisions enacted as section 29(f). Specifically, the Senate report noted 

that goods made overseas are sold not only in the United States but also 

in Europe, Africa, and other continents. Additionally, the Senate report 

noted, “To the extent that the European Union bans an unsafe product 

and the United States does not, shipments to Europe may well be 

diverted to American shores. Once in the United States, the products may 

move from state to state.”

In addition, it provides that CPSC

generally is not required to disclose under the Freedom of Information Act 

or other law confidential information it has received from a foreign agency 

(although this provision does not authorize withholding of information from 

Congress or a court in an action commenced by the United States or 

CPSC). 

41 Both the Senate and House committees’ 

reports noted expectations that CPSC would work closely with any other 

federal, state, local, or foreign governments to share information, so long 

as those entities have established the ability to protect such information 

from premature public disclosure. The House report further noted that 

“The Committee expects that the CPSC will revisit and renegotiate, where 

necessary, existing memoranda of understanding with foreign 

governments and negotiate new agreements with other governments as 

necessary.”42

 

40Section 207 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (commonly 

known as section 29(f)) provides that notwithstanding the requirements of sections 6(a)(3) 

and 6(b) relating to public disclosure of information, CPSC may disclose section 6 

information to federal, state, local, or foreign government agencies if the recipient agency 

certifies in writing in advance that such material will be maintained in confidence and used 

only for official law enforcement or consumer protection purposes and if certain other 

conditions are met. Among other things, the agency must provide a bona fide legal basis 

for its authority to maintain the confidentiality of the information.

41S. Rep. No. 110-265, 16 (2008).

42H.R. Rep. No. 110-501, 44 (2007).
 

Page 19 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Although the addition of section 29(f) was intended to encourage 

information sharing, in our discussions with CPSC staff, they expressed 

concern that restrictive language in section 29(f) has hindered their ability 

to share information. Specifically, CPSC explained that during the 

interagency review process to address this new authority, the Department 

of State (State) reviewed CPSC’s suggested language for an agreement 

to implement information sharing under section 29(f). According to CPSC, 

State identified that, because of certain language in section 29(f), CPSC 

could not agree to allow a foreign agency to further disclose information it 

had received under a confidentiality agreement, even under tightly 

controlled circumstances. As a result, CPSC cannot approve text in the 

information-sharing agreement that allows for further disclosures. For 

example, CPSC could not permit Health Canada to disclose information it 

received from CPSC under a section 29(f) agreement to a sister agency 

or provincial-level safety agency. Likewise, CPSC cannot grant approval 

to the European Commission to disclose such information to member 

states. In contrast, the confidentiality restrictions section 29(f) imposes on 

information CPSC receives from a foreign agency are less severe than 

those that apply when a foreign agency receives information from 

CPSC—that is, CPSC has greater freedom to disclose information than it 

may grant to its foreign counterparts. CPSC is required to make available 

to Congress and the courts information it receives, but its foreign 

counterparts would not be allowed to make similar disclosures to their 

own governing bodies or court systems. According to CPSC staff, this 

lack of reciprocity has made foreign agencies unwilling to enter into 

agreements with the United States to share nonpublic information. In 

August 2012, CPSC staff told us that the Commission has been unable to 

enter into any international agreements pursuant to section 29(f) because 

CPSC’s foreign counterparts will only share information if the terms are 

reciprocal. In contrast to this difficulty in completing agreements with 

foreign counterparts, CPSC has on occasion been able to share 

information it has gathered with U.S. state and local agencies. For 

example, in dealing with hazards associated with defective Chinese 

drywall, CPSC was able to share information from the investigation 

involving the Chinese government with U.S. state and local agencies, 

which is discussed in greater detail in appendix II.

According to CPSC staff and our further analysis of the statute, section 

29(f) has not achieved the results expected by Congress when it enacted 

this provision, as expressed in the previously cited committee reports. 

The primary reason for this, according to CPSC staff, is that section 29(f) 

does not contain a provision allowing foreign agencies to further disclose 

the information CPSC provides to a foreign agency pursuant to a section 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

29(f) agreement—even disclosures required by the foreign agency’s laws 

or to other agencies within the same nation or administrative area. This 

inability to establish information-sharing agreements may hinder CPSC’s 

ability to respond to a potential hazard in a timely manner because of the 

delay that might occur between when a foreign counterpart decides to 

take action in response to a product hazard and when that action 

becomes public. This delay may allow injuries and deaths to occur from 

the unsafe product’s use in the United States.

CPSC uses information from a number of sources to identify specific risks 

associated with both new and existing products. However, many of these 

sources have limitations, such as missing details. CPSC’s Emerging 

Hazards Team and Integrated Teams review the collected data to identify 

patterns of new hazards, but analyzing large quantities of information 

presents challenges. To address these challenges, CPSC is currently 

implementing upgrades to CPSRMS, its data management system, as 

required by CPSIA.

CPSC has authority to identify and act on a wide range of consumer 

product hazards. However, obtaining useful and timely information about 

products involved in injuries and fatalities is an ongoing challenge for 

CPSC.43

 

43See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Action Needed to Strengthen 

Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products, 

Additionally, according to CPSC officials, it faces challenges in 

identifying risks from new and emerging products largely because 

statutorily CPSC was established to respond to risks after products have 

been introduced into market. To fulfill its mission of protecting the public 

against unreasonable risks of injuries associated with consumer products, 

CPSC collects, reviews, and analyzes information on consumer-productrelated injuries and deaths from many sources, such as the National 

Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), consumer incident 

GAO-12-30 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 

2011), Consumer Product Safety Commission: Better Data Collection and Assessment of 

Consumer Information Efforts Could Help Protect Minority Children, GAO-09-731 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2009), and Consumer Product Safety Commission: Better 

Data Needed to Help Identify and Analyze Potential Hazards, GAO/HEHS-97-147 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1997).

CPSC Faces Challenges in 

Identifying Risks 

Associated with New 

Products, but Is Taking 

Steps to Improve Data 

Systems

Information Sources
 

Page 21 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

reports, death reports, and reports from manufacturers (see table 1).44

Table 1: Key CPSC Information Sources to Facilitate Timely Identification of 

Consumer Product Hazards, Fiscal Year 2011

CPSC uses this information to identify a hazard or hazard pattern.

Information source Purpose

Approximate 

number of reports 

received in fiscal 

year 2011

NEISS Provides statistically valid national 

estimates of product-related injuries 

from a probability sample of hospital 

emergency rooms.

400,000

Consumer incident 

reports 

Permit consumers, health care 

professionals, public safety entities, 

and others to submit reports of harm 

involving consumer products.

13,000

Death certificates Provide information on unintentional 

product-related deaths.

8,000

Reports from 

manufacturers (i.e., CPSA 

section 15(b) reports)

Require businesses to immediately 

report to the Commission when they 

obtain information which reasonably 

supports the conclusion that a product 

(1) fails to comply with a voluntary 

standard upon which the Commission 

has relied under section 9 of CPSA or 

(2) creates an unreasonable risk of 

serious injury or death.a

467

News clips Fill gaps in reporting from other 

sources and provide a source of 

incidents to investigate in support of 

hazard identification and analysis 

activities.

6,207

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information.

a

For purpose of this section, CPSC has defined immediately as within 24 hours of businesses 

obtaining information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could 

create a substantial product hazard or an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. Businesses 

include manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers. 

