United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade,

and Consumer Protection, Committee on Commerce,

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m.

Thursday, October 23, 1997

CONSUMER PRODUCT

SAFETY COMMISSION

Better Data Needed to Help

Identify and Analyze

Potential Hazards

Statement of Carlotta C. Joyner, Director

Education and Employment Issues 

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-98-23

Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Consumer

Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CPSC was created to protect consumers

from “unreasonable risk of injury,” and in doing so it oversees about

15,000 consumer products, ranging from kitchen appliances and children’s

toys to hot tubs and garage door openers. With a budget of about

$42.5 million, CPSC enforces existing federal consumer product regulations

and also develops agency projects to address products with a potential

hazard not covered by existing regulations.1

 These projects may result in

CPSC’s issuing new regulations concerning a specific product, assisting in

the development of voluntary industry standards, or providing information

to consumers about how to use a product safely.

Contending that the agency is ineffectively allocating its resources, some

industry representatives and other individuals have voiced dissatisfaction

with the agency’s selection of certain projects and have questioned the

validity of CPSC’s cost-benefit and risk assessment analyses supporting

those projects. Congressional and interest-group critics have also raised

concerns about the agency’s procedures for ensuring the accuracy of

manufacturer-specific information before it releases the information to the

public, maintaining that such releases can mar the reputation of

responsible corporations. In light of these concerns, you asked us to

discuss CPSC’s project selection, use of cost-benefit analysis and risk

assessment, and information release procedures. Today, we are also

releasing our report on CPSC, which covers these issues in more detail.2

To do our work, we reviewed internal CPSC documents, relevant

legislation, regulations, and legal cases, and the literature on cost-benefit

analysis and on consumer product safety issues. In addition, we

interviewed current and former CPSC commissioners, CPSC staff, consumer

advocates, industry representatives, and outside experts to obtain their

perspectives on CPSC’s work. We identified CPSC projects by compiling from

various agency documents a list of 115 potential product hazards

examined by the agency from January 1990 to September 30, 1996, and we

reviewed available agency documentation on each of these projects. We

1

Projects vary widely in scope, and CPSC has no standard definition of what constitutes a project. For

our review, we defined a “project” as work CPSC conducted on any specific consumer product that

was associated with a potential hazard or hazards not covered by existing regulation.

2

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Better Data Needed to Help Identity and Analyze Potential

Hazards (GAO/HEHS-97-147, Sept. 29, 1997).

Page 1 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

examined the agency’s internal databases to obtain project information

and assess the agency’s information on product hazards.

In summary, although CPSC has established criteria to help select new

projects, with the agency’s current data, these criteria can be measured

only imprecisely if at all. CPSC has described itself as “data driven,” but its

information on product-related deaths and injuries is often sketchy, and its

lack of systematized descriptive information on past or ongoing projects

makes it more difficult for agency management to monitor current

projects and to assess and prioritize the need for new projects in different

hazard areas. CPSC’s data are often insufficient to support rigorous

application of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In addition, the

cost-benefit analyses conducted by CPSC between 1990 and 1996 were

frequently not comprehensive, and the reports on these analyses were not

sufficiently detailed. We also found that CPSC has established procedures

to implement statutory requirements restricting the release of

manufacturer-specific information. Although industry representatives,

consumer advocates, and CPSC expressed differing views on the merits of

these restrictions, available evidence suggests that CPSC complies with

these statutory requirements.

Background CPSC was created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act (P.L.

92-573) to regulate consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of

injury, to assist consumers in using products safely, and to promote

research and investigation into product-related deaths, injuries, and

illnesses. CPSC currently has three commissioners, who are responsible for

establishing agency policy.3

 One of these commissioners is designated as

the chairman, who directs all the executive and administrative functions of

the agency.

In fiscal year 1997, CPSC carried out its broad mission with a budget of

about $42.5 million and a full-time-equivalent staff of 480. After adjusting

for inflation, the agency’s budget has decreased by about 60 percent since

1974. Similarly, CPSC’s current staffing level represents 43 percent fewer

positions as compared with the agency’s 1974 staff.

Although CPSC has broad regulatory powers, many of the agency’s efforts

are carried out using nonregulatory methods. For example, CPSC frequently

assists industry and private standard-setting groups in developing

3

The Consumer Product Safety Act provides for the appointment of five commissioners by the

President of the United States for staggered 7-year terms. However, since 1986, no more than three

commissioners have been in office at one time.