 

44NEISS, an emergency department system for collecting injury and death information, 

gathers information from a nationally representative sample of about 96 hospital 

emergency rooms. Each hospital reports information on emergency treatments related to 

the use of consumer products to CPSC. NEISS provides national estimates of the 

number and severity of emergency room-treated injuries associated with, although not 

necessarily caused by, consumer products in the United States.
 

Page 22 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC obtains most of its injury information from NEISS reports. 

According to CPSC staff, this information is timely and useful in projecting 

national injury estimates and monitoring historical trends in productrelated injuries and is immediately accessible to CPSC staff once hospital 

staff input information into the database.45

CPSC also identifies risks through incident reports received from 

consumers and others, such as health care professionals and child 

service providers, through its websites, telephone hotline, e-mail, fax, or 

postal service.

However, staff told us that the 

information contained in the reports has limitations. As noted in CPSC’s 

2011 annual report, while the reports may indicate that a consumer 

product was involved in an incident, a product may not necessarily have 

caused the incident. Nonetheless, the reports provide an important 

source of information concerning the nature of the incidents and injuries 

and the product associated with the incident. To obtain more specific 

information, CPSC sometimes supplements the NEISS information by 

conducting further investigations.

46

According to its 2011 annual report, CPSC also collects mortality data 

from each state. CPSC purchases death certificates that have a high 

probability of consumer product involvement. However, CPSC reported 

that because it does not purchase all death certificates, and because 

those it purchases do not always identify the products involved, the total 

number of actual product-related deaths may be higher than the number 

represented in the death certificates CPSC purchases. CPSC reported in 

its annual report that, similar to the NEISS reports, the death certificates 

do not necessarily indicate that the product involved caused the death. 

CPSC staff also told us that while death certificates are a good source of 

information on fatalities, they generally do not contain any specific 

product or manufacturer information. Moreover, there is often a 2 to 3 

 According to CPSC officials, information in the incident 

reports is not always complete. Furthermore, the reports may not identify

the risk associated with the incident, thus CPSC may conduct a more indepth review of the incident. 

 

45According to CPSC, in 2011, of the 400,000 records collected in NEISS, 50 percent of 

the records are received within 5 days of when the injured person was treated in the

hospital emergency department, 75 percent within 10 days, and 95 percent within 

31 days.

46Every incident report CPSC receives does not necessarily involve a hazardous incident. 

In some instances, consumers report concern that a potential hazard might exist. 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

year lag before the mortality data become available. CPSC supplements 

information from the NEISS system, death certificates, and reports from 

individual consumers with reports from medical examiners and coroners. 

These reports are also limited because they do not typically contain 

information that specifically identifies the product (such as brand name, 

model or serial number) or manufacturer.

CPSC also receives information from manufacturers, distributors, and 

retailers about products distributed in commerce that the manufacturers 

conclude are potential substantial product hazards. Manufacturers of 

consumer products must notify the Commission immediately if they obtain 

information that reasonably supports the conclusion that a product fails to 

comply with a product safety standard the Commission has relied upon; 

fails to comply with any rule, regulation, standard, or ban under CPSA or 

any other act enforced by the Commission; contains a defect that could 

create a substantial product hazard; or creates an unreasonable risk of 

serious injury or death.47

Before the information previously discussed can be reviewed and 

analyzed, it must be coded and entered into CPSC’s data management 

system—CPSRMS. Based on our review of CPSC’s documentation, staff 

must enter, for example, a short summary from the narrative of the incident 

and assign a product code and the primary hazard category for the 

product.

However, CPSC does not rely solely on 

manufacturers to report a product defect in order to identify and address 

hazards because CPSC sometimes obtains information on a product 

defect before the manufacturer becomes aware of the problem. For 

example, according to CPSC staff, retailers may provide CPSC with 

reports of safety-related information and CPSC uses this retailer 

information in identifying and assessing risks.

48

 

47CPSA, 15 U.S.C § 2064(b). 

According to CPSC staff, applying a product code allows for 

standardization of incidents involving similar products to help staff identify 

and monitor the frequency of the occurrence and the hazard types by 

product category. CPSC’s public database—SaferProducts.gov—which 

was launched in March 2011 as required by CPSIA, allows consumers to 

directly enter incident information online. Previously, CPSC staff had to 

manually enter and code these reports. While staff must still code some 

48The hazard type or category classifies the general nature of the actual or potential 

hazard presented by the incident, such as a chemical or mechanical hazard. 

Incident Report Coding and 

Screening Process 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

data, such as submitter’s information and relationship to the victim, reports 

consumers submit through the public database reduce some of the manual 

tasks, such as rekeying of incident data.49 According to CPSC staff, for 

reports received through the hotline, staff use a template to enter 

information directly into the database. Other reports continue to be 

manually coded by staff.50

After the coding is completed, the incident reports advance to the Emerging 

Hazards Team. The Emerging Hazards Team is composed of statisticians, 

whose responsibilities include reviewing incident reports to identify new and 

emerging product-associated hazards, performing product safety 

assessments, directing new reports to appropriate Integrated Product 

Teams, and sending out daily death notifications. The Emerging Hazards 

Team’s review is CPSC’s first step in identifying a hazard and determining 

whether the hazard is new and emerging. According to CPSC staff, the 

Emerging Hazards Team reviews all incident reports daily, including those 

stored in the data management system, to identify trends and patterns. 

They said that this review is intended to determine whether reports should 

be forwarded to one of six Integrated Product Teams, which are composed 

of subject-matter experts from the Office of Hazard Identification and 

Reduction, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations, and staff from 

other CPSC offices and are organized by type of hazard.

 According to CPSC officials, staff must review 

incident reports daily to identify pertinent information to “code” the reports in 

the database. This work requires staff to read the narrative and extract the 

information, such as a description of the incident, location where the 

incident occurred, number of victims, severity of the injury, the source of 

the incident report, and a description of the product involved in the incident.

51

 

49Specifically, for reports submitted through 

(We discuss the 

www.SaferProducts.gov, staff accept the 

information the submitter entered and verified online such as the product description, how 

the product was being used, and any injuries that were sustained. 

50Unlike other data sources, NEISS reports are entered by CPSC contractors from 

medical records and are not a part of CPSC’s general coding process.

51In 2011, CPSC adopted the Integrated Product Team approach, which is modeled after 

its Early Warning System. CPSC’s six integrated teams are children’s, mechanical, 

chemical, combustion, fire, and electrical hazard. These teams are comprised of staff from 

the Office of General Counsel, Office of Communications, Office of Import Surveillance, 

and subject-matter experts such as engineers, human factors experts, and health 

scientists from the Office of Hazard Identification and Hazard Reduction and Office of 

Compliance and Field Operations. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Integrated Product Teams’ role in CPSC’s assessment of risk in greater 

detail later in this report.)

CPSC officials told us that in making their determination, the Emerging 

Hazards Team considers the criteria set forth in 16 CFR 1009.8, such as 

the frequency and severity of the injury and the vulnerability of the 

population at risk. These criteria are considered at each step of the risk 

process and in setting agency priorities. CPSC officials also told us that 

the Emerging Hazards Team uses criteria provided to them by the 

Integrated Product Teams to classify reports within the system as 

needing no further review. Reports requiring no further review are stored 

in the database (see fig. 1). According to CPSC officials, incidents 

involving a death, particularly if it involves a vulnerable population, are 

granted the highest priority and are immediately forwarded to the 

appropriate Integrated Product Team for action.

Figure 1: CPSC Incident Intake/Screening Process

In performing its review, the Emerging Hazards Team said it uses the

historical data to identify trends and patterns of potentially new and 

emerging hazards while at the same time forwarding the reports to the 

appropriate Integrated Product Team. Specifically, incidents that are 

unusual or that appear to be similar to previously reported incidents are 

analyzed more closely to determine whether they need to be assessed by 

both the Emerging Hazards and Integrated Product Teams. For instance, 

according to the staff, in April 2012 CPSC received a news clip that 
 

Page 26 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

detailed an incident involving a toy with a mirror that was attached but 

protected by a plastic cover. The staff conducted a search of CPSC’s 

database and identified a similar incident in August 2011. In both cases, 

the child was able to remove the cover and gain access to the hazardous 

component within it. Based on this finding, the team determined that the 

toy was a choking hazard and the reports were forwarded to the 

appropriate Integrated Product Team for a more in-depth review.

According to an agency official, identifying patterns of risk is particularly 

challenging in situations involving many different makes and models of a 

particular product category. For example, CPSC staff completed a 

comprehensive review of crib-related infant fatalities reported to the 

agency between January 2000 and May 2010 involving drop-side crib 

hazards. During that period, staff was aware of 32 fatalities and hundreds 

of incidents that were caused by or related to brackets that detached from 

the drop-side cribs made by various manufacturers. According to the 

CPSC official, because the fatalities occurred across several different 

makes and models of cribs, it was difficult for CPSC to identify a pattern. 

In 2007 CPSC launched its Early Warning System to look for patterns in 

order to identify emerging hazards in a specific group of children’s 

products—including bassinets, cribs, and play yards—quickly and 

efficiently. This system relied on the integration of timely input from 

technical experts and technology to rapidly identify emerging hazards and 

led to millions of products being recalled. According to a CPSC news 

release issued October 2008, since the creation of its Early Warning 

System, the agency has conducted five crib recalls. Because of the 

success of the Early Warning System in identifying hazards in these 

children’s products, CPSC expanded the use of new technologies to 

address hazards in other product areas through its system upgrade and 

the Integrated Product Team concept.

In fiscal year 2011, staff within the Office of Hazard Identification and 

Hazard Reduction implemented a new business process building upon 

the existing NEISS coding system. The new process required that all 

incident reports be reviewed and screened by the Emerging Hazards 

Team and that all incident reports associated with certain product codes 

be reviewed and analyzed by the appropriate Integrated Product Teams. 

However, according to agency officials, before they can fully implement 

this process, more automation of the screening process in the datamanagement system remains to be completed to allow the technical 

experts time to focus their attention on those incidents that could indicate 

a potential new hazard that needs further analysis.
 

Page 27 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

To improve the processing of the voluminous data it receives, CPSC is 

upgrading its data-management system—CPSRMS—as previously 

discussed. According to CPSC, the upgraded system is designed to 

enhance CPSC’s efficiency and effectiveness, enable a more rapid 

dissemination of information, and allow consumers to search the 

database through a publicly available portal. CPSC officials expect the 

system upgrades to be completed in fiscal year 2013 and fully operational 

in fiscal year 2014. Further, CPSC anticipates that staff will be able to 

create electronic files of related incidents, investigations, assessments, 

and other information to manage the high volume of incident reports the 

agency receives in order to identify emerging hazards more quickly.

Finally, as part of the data system upgrade, CPSC expects to automate 

the process to determine which incident reports will be assigned for 

investigation.

As previously noted, CPSC’s incident reports contain information that 

CPSC enters into the data system using standardized codes. However, 

CPSC officials told us that in order to be more efficient in identifying 

patterns and trends, the Integrated Product Teams need additional 

standardized codes built into the system for identifying product hazards. 

According to CPSC staff, they are in the process of developing additional 

standardized codes and eventually algorithms to conduct searches using 

key words, such as product manufacturer or country of origin. While the 

officials said it will take 3 to 5 years to develop the standardized language 

for the system, they added that the goal of this new capability is to help 

the agency achieve consistency as it loses institutional knowledge due to 

attrition and retirement. Ultimately, they expect the upgraded system to 

expedite the process for identifying emerging hazards.

CPSC officials told us that before this upgraded database system, staff 

turnover had a more dramatic impact on CPSC’s ability to identify 

patterns or trends in the incident information it analyzed. In addition, the 

Commission did not have the capability to monitor the incidents in such a 

way that one person could see all the historical data, which interrupted 

the continuity in staff analysis. Furthermore, reviewing incident reports 

requires individual judgment, and automating the screening process is 

expected to allow the technical experts the opportunity to focus their 

efforts on specific records. As a result of the upgrade to CPSC’s 

information infrastructure, manufacturers are also able to enter 

information about substantial product hazards directly into CPSRMS, 

allowing the information to go through the coding and screening process 

more quickly. Furthermore, CPSC is in the process of developing casemanagement software for the Office of Compliance and Field Operations 

Data System Improvements
 

Page 28 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

that will integrate the various databases to provide efficiency to all staff 

working on the compliance cases. The case management system is 

intended to allow staff to track the progress of an investigation throughout 

the agency and is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2013.

As we have previously reported, CPSC has had limited ability to identify 

unsafe products at the ports.52

1. To ensure that it has appropriate data and procedures to prevent 

entry of unsafe products into the United States, we recommended that 

CPSC update agreements with CBP to clarify each agency’s roles 

and to resolve issues for obtaining access to advance shipment data.

In our 2009 report, we recommended that 

the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC take several actions to 

improve the agency’s ability to target shipments for further screening and 

review at U.S. ports of entry as follows:

2. To improve its targeting decisions and build its risk-analysis capability, 

we recommended that CPSC (a) work with CBP, as directed under 

CPSIA, through the planned targeting center for health and safety 

issues, to develop the capacity to analyze advance shipment data; 

and (b) link data CPSC gathers from surveillance activities and from

international education and outreach activities to further target 

incoming shipments.

CPSC views its import surveillance activities as a preventative strategy, 

intended to stop unlawful products before they are received into the 

United States. CPSC considers this strategy more proactive than relying 

on traditional compliance and recall efforts to remove violative products 

from the marketplace after harm may have occurred. In response to 

CPSIA, CPSC has developed and is pilot testing an approach for 

identifying and targeting unsafe consumer products at U.S. ports.53

 

52

CPSC 

is designing this approach to evaluate products entering the United States 

based on a predetermined set of rules (i.e., to target specific hazardous 

products or importers) intended to identify imports with the highest risks to 

GAO-09-803. 

53Section 222 of CPSIA requires CPSC to formulate a risk assessment methodology to 

identify products imported into the United States that are most likely to violate consumer 

product safety statutes and regulations enforced by the Commission.

CPSC Is Taking Actions to 

Improve Its Ability to 

Identify Unsafe Imported 

Products before They 

Enter the Marketplace
 

Page 29 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

consumers. CPSC has reported that given its low staffing levels and 

limited coverage at the ports (as of November 2012, CPSC had 20 port 

investigators stationed full-time at 15 of the largest U.S. ports), 

developing an automated process for identifying violative products was 

essential to increasing its ability to target unsafe products before they 

enter commerce.