Page 2 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

voluntary product safety standards.4 CPSC also addresses product hazards

by providing information to consumers on safety practices that can help

prevent product-related accidents. In addition to its own efforts to

disseminate information, CPSC provides considerable amounts of

information in response to requests from the public.

CPSC Has Limited

Information Available

to Assist in Project

Selection

CPSC’s Project Selection

Process

CPSC’s resource base and extensive jurisdiction require the agency to select

among potential product hazards. New agency initiatives may come to

CPSC in several ways. First, any person may file a petition requesting CPSC

to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation. For example, CPSC’s cigarette

lighter project, which resulted in a new mandatory safety standard,

originated with a petition from an emergency room nurse. Second, CPSC

can receive a product hazard project from the Congress. The Congress

may require CPSC to study a wide-ranging product area (such as indoor air

quality) or impose a specific regulation (such as a mandatory safety

standard for garage door openers).5

 Third, CPSC commissioners and agency

staff can initiate projects or suggest areas to address.

CPSC has wide latitude over which potential product hazards it targets for

regulatory and nonregulatory action. Although the agency has little or no

discretion over projects mandated by the Congress, it can accept or reject

suggestions submitted by petition or proposed by agency staff. Of the 115

projects the agency worked on from January 1, 1990, to September 30,

1996, 59 percent were initiated by CPSC, 30 percent originated from a

petition, and about 11 percent resulted from congressional directives.

CPSC has established criteria for setting agency priorities and selecting

potential hazards to address. These criteria, which are incorporated in

agency regulations, include the following:

4

The 1981 amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Act require CPSC to defer to a voluntary

standard—rather than issue a mandatory regulation—if the Commission determines that the voluntary

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

voluntary standard.

5

This mandate was imposed in the Child Safety Protection Act (P.L. 103-267, June 16, 1994).

Page 3 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

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

• the severity of the injuries resulting from the hazard;

• addressability—that is, the extent to which the hazard is likely to be

reduced through CPSC action—agency regulations note that the cause of

the hazard 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 the costs and benefits to society resulting from

CPSC action;

• the unforeseen nature of the risk—that is, the degree to which consumers

are aware of the hazard and its consequences;

• the vulnerability of the population at risk—whether some individuals

(such as children) may be less able to recognize or escape from potential

hazards and therefore may require a relatively higher degree of protection;

• the probability of exposure to the product hazard—that is, the number of

consumers exposed to the potential hazard, or how likely it is that typical

consumers would be exposed to the hazard; and

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

Commissioners and staff may select projects on the basis of what they

believe are the most important factors. For example, the regulations do

not specify whether any criterion should be given more weight than the

others, nor that all criteria must be applied to every potential project. Our

interviews with present and former commissioners and our review of CPSC

briefing packages showed that three criteria—the number of deaths and

injuries, the cause of injuries, and the vulnerability of the population at

risk—were more strongly emphasized than the others. However, although

the commissioners and former commissioners we interviewed generally

agreed about which criteria they emphasized for project selection, they

expressed very different views on how some of these criteria should be

interpreted. For example, their opinions differed about choosing projects

on the basis of the cause of injuries. A major issue in this regard

concerned the appropriate level of protection the agency should be

responsible for providing when a product hazard results, at least in part,

from consumer behavior. Some current and former commissioners argued

that no intervention was warranted when consumer behavior contributed

to injuries; others were more willing to consider a regulatory approach in

these situations.

Page 4 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

Project Management

Information Was

Incomplete or Unavailable

Although CPSC conducts a number of projects annually, staff were unable

to give us a comprehensive list of projects the agency had worked on in

the 6-year period we examined. CPSC was also unable to verify the

completeness of the project list that we compiled from agency documents

and interviews with staff. According to CPSC staff, internal management

systems do not generally contain this information because most projects

are accounted for under either broad codes such as “children’s products”

or activity codes such as “investigations,” “product safety assessment,”

and “emerging problems.” In addition, CPSC staff told us that reliable

inferences about the characteristics of individual projects, their outcomes,

and the resources spent on them cannot be drawn from management

information systems because of limitations in the computer system and

because no consistent rule exists about how staff time in different

directorates is recorded to project codes. Without systematic and

comprehensive information on its past efforts, CPSC cannot fully assess

whether its projects overrepresent some hazard areas and therefore

agency resources might be more efficiently employed. In our report, we

recommend that the Chairman of CPSC direct agency staff to develop and

implement a project management tracking system to compile information

on current agency projects.