As detailed in CPSIA and based on our prior recommendation, CPSC is 

designing its approach to integrate its information with import data from 

CBP. CPSC has completed its agreement with CBP and obtained the 

shipment data as we recommended. CPSC is in the process of moving to 

a computer-based, systematic approach for targeting imports from its 

prior process for screening imported products. Under its prior process, 

established in 2007, CPSC staff manually screened importers’ 

documentation and telephoned CBP staff at the ports to detain shipments 

for inspection. CPSC is designing the new targeting approach to provide 

a framework that permits rules to be added and modified easily to 

accommodate new risk factors and changes in operations. For example, 

its approach is designed to allow CPSC staff to rank or risk-score 

incoming shipments in order to prioritize the Commission’s responses to 

product hazards that can be addressed at the ports.

CPSC’s initial activities are focused on import compliance, such as 

screening children’s imported products for lead content. CPSC reported 

that in 2011, it conducted an analysis of children’s product importers that 

have had a history of noncompliance with safety standards and continues 

to target these importers for safety assessment. In a CPSC staff 

demonstration of this new targeting approach, we observed the use of 

their rule sets and the integration of import data used to make 

determinations for which shipments to target. When this import targeting 

system is fully implemented, CPSC expects to be able to systematically 

analyze 100 percent of shipments within CPSC jurisdiction to ensure that 

adequate resources are dedicated to the highest risk shipments, as 

indicated by its targeting rules. CPSC reported that it began limited 

testing of its targeting concept in fall 2011.

According to its 2013 Performance Budget, in 2011, CPSC port 

investigators, working with CBP agents, screened almost 10,000 import 

samples at U.S. ports of entry and collected more than 1,800 import 

samples for testing at the CPSC laboratory. CPSC projects that the full 

implementation of this new system will take about 4 to 7 years, depending 

on resources devoted to this effort. CPSC’s detailed proposal on this 

import-targeting approach reported the need for additional staff for 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

strengthening their coverage at the ports and for additional laboratory 

staff.54 In its report to Congress, CPSC also recommended certain legal 

changes to better align the Commission’s authorities with those of CBP 

and other health and safety agencies for targeting and addressing unsafe 

products at import. In addition, to complete the technology piece of the 

import targeting system, CPSC estimated the costs to be $40 million from 

fiscal years 2013 through 2019. CPSC’s planned next step in this effort is 

to reduce the duplication of effort between cases initiated by the Office of 

Compliance and Field Operations and those initiated by the Office of 

Import Surveillance by creating a case management system, as part of 

upgrading its information system.

CPSC assesses product risks on a case-by-case basis using information 

it collects from various sources. Once it has assessed the risk and 

determined the need to address a product hazard, CPSC can take a 

number of actions to reduce the risks of product-related injuries to 

consumers.

Once CPSC identifies product risks, it assesses those risks on a case-bycase basis.55

 

54See CPSC, Staff Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 222 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Risk Assessment Methodology. 

According to CPSC staff, an assessment could pertain to a 

particular model of a product or to a class of products, such as drop-side 

cribs, or it may be specific to a type of hazard, such as fire hazards 

associated with appliances. In addition, according to CPSC officials, the 

types of information CPSC collects to assess product risk depend on the 

product and the type of assessment being conducted. In general, CPSC 

requires information on the severity of an injury, the probability of the 

hazard occurring, consumers’ ability to recognize hazardous conditions, 

and how the consumer uses the product. In addition, officials stated that 

55CPSC staff defines risk assessment as a four-step process that encompasses hazard 

identification, dose-response assessment (determining the magnitude of exposure to a 

contaminant and the probability and severity of adverse effects), exposure assessment, 

and risk characterization.

Timeliness of CPSC’s 

Actions to Assess and 

Address New Risks 

Depends on the 

Specific Product or 

Hazard

CPSC’s Risk Assessment 

Varies with the Particular 

Product or Hazard Being 

Assessed
 

Page 31 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

manufacturer, model, serial number, number of products sold, life-cycle of 

the product, and safety incidents involving the products are all useful 

information. As noted earlier, most of CPSC’s information sources are 

limited in the information available. Additionally, CPSC officials told us 

that most information on sales of a particular product is not readily 

available, and surveys to establish use and exposure information are 

costly and often take up to a year to get approval (from the 

commissioners and the Office of Management and Budget) to conduct. 

As a result, CPSC often tries to estimate consumers’ exposure using 

assumptions based on sales data and product life-cycle information.

As part of its assessment, CPSC evaluates consumer products to identify 

both acute and chronic hazards. Acute hazards are conditions that create 

the potential for injury or damage to consumers as a result of an accident 

or short-duration exposure to a defective product. Chronic hazards are 

presented by substances that can damage health over a relatively long 

period, after continuous or repeated exposures. Hazards may be either 

physical or chemical in nature. The adverse effects from exposure to a 

chemical substance can be acute, such as poisonings, or chronic, such 

as cancer or reproductive or genetic abnormalities. As stated earlier, 

CPSC relies on its criteria for establishing priorities in assessing risk. 

More specifically, CPSC staff can assess a product’s potential health 

effects to consumers using well-established chronic hazard guidelines 

based on the Federal Hazardous Substances Act.

CPSC staff with whom we spoke said CPSC relies on the knowledge and 

judgment of its staff to review and analyze incident reports in order to 

identify emerging hazards that the agency could address. According to 

CPSC’s documentation, as part of their analysis, Integrated Product Team 

staff read all the incidents within each product code assigned to them. If a 

pattern emerges, they are required to review historical records and update 

those records accordingly. These teams are also responsible for other riskrelated activities, such as requesting investigations; recommending new 

activities to management as needed, depending on the severity and 

addressability of emerging hazards; and monitoring follow-up status on 

compliance corrective actions and status of projects for standard 

development (see fig. 2).56

 

56Each integrated team develops a portfolio of projects, based on their assessments, that 

is included in their budget request for the Commission to consider as a part of the 

agency’s prioritization process. According to CPSC officials, these projects are ranked

based on CPSC’s criteria under section 1009.8.

According to CPSC staff, the agency plans to 
 

Page 32 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

develop standard operating procedures tailored to each team and to 

establish benchmarks for the teams to use in completing their analyses of 

hazards and identifying a strategy to address the hazards.

Figure 2: CPSC Review and Assessment Process

When one of the Integrated Product Teams identifies a potentially new 

hazardous product, the team may request an investigation. CPSC staff, 

one Commissioner, and product safety experts said that assessing the 

risks posed by new products is challenging because hazards from new 

products are not readily apparent because historical data are not 

available for analysis. An investigation provides staff an opportunity to 

obtain additional information about use of the product that could 

potentially assist in their assessment. Investigation reports, which are 

prepared by the Office of Compliance and Field Operations staff, provide 

details about the sequence of events surrounding the incident, human 

and environmental factors, and product involvement.57

 

57Staff within the Office of Compliance and Field Operations conduct investigations on 

specific cases to gain additional knowledge about injuries or hazards. Staff use this 

information to determine where hazards exist and how to address them. Some of these 

investigations are conducted entirely by telephone, while others are conducted at the 

accident site. 

The incident 

reports generally contain the consumer’s version of what occurred based 

on discussion with the incident victim or individual most knowledgeable 

about the incident. CPSC staff noted that the investigative activity is an 

ongoing process and the Integrated Product Teams decide whether to 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

continue the investigative process as they evaluate new evidence they 

receive. Investigations may also include follow-up inspections at retail 

stores, discussion with fire and police investigators, as well as the 

inclusion of fire and police reports. 

CPSC’s guidance for staff involved in risk-assessment activities identifies 

certain factors based upon the Commission’s criteria for establishing 

priorities. As discussed earlier, these factors include the frequency and 

severity of injuries, consumers’ exposure to the risk, causality of injuries, 

foreseeability of the risk, and the vulnerability of the population at risk. 