Significant Gaps Exist in

CPSC’s Data on All

Selection Criteria,

Including Product-Related

Injuries and Deaths

CPSC has developed a patchwork of independent data systems to provide

information on deaths and injuries associated with consumer products. To

estimate the number of injuries associated with specific consumer

products, CPSC gathers information from the emergency room records of a

nationally representative sample of 101 hospitals. CPSC also obtains

information on fatalities by purchasing a selected group of death

certificates from the states. Because neither emergency room nor death

certificate data provide detailed information on hazard patterns or causes

of injuries, CPSC also investigates selected incidents to obtain more

detailed information.

CPSC’s data give the agency only limited assistance in applying its project

selection criteria. Data on all CPSC’s project selection criteria suffer from

major limitations, as shown in table 1. In fact, none of the criteria are

supported by complete data that are available for most projects at the time

the project is selected.

Page 5 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

Table 1: CPSC’s Regulatory

Priority-Setting Criteria and Their

Major Limitations

Criterion Major limitations

Number of deaths Incomplete because not all certificates are gathered and not all

product-related incidents are noted on the certificates

Number of injuries Generally limited to injuries treated in emergency room,

excluding injuries treated in other settings

Severity of injuries Not representative of the severity of all injuries

Chronic illnesses Little systematic information

Predicted future

injuries

Questionable validity, given changes in medical care over time

Vulnerable

populations

Incomplete—information available only on age and not on other

vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities

Exposure Exposure surveys are time consuming and expensive, not done

for all projects, and done only after project is well under way

Addressability/

causation

Often impossible to make an informed judgment until project is

well under way; investigations are time consuming and expensive

Preliminary

cost-benefit analysis

Quality data are frequently not available; data from early stages

of project are of limited accuracy

CPSC staff identified four data-gathering areas as key concerns: (1) lack of

data on injuries treated in physicians’ offices and other settings outside the

emergency room; (2) lack of data that would identify chronic illnesses that

may be associated with consumer products; (3) sketchy information about

accident victims, which limits the ability to assess which hazards

disproportionately affect vulnerable populations; and (4) lack of data on

exposure to consumer products.

CPSC’s injury and death data allow at best an incomplete view—and at

worst a distorted one—of the incidents that result from consumer product

hazards. Product-related injuries may be treated in a variety of settings—a

hospital emergency room, a physician’s office, or an outpatient clinic, for

example. CPSC systematically collects information only on deaths and on

injuries treated in the emergency room; injuries treated in other settings

(such as physicians’ offices) are generally not represented in CPSC’s data.

Because CPSC’s data reveal only a portion of the injury picture, the agency

underestimates the total numbers of deaths and injuries associated with

any given consumer product. The extent of this undercount is unknown,

but it may be increasing; pressure to contain health care costs has led to

more injuries and illnesses being treated outside the hospital setting.6

 In

addition, CPSC’s incomplete injury information raises doubts about whether

the agency can reliably discern long-term trends in injuries. Trend

6

For example, according to the American Hospital Association, hospitalizations decreased by 5 percent

on a per capita basis between 1982 and 1994, while between 1983 and 1993 hospital outpatient clinics

saw a 53-percent increase in visits on a per capita basis.

Page 6 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

information is needed not only because it is a criterion for project

selection but also because it is important in evaluating the success of

CPSC’s injury reduction efforts and determining the need for possible

follow-up actions.

According to CPSC staff, identifying chronic illnesses associated with

consumer products is nearly impossible with CPSC’s current data. CPSC staff

stated that little is known about many chronic illness hazards that may be

associated with potentially dangerous substances, and even less

information is available about which consumer products may contain

these ingredients. Chronic illnesses are likely to be especially

underestimated in CPSC’s emergency room data, because they are

underrepresented among emergency room visits and because product

involvement is more difficult to ascertain. Similarly, consumer product

involvement is seldom recorded on death certificates in the case of

chronic illnesses.

Sketchy information about accident victims also limits CPSC’s ability to

assess which consumer product hazards have a disproportionate impact

on vulnerable populations. CPSC’s surveillance data systems provide

information only on the age of the victim; no systematic or comprehensive

information is available to determine whether a given hazard has a special

impact on other vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities. A

former commissioner told us that the lack of other demographic

information (such as race, income, and disability status) made it difficult

to know which subpopulations were predominantly affected by a

particular hazard. Another commissioner echoed this concern, adding that

such information would be useful in targeting public information

campaigns on certain hazards to those groups that need the information

most.