CPSC’s guidance specifically states that staff should consider these 

factors when deciding whether to investigate hazards or initiate corrective 

actions. According to CPSC officials, staff consider these factors 

throughout the risk-assessment process and in prioritizing which product 

hazards require action by the Commission. As an example, a CPSC 

official said that in a hypothetical situation involving an appliance that 

poses a fire hazard, staff may first determine the number of incidents 

involving this product, the extent of injuries, the level of exposure, and the 

likelihood that exposure to this appliance will result in death or serious 

injury. To evaluate the hazard, CPSC would collect samples of the 

product in order to determine the source of the defect and gather market 

data, such as the useful life of the product and the number of products in 

the marketplace. As part of their assessment, CPSC would also consider 

whether other types of products may be subject to this type of hazard, 

potentially extending the time needed for the assessment.

CPSC evaluates some products, which it has identified through 

investigation and market surveillance, at CPSC’s National Product 

Testing and Evaluation Center.58 Integrated Product Teams’ evaluation 

and analysis of products being tested is generally geared toward 

improving standards or initiating rulemaking.59

 

58Products may include samples of new products on display at trade shows that CPSC 

staff attend, products detained at the ports for testing, or products involved in an incident. 

The testing center is 

staffed with engineers and scientists from the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Hazard Reduction, some of whom are members of the 

Integrated Product Teams. According to CPSC laboratory staff, many of 

59Based on the results of these and other assessments, the samples are stored because 

they could become evidentiary items to support CPSC’s position in legal proceedings. 

CPSC staff emphasized the importance of maintaining the samples’ chain of custody for 

evidentiary proceedings. 

Product Evaluation
 

Page 34 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

the samples at the testing center were imported products that CPSC 

intercepted at the ports before they were distributed into commerce.

During our tour of CPSC’s test facility, we observed, for example, several 

bunk beds being tested to ensure they did not pose an entrapment

hazard for children.60

Table 2: Examples of Different Types of Products Tested and Typical Time Frames 

to Perform Testing

We also observed an off-road stroller that was 

submitted for testing. The staff explained that the Integrated Product 

Team was testing this stroller for stability. As designed, the stroller had 

three wheels and posed a tip-over hazard. As noted in table 2, according 

to CPSC staff, the time needed to complete testing of regulated products 

varies. These times reflect typical duration to complete the tests once a 

sample is received by laboratory staff.

Product Regulation/Standard Typical time frame (days)

Toys Lead content

Small parts

Phthalates

1-4 

2-3 

3-5 

Children’s products Lead content

Phthalates

Bunk bed

Cribs

1-4 

3-5 

5-7 

5-10

Mattresses Open flame 3-5 

All-terrain vehicles Regulation 14-21

Fireworks Regulation 14-28

Sleepwear Flammability 18-21

Trampolines and enclosures Consensus Standard 30-45 

Pool and spa drain covers Regulation 40-60

Carbon monoxide alarms Consensus Standard 40-60

Electric space heater Consensus Standard 40-60

Source: CPSC.

Note: The durations listed are typical ranges for the specific product. Actual times may be shorter or 

longer depending on the scope of the testing that needs to be done. The time frames do not include 

time from collection or when follow-up determinations are executed after testing is completed. A 

consensus standard is also referred to as a voluntary standard. 

 

60According to CPSC staff, a bunk bed design that allows a child’s torso to pass through 

but not the head poses a head and neck entrapment hazard.
 

Page 35 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

The Office of Compliance and Field Operations relies on the expertise of 

the Emerging Hazards Team statisticians and other staff in the Office of 

Hazard Identification and Hazard Reduction to perform other safety 

assessments, such as database reviews and engineering file reviews. As 

part of this process, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations may 

request that the Emerging Hazards Team conduct a technical evaluation 

of a specific type of product, such as all gas appliances that showed a 

pattern of fire or explosion hazard. This assessment entails searching 

CPSC’s database for all incidents involving certain types of gas 

appliances with reports of gas leaks or fires using certain selection 

criteria. The Office of Compliance and Field Operations may also request 

that engineering staff review the full report from a manufacturer about a 

product and check the company’s information against CPSC’s database.

According to CPSC officials, the timeliness of completing a risk 

assessment varies. For example, the risk assessment process for a 

chemical substance may be completed in a matter of days if acceptable 

and valid toxicity and exposure data are readily available. CPSC is 

familiar with the hazard posed by lead and has developed a testing 

method that can be performed quickly. As a result, testing toys for 

compliance with lead content regulation can be completed within 1 to 4 

days, depending on whether the product can be tested using X-ray 

fluorescent equipment or requires traditional chemical analysis. In 

contrast, the risk assessment process of some chemical substances may 

take years to complete if CPSC needs to generate toxicity and exposure 

data through laboratory experiments. For example, in assessing the risk 

to children from playing on wood playground equipment treated with 

chromated copper arsenate (CCA), CPSC staff reviewed toxicity data and 

determined that there were insufficient data available on the exposure to 

arsenic from CCA-treated wood on which to base a recommendation to 

the Commission on the risk to children. As a result, CPSC staff designed 

and performed new laboratory and field studies to obtain exposure data to 

assess the health risk to children. CPSC began this project in 2001 and 

presented the results of its study to the Commission in 2003.61

 

61Based on the assumptions used in the risk assessment, the staff concluded that a young 

child who plays on such a structure during early childhood has an increased risk of 2 to 

100 per million of developing lung or bladder cancer during his or her lifetime.

 CPSC’s 

timeline for conducting other safety assessments varied from 4 hours to 

perform a consultation by a technical engineer on a hazard classified as a 

high priority (where the risk of death or grievous injury or illness is likely or 

Timeliness of Assessments 

Varies 
 

Page 36 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

very likely or serious risk of illness is very likely) to 8 weeks to test a 

product sample for a routine case identified as a hazard that is possible 

but not likely to occur.62

Furthermore, CPSC faces challenges assessing the risks associated with 

products manufactured using nanomaterials. In particular, the introduction 

of consumer products containing nanomaterials into the marketplace may 

require unique approaches to determine exposure and risk and poses 

new regulatory challenges for CPSC. According to CPSC’s statement on 

nanomaterial, the potential safety and health risks of nanomaterials, as 

well as other compounds that are incorporated into consumer products, 

can be assessed under existing CPSC statutes, regulations, and 

guidelines. However, because testing methods are still being developed, 

conducting its risk assessment of such products will take longer. Neither 

CPSA nor the Federal Hazardous Substances Act requires the premarket 

registration or approval of consumer products. Thus, CPSC would usually 

not evaluate the product’s potential risk to the public until a product 

containing nanomaterials has been distributed into commerce.

To address product-related hazards, CPSC uses various approaches 

designed to reduce injuries and deaths. CPSC’s enforcement role is 

based on its statutory authority to address unreasonable risks associated 

with consumer products. Based on CPSC’s documents, CPSC staff use 

investigations and assessments of product hazards to determine (1) 

whether corrective action is appropriate and (2) what type of actions may 

be appropriate to address potential risks of injury to the public. Before 

deciding to take action, CPSC must consider whether the risk is one that 

the Commission can address. For example, the blade of a kitchen knife 

can harm a consumer, but the sharpness of the knife, by design, is not a 

defect and the risk it poses cannot be addressed by CPSC’s actions. 

However, according to CPSC staff, if the handle of the knife breaks while 

the knife is in use and injures the consumer, CPSC would consider the 

product to be defective and the risk to be addressable.

 

62These timelines include testing product samples at the CPSC testing facility.

CPSC Uses Various 

Approaches to Address 

Product Hazards, but 

Faces Challenges in 

Addressing New Product 

Risks
 

Page 37 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC’s actions to address and reduce the risks of injury to consumers 

include the following.

• Compliance—conducting compliance activities, such as voluntary 

recalls and corrective actions, product bans, and enforcement of 

existing regulations by seeking civil and criminal penalties, and 

injunctive relief against prohibited acts.

63

• Standards—developing mandatory safety standards or participating in 

the voluntary standards process.

• Public Education—notifying the public of safety hazards and 

educating them about safe practices.

According to CPSC, its multifaceted approach is intended to not only 

address immediate problems but also future problems. For instance, 

CPSC identified fire pots used with gel fuel as an emerging hazard in 

June 2011, after a severe injury was reported (see fig. 3).64

 

63Under certain conditions cited in its statutes CPSC can apply to a district court to 

restrain the distribution of a product that the Commission believes is a substantial product 

hazard. 15 U.S.C §2064(g).

As of 

September 2011, CPSC was aware of 76 incidents involving fire pots 

used with gel fuel that resulted in two deaths and 86 injuries. CPSC 

reported that preliminary testing and evaluation of fire pots and gel fuels 

showed that they pose a serious risk of burn injuries to consumers due to 

certain features of the fire pot design, the burning and physical 

characteristics of the gel fuel, and the packaging of the gel fuel container. 

In the short term, CPSC worked with the individual manufacturers to 

recall the product. To address longer term concerns with the product, the 

agency is also working to develop mandatory standards to address risks 

associated with similar and future products. Between June and October 

2011, CPSC announced 12 voluntary recalls involving more than 2 million 

bottles of gel fuel. In December 2011, the Commission issued an 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to address the injuries 

and deaths associated with this product. As we previously reported, 

64Fire pots are portable, decorative lighting accents marketed for indoor and outdoor use. 

Gel fuel composed primarily of alcohol was designed to be used as fuel for fire pots. The 

gel fuel produced a clean-burning flame with no visible smoke or ash. They are usually 

sold as separate products but are often marketed for use together, and some companies 

manufacture both products. 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

according to CPSC, the time required for mandatory rulemaking varies 

depending on the complexity of the product or legal requirements for 

enacting the rules, the severity of the hazard, and other agency priorities, 

among other factors.65

 

65

For example, a legal expert told us that a 

mandatory rulemaking for cigarette lighters took 10 years from the 

decision to take action to final rule. CPSC also has been considering a 

mandatory rule to address the risk of fire associated with ignitions of 

upholstered furniture since 1994.

GAO-12-582. Interested parties generally have 60 days to comment on an ANPR and

75 days to comment on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. CPSIA contains some 

provisions designed to shorten the time frame for rulemaking, such as making an ANPR 

optional, though it may be issued when CPSC deems it a necessary part of rulemaking. 
 

Page 39 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Figure 3: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Fire pots and Gel Fuel, 2001 to 2012

a

Gel fuel for fireplaces has been available in single-use cans since the mid-1980s. 

b

An incident may include more than one death or injury. According to CPSC briefing to 

commissioners, the earliest incident known to staff occurred on April 3, 2010. In some cases, the 

incident is reported to CPSC days after it occurred, and in other cases, it has taken more than a year. 

Several incidents that occurred in 2010 were reported to CPSC in 2011. 

c

The purpose of the ANPR was to determine what voluntary or mandatory standards should be 

implemented, what, if any, changes should be made to labeling, and if the products should be banned 

or no regulatory action taken. 

d

According to CPSC, in fiscal year 2013 staff plan to review comments to the ANPR and develop 

performance criteria and test methods for a potential mandatory rule. In fiscal year 2014, CPSC plans 

to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking package for the Commission’s consideration. 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC’s statutory authority requires the Commission to rely on voluntary 

standards to build safety into consumer products if the Commission 

determines that compliance with a voluntary standard is likely to result in 

the elimination or adequate reduction of risk of injury identified and that 

there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard.66

If CPSC finds that a manufacturer’s product fails to comply with voluntary 

standards or presents a substantial product hazard, it can take an 

enforcement action, such as seeking a public notice or recall. When a 

recall is deemed necessary, the Office of Compliance and Field 

Operations negotiates with the responsible firm to seek a “voluntary” or a 

negotiated recall whenever possible. According to CPSC officials, if the 

firm does not cooperate, CPSC can seek to (1) issue a unilateral press 

release asking consumers to discontinue use of the product, (2) ask 

distributors and retailers to stop selling the unsafe products, (3) obtain 

injunctive relief, (4) file an administrative complaint before an 

administrative law judge to affirm its position, although this process can 

take several months or years to complete, or (5) pursue an action against 

the product and manufacturer under the imminent hazard provision of 

CPSA. CPSC staff told us that for each recall, the Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations works with the Office of Hazard Identification on a 

case-by-case basis to determine whether standards (voluntary or 

mandatory) need to be developed to address similar or future products. 

CPSC

officials told us that compliance with applicable voluntary standards would 

be one of many factors in the decision on whether an unregulated product 

is defective and poses a risk of injury, thus requiring corrective action. In 

addition to taking steps to ensure compliance, the agency may address 

the risk presented by unregulated products—that is, products not subject 

to mandatory standards—by recommending revisions to voluntary 

standards. However, having a voluntary standard that does not address 

the particular defect or hazard that is being examined can slow down the 

process of getting a corrective action. In some instances, the 

manufacturer may disagree with CPSC’s finding that a product can meet 

a voluntary standard but has a defect that creates a serious risk of injury 

or death. If the strategy to address a risk is to develop a voluntary 

standard, the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction will work to 

develop the standard.

 

66Consumer Product Safety Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-35, title XII-A, 95 Stat. 

357, 703 (1981), amending 15 U.S.C. §§ 2056 and 2058 and GAO-12-582. 

Reliance on Voluntary 

Standards
 

Page 41 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

In addition, CPSC can assess civil penalties if a manufacturer, distributor, 

or retailer knowingly fails to report potential substantial product hazards. 

CPSC has established the Fast-Track recall program, which provides 

firms the opportunity to streamline the recall process by removing 

hazardous products from the marketplace immediately. Under section 

15(b) of CPSA, if a company suspects that a product could be hazardous, 

the company must report it to CPSC. The Fast-Track recall program 

allows the company to propose a plan for an expedited recall. If CPSC 

considers the firm’s plan satisfactory—and finds no other cause for 

concern in its review—it approves the plan and works with the firm to 

expedite the recall to begin within 20 days of the initial report to CPSC. 

This program is intended to remove dangerous products from the 

marketplace faster and save the company and CPSC both time and 

money. While some industry representatives have questioned the 

timeliness of the Fast-Track program, CPSC stated that a number of 

factors could slow the process, such as delays in receiving information 

from the firm, delays in completing product safety assessments, or 

evaluation of the remedy being suggested. CPSC reported that in 2011 

staff completed technical reviews of hazardous products and initiated 

corrective actions within 20 days 95 percent of the time, thereby 

exceeding the Commission’s goals for initiating Fast-Track recalls by 5 

percent. Since August 1997, CPSC reported that it has used the FastTrack recall program to conduct 2,000 recalls on over approximately 200 

million products.