Although CPSC staff identified the need for additional exposure data as a

major concern, they also said that obtaining such information can be time

consuming and costly. Because exposure data are generally not included

in CPSC’s ongoing data collection efforts, exposure is assessed either not at

all or well after the project has started, precluding the use of exposure as

an effective criterion for project selection. Similarly, CPSC’s emergency

room and death certificate data give little information about the

circumstances of the incident. Therefore, CPSC staff follow up on a few

selected incidents to obtain additional details. These investigations may

include detailed interviews with victims and witnesses, police or fire

reports, photographs of the product and the accident site, laboratory

Page 7 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

testing of the product, and recreations of the incident. As with exposure

data, these investigations are not conducted for every project and are done

only after a project has been established. Thus, assessment of causation at

the project selection stage is unavoidably speculative.

We believe that improved information on each of these four areas is

necessary for CPSC to make informed decisions on potential agency

projects. However, we also recognize that such information may be costly

to obtain. In our report, we recommend that the Chairman of CPSC consult

with experts both within and outside the agency to prioritize CPSC’s needs

for additional data, investigate the feasibility and cost of alternative means

of obtaining these data, and design systems to collect and analyze this

information.

Better Data and

Methodology Are

Needed to Improve

CPSC’s Cost-Benefit

Analysis and Risk

Assessment

CPSC uses two analytical tools—risk assessment and cost-benefit

analysis—to assist in making decisions on regulatory and nonregulatory

methods to address potential hazards. Risk assessment involves estimating

the likelihood of an adverse event, such as injury or death. Cost-benefit

analysis details and compares the expected effects of a proposed

regulation or policy, including both the positive results (benefits) and the

negative consequences (costs). The Congress requires CPSC to perform

cost-benefit analyses before issuing certain regulations, and CPSC has

conducted cost-benefit analyses for these regulations and in other

situations in which such an analysis was not required by law. Because

most of the agency’s projects do not involve regulation, relatively few CPSC

projects conducted between January 1, 1990, and September 30, 1996,

were subject to these requirements. We identified 8 cost-benefit analyses

that CPSC performed in accordance with these requirements and an

additional 21 analyses that it conducted when it was not required.7

 Before

issuing certain regulations, CPSC is required to consider the degree and

nature of the risk of injury the regulation is designed to eliminate or

reduce. However, CPSC usually does not conduct a formal, numerical risk

assessment before issuing a regulation, and the law does not require it to

do so. We determined that CPSC conducted 24 risk assessments between

January 1, 1990, and September 30, 1996; only 4 of these were associated

with regulatory action.

Both risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis require extensive data.

CPSC’s data systems are frequently unable to adequately meet the extensive

7

In addition to the complete cost-benefit analyses, we identified an additional 23 cases in which some

information was provided on some economic benefits or costs.

Page 8 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

demands for information posed by risk assessment and cost-benefit

analysis. As a result, the agency’s estimates of risks, costs, and benefits are

less accurate because they reflect the substantial limitations of the

underlying data. For example, because CPSC’s data undercount the deaths

and injuries associated with particular consumer products, estimates of

risk—and the potential benefits of reducing that risk—appear smaller than

they actually are. However, CPSC’s data provide information only on

whether a product was involved in an accident, not whether the product

caused the accident. This can sometimes make the risks assessed by

CPSC—and the benefits of reducing those risks—appear greater.

The methodology used to conduct a cost-benefit analysis frequently

depends on the circumstances and the context of the analysis. For this

reason, there is no complete set of standards for evaluating the quality of

an individual cost-benefit analysis. However, the professional literature

offers some guidance for analysts, and certain specific elements are

frequently used to determine whether a given analysis meets a minimum

threshold of comprehensiveness and openness. For example, analysts

generally agree that all methodological choices and assumptions should be

detailed, all limitations pertaining to the data should be revealed, and

measures of uncertainty should be provided to allow the reader to take

into account the precision of the underlying data. Similarly, practitioners

generally call for sensitivity analysis, which enables the reader to

determine which assumptions, values, and parameters of the cost-benefit

analysis are most important to the conclusions.

Our review of all the cost-benefit analyses that CPSC conducted between

January 1, 1990, and October 31, 1996, showed that for six of eight

evaluation elements, CPSC’s analyses were not comprehensive and not

reported in sufficient detail (see table 2).8

 Specifically, CPSC provided

descriptive information on proposals and also provided information on a

variety of reasonable alternatives in almost 100 percent of cases. But in

only 17 percent of its analyses did CPSC provide any statistical information

on the precision of the underlying estimates. Similarly, when estimates are

based on a relatively small sample size, projections are generally not

considered reliable. But CPSC analysts cautioned the reader against

drawing conclusions on the basis of small sample data only 45 percent of

8

From our review of the cost-benefit literature, we developed a list of the elements that are frequently

used in evaluating cost-benefit analyses. Although we compared each of these elements with each of

CPSC’s analyses, not all elements were applicable to each case. For this reason, and to emphasize

those areas that we viewed as most critical, we reported only those results that related to key

elements, applied to the majority of CPSC’s analyses, and for which a determination was possible in all

or nearly all cases.

Page 9 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

the time. Furthermore, some of CPSC’s data sets have a known upward or

downward bias because of the way the data were constructed. For

example, when estimates of incidents are based only on investigated or

reported cases, two potential biases are likely to be introduced into the

analysis: (1) the estimates are likely to be biased downward by

nonreporting and (2) the incidents reported tend to be the more severe

ones. In only 53 percent of applicable cases did CPSC’s analysis inform the

reader of known limitations inherent in the data being used for

cost-benefit analysis.

Table 2: Evaluation of CPSC’s

Analyses Shows Problems in Several

Evaluation Elements

Evaluation element

Percentage

of CPSC’s

analyses

that were

consistent

with this

element

Provided descriptive information about a well-defined proposal 98

Addressed multiple alternatives 95

Reported measures of precision for underlying data 17

Cautioned reader about making inferences from data with a small sample

size 45

Reported known biases in underlying data 53

Provided any sensitivity analysis information 26

Included all important categories of benefits and costs 54

Considered risk-risk trade-offsa 49

aA “risk-risk” trade-off refers to an action to decrease a hazard’s risk that unintentionally increases

that or another risk.

We identified several other areas in which CPSC analyses could benefit

from improvement. For example, researchers agree that sensitivity

analysis should be incorporated in cost-benefit analyses. CPSC usually did

not provide sensitivity analysis information. In addition, only 54 percent of

CPSC analyses considered the full range of costs and benefits likely to

result from regulation. CPSC analysts frequently did not mention intangible

costs or benefits (costs or benefits that are difficult to quantify, such as

loss of consumer enjoyment) or potential indirect effects (such as changes

in the prices of related goods). CPSC also frequently excluded risk-risk

considerations from its evaluation of the costs and benefits of potential

actions. Sometimes actions taken to reduce one risk can unintentionally

increase that or another risk—such as when individuals take more or

Page 10 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

fewer precautions in response to a change in a product’s safety features.

For example, in establishing a standard for child-resistant packaging that

was also “senior-friendly,” CPSC considered that because child-resistant

medicine bottles can be difficult to open, a grandparent might leave the

cover off the bottle, creating an even greater risk than would exist with the

original cap. Although CPSC considered such factors in some cases, only

49 percent of its analyses reflected potential risk-risk trade-offs.

CPSC has not established internal procedures that require analysts to

conduct comprehensive analyses and report them in sufficient detail. For

example, according to CPSC staff, the agency has little written guidance

about what factors should be included in cost-benefit analyses, what

methodology should be used to incorporate these factors, and how the

results should be presented. Staff also told us that CPSC analyses are not

generally subject to external peer review. Such reviews can serve as an

important mechanism for enhancing the quality and credibility of the

analyses that are used to help make key agency decisions. In our report,

we recommend that the Chairman direct agency staff to develop and

implement procedures to ensure that all cost-benefit analyses performed

on behalf of CPSC are comprehensive and reported in sufficient detail,

including providing measures of precision for underlying data,

incorporating information on all important costs and benefits, and

performing sensitivity analysis.

CPSC Has Established

Procedures for

Complying With

Statutory

Requirements for

Releasing

Manufacturer-Specific

Information

To help minimize the possibility that a product might be unfairly

disparaged, in section 6(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, the

Congress imposed restrictions on CPSC’s disclosure of

manufacturer-specific information.9

 Before CPSC can release any

information that identifies a manufacturer,10 it must

• take “reasonable steps” to verify the accuracy of the information and to

ensure that disclosure is fair;

• notify the manufacturer that the information is subject to release; and

• give the manufacturer an opportunity to comment on the information.

9

An exception to these restrictions is given if CPSC has declared that the product is an “imminent

hazard” under section 12 of the Consumer Product Safety Act.

10These restrictions also apply even if the manufacturer is not named but the information would allow

the reader to readily identify the manufacturer from the context. For example, if there is only one

manufacturer of a product identified in the information, the information may be subject to restriction

even if the manufacturer’s name is not given.

Page 11 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

These restrictions apply not only to information the agency issues on its

own—such as a press release—but also to information disclosed in

response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Section 6(b)

also requires CPSC to establish procedures to ensure that releases of

information that reflect on the safety of a consumer product or class of

products are accurate and not misleading, regardless of whether the

information disclosed identifies a specific manufacturer.

In implementing section 6(b), CPSC established several procedures

designed to ensure compliance with these statutory requirements. These

include obtaining written verification from individuals of the information

they report to the agency, notifying manufacturers by certified mail when

manufacturer-specific information has been requested, and giving

manufacturers the option to have their comments published with any

information disclosed. For example, CPSC has issued clearance procedures

for situations when commissioners and staff initiate public

disclosures—for example, when CPSC publishes the results of agency

research. Under CPSC’s guidelines, each assistant or associate executive

director whose area of responsibility is involved must review the

information and indicate approval for the release in writing. After all other

reviews have been completed, the Office of the General Counsel must also

review and approve the release.

Information from three sources—industry sources, published legal cases,

and data on retractions—suggests that CPSC complies with its statutory

requirements concerning information release. Industry sources, even those

otherwise critical of the agency, told us that CPSC generally keeps

proprietary information confidential as required by law. Our review of

published legal decisions found no rulings that CPSC violated its statutory

requirements concerning the release of information. Retractions by CPSC

are also rare—only three retractions have been issued by CPSC since the

agency was established.11

Industry observers, CPSC staff, and consumer groups expressed a wide

range of opinions on the effectiveness of section 6(b). In response to our

inquiries, some CPSC commissioners and former commissioners said that

these restrictions serve a useful purpose and should not be changed.

However, CPSC’s current chairman, industry and advocacy group

representatives, and others expressed dissatisfaction with 6(b) and some

11Two of these retractions, in 1984 and 1994, were issued in response to requests from firms. A third

retraction, in 1990, was issued after CPSC discovered that a report in its public reading room had

mistakenly included inaccurate information.

Page 12 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

suggested possible changes. Although these individuals raised issues about

the extent of the protection afforded to manufacturers and the resources

necessary to ensure compliance, we did not assess whether the specific

suggestions were necessary or feasible.

CPSC’s chairman, other CPSC officials, former commissioners, and the

representative of a consumer advocacy group stated that compliance with

6(b) is costly for CPSC and delays the agency in getting information out to

the public. To reduce the burden of complying with these requirements,

CPSC staff have suggested that the notification requirement that gives

manufacturers 20 days in which to comment should apply only to the first

time information is released and that, instead of requiring CPSC to verify

information from consumer complaints, the agency should be allowed to

issue such information with an explicit disclaimer that CPSC has not

verified the consumer’s report.

Instead of reducing CPSC’s verification requirements, some industry

representatives suggested expanding them. These manufacturers stated

that before CPSC releases incident information, the agency should

substantiate it, rather than relying on a consumer’s testimony. Industry

representatives stated—and CPSC staff confirmed—that many of the

requests for CPSC information come from attorneys for plaintiffs in product

liability suits. As a result, some industry representatives expressed

concern that unsubstantiated consumer complaints could be used against

them in product liability litigation. They suggested that 6(b) should require

CPSC to substantiate all incident reports by investigating them before they

can be disclosed, instead of merely checking with the consumer. However,

CPSC officials told us that, because of limited resources,

investigations—which are time consuming and costly—can be conducted

only on a small proportion of specially selected cases.

Retailers’ representatives also suggested specific changes to CPSC’s

information release requirements. They said that retailers do not receive

timely notice of recalls because CPSC has interpreted the law to prohibit

advance notification of retailers. Consequently, the retailers said, they

sometimes receive notice of recalls at the same time as their customers

and have no time to prepare. Retailers’ representatives suggested

amending 6(b) to provide for 5 business days’ advance notice to retailers

before the public announcement of a recall. CPSC officials said that

typically manufacturers are, and should be, the ones to contact the

retailers and make all arrangements for a recall. Although they disagreed

on the need for a statutory change, both CPSC staff and a major retailers’

Page 13 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Consumer Product Safety Commission:

Better Data Needed to Help Identify and

Analyze Potential Hazards

association said they were trying to work out a more satisfactory

arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee might have.

(205358) Page 14 GAO/T-HEHS-98-23
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100