The timeliness of CPSC’s response to new and emerging hazards 

depends, in part, on the extent to which U.S. companies are motivated to 

quickly institute and enforce stringent product safety standards because 

selling products that cause injury or death can have negative impacts on 

their brands. In addition, the tort system in the United States—by 

exposing companies selling unsafe products to lawsuits—helps ensure 

that companies are motivated to comply with product safety standards. 

CPSC faces a trade-off between consumer protection and industry 

cooperation when deciding what actions to take, such as developing 

standards or banning a particular product, and whether industry selfregulation can be used to protect consumers. Balancing the interests of 

both consumers and industry participants adds complexity and affects the 

timeliness of CPSC’s response. If CPSC does not act quickly enough, a 

consumer may be harmed by using an unsafe product. However, if CPSC 

acts too quickly, it can be subject to lawsuits from companies that claim it 

has not presented sufficient evidence to prove a product hazard, which 

Improving Timeliness of 

CPSC’s Response
 

Page 42 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

could result in a reversal of its decision and any action taken against a 

company.

Although CPSC has broad regulatory powers, the agency’s efforts to 

address product hazards are also carried out using other methods, such 

as through consumer and manufacturer outreach. For example, CPSC 

can provide information to consumers on safety practices that can help 

prevent product-related accidents. These outreach efforts are carried out 

by the Office of Education, Global Outreach, and Small Business 

Ombudsman. This office’s primary responsibility is to coordinate and 

provide education and outreach activities to various domestic and 

international stakeholders. The office is also responsible for working with 

manufacturers to help build safety into their products to prevent 

dangerous products from ever entering the marketplace.

CPSC uses a range of communication strategies to inform the public 

about safety issues. This information is intended to help consumers make 

informed choices about the products they purchase and to educate 

consumers on how to use the products safely and to act quickly if they 

own a recalled product. According to CPSC, the Commission has had 

success in educating the public through increased use of social media to 

communicate safety messages and through targeted campaigns that aim 

to reach the most vulnerable populations affected by certain product 

hazards. Examples include the “Safe Sleep” and “Pool Safely” 

campaigns, which addressed risks associated with baby cribs, baby 

monitor cords and sleep positioners, and swimming pools and spas, 

respectively. CPSC posts recalls and press releases to its website in a 

format that allows television stations and other media to obtain 

information from CPSC’s website to post on their own websites. 

Consumers also have the option of accessing www.SaferProducts.gov or 

calling the CPSC hotline to ask questions about recalls or request safety 

information.

CPSC finds it challenging to address hazards posed by new products 

because first, the product defect or hazard must be identified; second, the 

associated risk must be assessed; and as noted earlier, it is harder to 

identify and assess the risk associated with new products when there is 

no historical data to assess. Furthermore, according to one agency 

official, because CPSC does not have authority to require pre-approval of 

products before they enter the U.S. market, CPSC cannot take action 

unless a product creates a risk of harm. Generally, new products are 

unregulated—that is, they are not subject to existing mandatory 

standards. To illustrate the challenge CPSC faces with addressing risks 

Other Efforts to Address Risks

Challenges in Addressing New 

Product Hazards
 

Page 43 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

associated with new products, an agency official cited an instance where 

the agency collected a handful of incident reports involving a new infant 

sleep product. They performed a hazard profile on the product but 

because there had been no injury associated with the product, CPSC 

could not make a good case to have the manufacturer remedy an 

identified potential problem. In instances where CPSC may identify a 

potential hazard before a product is introduced into commerce, the 

agency’s only action is to alert the manufacturer of the potential hazard or 

product defect.

Moreover, CPSC may not have prior experience with the potential hazard 

from a new consumer product and may need to take a number of actions 

to address a specific hazard, which can take years. For example, CPSC 

has recognized for several years that the ingestion of small magnets can 

pose a hazard for children. After 34 incidents were reported, 1 resulting in 

the death of a 20-month old child, and after investigating these incidents, 

CPSC issued a recall of children’s toys with magnets in March 2006. After 

further incidents of magnet ingestion were reported, CPSC issued an 

expanded recall in April 2007. From 2007 to 2008, CPSC worked with the 

toy industry and other stakeholders to develop a voluntary standard, 

which the Commission made mandatory in August 2009. However, highpowered magnet sets became available during 2008, with sales 

increasing in 2009. In February 2010, CPSC received its first report of an 

ingestion of high-powered magnets by a child. Although there was no 

injury associated with this magnet ingestion, CPSC noted that the product 

was inappropriately labeled for children and did not comply with the 

mandatory toy standards. In response, in May 2010, CPSC worked with 

one manufacturer to issue a voluntary recall due to the improper labeling. 

In December 2010, CPSC received another report of high-powered 

magnet ingestion by a child that required surgery. Because the 

circumstances differed from those of previous incidents, CPSC continued 

to track these incidents and conducted a follow-up investigation.67

 

67According to CPSC NEISS data from January 2009 to December 2011, the agency 

estimated 1,700 ingestion incidents of high-power magnets. 

In 

November 2011, CPSC and two manufacturers issued a public service 

announcement related to ingestion of magnets. CPSC continued to 

receive reports of incidents involving the ingestion of high-powered 

magnets. In 2012, the majority of manufacturers agreed to stop selling the 

product, but two manufacturers, one of which sold more than 70 percent 
 

Page 44 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

of the magnet sets purchased in the United States, did not. To address 

the hazard associated with the products remaining in the market, CPSC 

filed administrative actions against the companies in July and August 

2012.68

Figure 4: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Magnets, 2006 to 2012

On September 4, 2012, CPSC took further action and issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to prohibit high-powered magnet sets. The 

public comment period ended on November 19, 2012. See figure 4 for a 

timeline of CPSC’s actions in response to hazards associated with 

magnets.

 

68CPSC noted that legal action against a company is rarely taken and that this is the first 

administrative complaint filed by the agency since 2001. In October 2012, one of the 

companies decided to discontinue importing the high-powered magnet sets.
 

Page 45 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSC has broad authority for identifying, assessing, and addressing risks 

from unsafe consumer products. However, it faces challenges in 

identifying risks from new and emerging products largely because 

statutorily CPSC was established to respond to risks after products have 

been introduced into the U.S. market. Neither CPSA nor any other acts 

administered by CPSC require a premarket registration or approval of 

consumer products. Thus, CPSC does not evaluate a product’s potential 

risk to the public until a product is introduced into commerce. CPSC also 

faces challenges in identifying product risks in a timely manner because 

of the large quantity of information it must gather and manage. CPSC has 

taken steps to improve its responsiveness through better technology for 

identifying risks, more targeted surveillance of imported products, and a 

program for manufacturers to streamline the process for conducting 

recalls. CPSC’s efforts to improve its ability to identify unsafe products 

and target unsafe imported products through IT improvements are still 

under way, and the agency projects that they will be completed in 3 to 7 

years.

Because CPSC faces challenges in identifying and targeting unsafe 

products at import, it has attempted to update information-sharing 

agreements with its foreign counterparts, as Congress expected when it 

amended CPSA by including section 29(f). However, restrictive language 

in CPSA, as amended by CPSIA, has hindered CPSC’s ability to share 

certain information with its counterparts internationally. Therefore, the 

Commission has been unable to enter into any international agreements 

pursuant to section 29(f) because CPSC’s foreign counterparts will only 

share information under reciprocal terms that permit those foreign 

counterparts to make nonpublic information available to their own 

governing bodies or court systems. Based on our analysis of the statute, 

section 29(f) has not achieved the results expected by Congress when it 

enacted this provision and CPSC may benefit from having more flexibility 

to exchange information with its counterparts in other countries, which 

would help CPSC prevent unsafe products from entering the U.S. 

marketplace.

To better enable CPSC to target unsafe consumer products, Congress 

may wish to amend section 29(f) of CPSA to allow CPSC greater ability to 

enter into information-sharing agreements with its foreign counterparts 

that permit reciprocal terms on disclosure of nonpublic information.

Conclusion

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration
 

Page 46 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

We provided a draft of this report to CPSC for comment. In their written 

comments, reproduced in appendix III, CPSC supported our matter for 

congressional consideration and believed that it would benefit from 

having more flexibility to exchange information with its counterparts from 

other countries through agreements that permit reciprocal terms on 

disclosure of information. CPSC staff also provided technical comments 

that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees and the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC. The report 

also is 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 major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix IV.

Alicia Puente Cackley

Director

Financial Markets and 

Community Investment

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act requires GAO to analyze the 

potential safety risks associated with new and emerging consumer 

products, including chemicals and other materials used in their 

manufacture, taking into account the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission’s (CPSC) ability and authority to identify, assess, and 

address the risks of new and emerging consumer products in a timely 

manner and to keep abreast of the effects of these products on public 

health and safety. Our objectives were to evaluate the authority and 

ability of CPSC to (1) stay generally informed about new risks associated 

with consumer products and use available information to identify product 

hazards, and (2) assess and address new risks posed by consumer 

products in a timely manner.

To address these objectives, we reviewed the statutes and regulations 

that provide the basis for CPSC’s authorities related to protecting 

consumers from unreasonable risk of injury. We also examined guidance 

developed by CPSC that informs their approach to identifying, assessing, 

and addressing new and emerging risks, such as CPSC’s policy on 

establishing priorities for action by the Commission, guidance on riskrelated activities, and information-quality guidelines. In addition, we 

reviewed CPSC’s operating procedural manuals for coding incident 

reports into its data-management system and for assigning hazard codes 

to these reports, performance and accountability reports, strategic plans, 

budget operating plans, 2013 performance budget request, and annual 

reports. We reviewed existing information about CPSC data systems and 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data. Based on our 

review of documentation, we believe the data are reliable for our 

purposes. We also reviewed prior GAO reports on CPSC, risk 

assessment in the federal government, and nanotechnology, and 

consulted GAO’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government and Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool to 

assess CPSC’s policies and procedures. We also examined the chronic 

hazard guidelines based on the Federal Hazardous Substance Act that 

CPSC uses to assess a product’s potential health effects. In addition, we 

reviewed data on CPSC corrective actions. To assess CPSC’s timeliness 

in identifying, assessing, and addressing new and emerging risks, we 

examined the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Memorandum 

on Principles for Risk Analysis, OMB’s 2006 Proposed Risk Assessment 

Bulletin, and the National Research Council’s Review of OMB’s Proposed 

Risk Assessment Bulletin. We also reviewed CPSC’s performance goals 

and obtained data on its time frames for performing product safety 

assessments and testing at the National Product Testing and Evaluation 

Center.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

To assess CPSC’s authority to obtain and share information that could 

help identify new hazards posed by consumer products, we reviewed our 

prior work on CPSC’s authorities and legislation related to the agency.1

In addition to our document review, we interviewed CPSC officials and 

staff as well as all of CPSC’s current commissioners and the Chairman to 

understand the organizational structure and the roles and responsibilities 

of the offices involved in safety operations and data collection, as well as 

to gain their perspectives on CPSC’s ability and authority to identify, 

assess, and address new and emerging risks in a timely manner. We also 

interviewed national consumer and industry organizations and legal 

professionals and toured CPSC’s National Product Testing and 

Evaluation Center. At the center, we watched staff conduct flammability 

testing of a product and learned of other types of testing CPSC conducts 

such as chemical, combustion, and durability testing. We also observed, 

through CPSC staff’s illustration, the data-management system CPSC 

uses to code and screen incident data in order to identify and assess 

risks. Finally, through a demonstration of CPSC’s import targeting 

system, we viewed the type of information CPSC is using in piloting its 

target system to identify unsafe products at the ports.

In 

addition, we reviewed CPSC’s list of its collaborative efforts with other 

federal agencies to remain informed of new and emerging risks. We 

reviewed memorandums of understanding between CPSC and some of 

its foreign counterparts as well as information on risk management 

practices developed by other countries such as the European Union.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 

2012 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.

 

1

We previously have reported on CPSC’s authorities, and we discuss specific authorities 

as appropriate throughout this report. See GAO, Consumer Safety: Better Information and 

Planning Would Strengthen CPSC’s Oversight of Imported Products, GAO-09-803 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2009). 
Appendix II: CPSC’s and Other Agencies’ 

Coordinated Responses to Hazards Posed by 

Defective Chinese Drywall 

Page 49 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

When an emerging risk related to drywall (i.e., sheetrock used in 

construction) was identified in 2008 that crossed the jurisdiction of several 

federal agencies, CPSC took the lead in coordinating what the agency 

reported as the largest investigation in its history. CPSC participated in an 

intergovernmental task force with the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Department of Homeland 

Security.1 In 2008, CPSC was informed of a high level of hydrogen sulfide 

emissions in drywall made in China that was imported into the United 

States from 2001 through 2008. The bulk of the almost 4,000 complaints 

involved homes built in 2006 through 2007.2

 

1

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security participated in the investigation. 

A high level of hydrogen 

sulfide emissions is associated with metal corrosion, which can damage 

household appliances and electrical systems. CPSC performed testing 

and found the level of hydrogen sulfide emissions in Chinese drywall to 

be 100 times that of non-Chinese drywall. Some of the Chinese 

manufacturers were aware of the issue in 2006 but did not share the 

information with CPSC, as required. CPSC coordinated with EPA to 

conduct an elemental analysis on the components contained in Chinese 

and non-Chinese drywall, as well as develop a protocol for conducting airquality testing. CDC’s role was to assess health effects and develop a 

public awareness campaign. HUD’s role was to develop guidance for the 

identification and remediation of problem drywall in homes and provide 

grants to help in these efforts. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

worked to identify any imports of Chinese drywall. CPSC also worked 

closely with the Federal Council on Environmental Quality and the 

Domestic Policy Council. In addition, the Commission worked with state 

partners including state attorneys general and health departments. The 

timeline in figure 5 illustrates how CPSC addressed the emerging risk.

2

Complaints were received from 43 states, Washington, D.C., American Samoa, and 

Puerto Rico. 

Appendix II: CPSC’s and Other Agencies’ 

Coordinated Responses to Hazards Posed by 

Defective Chinese Drywall
Appendix II: CPSC’s and Other Agencies’ 

Coordinated Responses to Hazards Posed by 

Defective Chinese Drywall 

Page 50 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Figure 5: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Problem Drywall, 2008 to 2011
Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Page 51 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Appendix III: Comments from the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO-13-150 Consumer Product Safety Commission 

Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Debra Johnson (Assistant 

Director), Tim Bober, Christine Broderick, Marcia Crosse, Philip Curtin, 

DuEwa Kamara, Yola Lewis, Alexandra Martin-Arseneau, Marc Molino, 

Nadine Garrick Raidbard, Jessica Sandler, Jennifer Schwartz, Sushil 

Sharma, Andrew Stavisky, and Henry Wray made key contributions to 

this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(250659)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper.