Consumer Product Safety Commission: Action Needed to Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products
Published: 2011-10-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In the wake of increased product recalls in 2007-2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). Among other things, CPSIA requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish a database on the safety of consumer products that is publicly available, searchable, and accessible through the CPSC Web site. In response, CPSC launched SaferProducts.gov in March 2011. The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 requires GAO to report on the data collected by CPSC in its safety information database. This report examines (1) the information required for submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the information used to identify the product and to allow CPSC to review manufacturer claims of material inaccuracy in a report of harm, and (3) the length of time CPSC takes to review a manufacturer's claim that a report contains materially inaccurate information. To do this work, GAO analyzed agency data, regulations, and CPSC program documentation and interviewed CPSC staff and various industry and consumer representatives.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To be eligible for publication on SaferProducts.gov, reports of harm involving a consumer product must contain several types of information, such as descriptions of the product and the associated harm. Reports may be submitted by consumers, government agencies, and health care professionals, among others. GAO's analysis of CPSC data as of July 7, 2011, showed that 38 percent of the 5,464 reports submitted to CPSC contained information that CPSIA requires for publication. Of these reports, 1,847 were published on SaferProducts.gov. Although not required, many submitters appear to have firsthand knowledge of the product--37 percent of published reports stated that the submitter was also the victim, and 24 percent stated that the victim was the child, spouse, parent, or other relative of the submitter. Also, most submitters provided their optional consent for CPSC to release their contact information to the manufacturer. Numeric information, such as a model number or serial number, can be helpful in identifying potentially unsafe products. However, this information is optional rather than required in a report of harm. Instead, submitters must only include a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as one within CPSC's jurisdiction. All manufacturers we spoke with considered the required information insufficient for identifying products in a report of harm. On August 12, 2011, a new law was signed containing a requirement for CPSC to attempt to obtain the model number or serial number, or a photograph of the product, from submitters who did not provide this information in a report of harm. To meet this requirement, CPSC must identify all reports of harm that do not contain either a model number or a serial number. However, CPSC does not currently analyze its data to identify reports of harm that contain this numeric information. Instead, its method of analysis combines numeric identifiers--model numbers or serial numbers--and less precise text entries, such as product descriptions or names. Furthermore, some submitters include model numbers and serial numbers in other database fields that CPSC does not include in its analysis. Unless CPSC strengthens its analytic methods to identify model numbers or serial numbers in a report of harm, it will likely not be able to identify all reports that require the agency to contact the submitter for more product information because it does not track all reports of harm missing such information. Prior to recent amendments to CPSIA, CPSC had 10 business days from its transmission of a report to the manufacturer in which to publish a report of harm (after the amendments, CPSC has up to 5 additional business days to publish a report when a claim of materially inaccurate information is made or when a report does not contain a model number or serial number). Most reports to which manufacturers responded that were published met the 10-day time frame. Of the 1,085 published reports of harm to which companies responded, 1,020 (94 percent) were published within 10 business days after CPSC notified the company that the report had been submitted. CPSC published 160 reports with claims of materially inaccurate information, and, of these reports, most were resolved and published within 10 business days. CPSC plans to conduct outreach to increase the number of manufacturers registered to receive electronic notifications to yield a more rapid response to its notifications.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To effectively implement the recent amendments to CPSIA, GAO recommends that CPSC strengthen the analytic methods used to identify product information in a report of harm. CPSC agreed with GAO's recommendation. The minority commissioners also raised a number of concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of the new database.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: A large number of consumer product recalls in 2007-2008 has led to  heightened scrutiny of consumer product safety regulation, and Congress  has considered the accessibility to the public of consumer complaints  submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). On  August 14, 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety  Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) to strengthen CPSC’s authority to  enforce safety standards and provide greater public access to product  safety information. Among other things, CPSIA requires CPSC to  establish a database of consumer products and other products and  substances regulated by the Commission that are reported to be unsafe.  The act requires that the database be publicly available, searchable, and  accessible through the CPSC Web site.
The CPSIA-mandated database—SaferProducts.gov—was launched on  March 11, 2011. Through this Web portal, consumers and others meeting  the statutory requirements may submit reports of harm or the risk of harm  from products and can search for information on products reported to be  unsafe that they own or may be considering for purchase. The CPSC  database also publishes manufacturers’ comments alongside reports of  harm if requested by the manufacturer. As CPSC was developing  SaferProducts.gov, some industry representatives raised concerns  regarding who would be eligible to submit reports of harm and whether  the submitter would be required to have first-hand knowledge of the  incident. Industry representatives also questioned whether the information  submitted to the database would be sufficient to identify the product or  determine the accuracy of the report of harm, although CPSC disclaims  any responsibility, as required by statute, to determine the accuracy of a  submitted report.
In the Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations  Act, 2011, Congress required that we report on data in CPSC’s safety  information database. In this report, we examine (1) the information  required for submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the  extent to which the information required for submitting a report of harm is  sufficient to identify the product and to allow CPSC to review a  manufacturer’s claim that a report of harm contains materially inaccurate  information (MII), and (3) the length of time CPSC takes to review and  resolve manufacturers’ claims of material inaccuracy in a report of harm.
To address these objectives, we reviewed statutory and regulatory  authority for the database and other program documentation, and we met  with cognizant CPSC officials to document CPSC requirements for  submitting a report of harm. Additionally, we obtained and analyzed  electronic data from CPSC’s safety information database to identify (a)  what type of individuals and entities are submitting reports of harm, (b)  what information is captured in the database, (c) the type of product  identification information included in reports, (d) reports that include  claims of material inaccuracy and the outcomes for these claims, (e) the  length of time manufacturers take to respond to a report of harm, and (f)  the length of time CPSC takes to resolve a claim of material inaccuracy.  We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic  testing, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system  that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable  about the data and related management controls. Based on this  assessment, we determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. In addition, we interviewed officials from national  consumer, industry, and legal organizations that provide counsel to  businesses regarding the CPSC database, as well as manufacturers that  have submitted claims of material inaccuracy. Finally, we reviewed  information on the content required for submitting complaints to other  consumer-driven databases such as SaferCar.gov, which is administered  by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).  See appendix I for additional information on our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to October 2011 in  San Francisco, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Washington, D.C., 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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  agencies—including NHTSA, Coast Guard, Department of Justice,  Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and  Environmental Protection Agency—have jurisdiction over these products.
As noted above, CPSC was required to create a publicly accessible,  searchable database of consumer product incident reports pursuant to  section 6A of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as amended by Section  212 of CPSIA. CPSIA set an 18-month deadline for the release of the  database. CPSC submitted the database implementation plan to  Congress in September 2009. CPSC published a final rule on the  database in the Federal Register on December 9, 2010. Prior to the  public release of SaferProducts.gov on March 11, 2011, CPSC held a  series of workshops for agency staff and held public outreach events,  including Web conferences designed for businesses and consumers on  the implementation of the online searchable consumer product safety  incident database. In addition, before launching SaferProducts.gov,  CPSC conducted an initial 6-week trial release available to interested  users for testing and feedback.
Through SaferProducts.gov, an individual or entity can submit a report  describing harm or risk of harm related to the use of consumer products  for review by other users. As required by CPSIA, the submitter of a  report of harm must fit into one of the following five categories:  2.  local, state, or federal government agencies;  3.  health care professionals;  4.  child service providers; and  5.  public safety entities.
Once CPSC receives a report of harm through SaferProducts.gov, it  reviews each report to determine if the submitter has included all the  information required by CPSIA for publication in the public database,  which is discussed in greater detail later. Reports that do not meet the  minimum criteria for publication in the database are reviewed by CPSC  staff and saved for internal use, and CPSC is not required to contact the  submitters for further information. After reviewing the report of harm,  CPSC then transmits a copy to manufacturers, importers, and private  labelers identified in reports, and these companies have the opportunity  to comment on them. CPSC transmits reports of harm electronically to  manufacturers and private labelers registered on SaferProducts.gov, and  others receive reports via postal mail. Qualifying reports and  manufacturer comments are published online at www.SaferProducts.gov  for anyone to search (see fig. 1). SaferProducts.gov allows the public to  review incident reports that were previously available to only CPSC  unless requested under the Freedom of Information Act, and view  manufacturers’ comments to reports of harm when manufacturers request  the publication of their comments.
section_title: For Reports That Meet Publication Requirements, Many Submitters Have Firsthand Knowledge and Provide Optional Contact Information
paragraphs: Once CPSC receives a report of harm, it determines whether the report is  eligible for publication on SaferProducts.gov. The report of harm is  eligible if the product described in the report is a consumer product under  the jurisdiction of CPSC and passes the “CPSIA check”—a term used by  CPSC to identify the process whereby staff review a report for required  submission criteria. CPSIA requires, at a minimum, that the submitter  include the following eight pieces of information when submitting a report  of harm: (1) description of the consumer product sufficient to distinguish  the product as a product or component part regulated by CPSC; (2)  identity of the manufacturer or private labeler by name; (3) description of  the harm related to use of the consumer product; (4) approximate or  actual date of the incident; (5) category of submitter; (6) submitter’s  contact information; (7) submitter’s verification that the information  contained therein is true and accurate; and (8) consent to publication of  the report of harm.
subsections: section_title: CPSC Determined That about One-Third of Reports of Harm Submitted Contained Required Information
paragraphs: Many reports of harm submitted to CPSC as of July 7, 2011, were  missing information required for publication on the Web site. Our analysis  of CPSC data showed that as of July 7, 2011, 5,464 reports of harm were  received by CPSC from eligible submitters. Of these reports of harm,  2,084 (38 percent) passed the CPSIA check, and 1,847 (34 percent) were  published on SaferProducts.gov. Consumers submitted almost all of the  reports—97 percent (1,786)—published on SaferProducts.gov (see table  1). The remaining reports were submitted by the other individuals and  entities eligible to make submissions to the database.
CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of  the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on  SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of  CPSC.
However, as stated above, CPSC does review each submitted report for  certain information required by Section 212 of CPSIA prior to publication.  When required information is missing from a report of harm and CPSC  deems the report ineligible for publication, it is not required to, and  generally does not, contact the submitter although the information is  retained in CPSC’s central database. Submitters may also opt to  provide information beyond that required by CPSIA in additional fields  available within the SaferProducts.gov Web form. For example, the  submitter can choose to provide their relationship to the victim, the model  or serial number of the reported product, and their consent to the release  of their contact information to the manufacturer or private labeler.
During the comment period for the regulation that governs submissions to  SaferProducts.gov and in interviews we conducted, industry  representatives stated that reports of harm would be more useful if  additional product identification information, such as model name or serial  number, were required. According to industry representatives, not  requiring this information may preclude manufacturers and private  labelers from properly identifying the product, which would make it difficult  for them to address the report of harm. However, according to CPSC, not  all consumers have access to such information, and requiring it for  publication may prevent submitters from filing reports of harm. Further,  not all products have numeric identifiers. Numeric product information is  discussed in greater detail later in this report.
section_title: At Least One-Third of Submitters Appear to Have Firsthand Knowledge, Citing Harm to Themselves
paragraphs: While the statute does not require individuals or entities submitting  reports of harm to have firsthand knowledge of the incident, and CPSC  does not ask submitters if they have such knowledge, 61 percent (1,128)  of submitters reported that the harm or risk of harm occurred to  themselves or a family member. Our analysis of CPSC data showed that  as of July 7, 2011, among published reports, 37 percent (680) of  submitters reported that they themselves were the victims of the reported  harm or risk of harm. Twenty-four percent (448) of submitters cited that  the victim was their child, spouse, parent, or other relative.
Industry representatives asserted that eligible submitters should be  limited to those who had personal experience with the product because  these individuals are able to provide the most accurate description of the  product associated with the injury or risk of injury. Further, two  manufacturers with whom we spoke explained that their ability to  investigate reports of harm is impacted by the quality of information about  the product and reported incident, and that only someone with firsthand  knowledge can provide adequate information.
While Congress required CPSC to include a disclaimer on  SaferProducts.gov, according to CPSC officials, it also established three  additional mechanisms to help control inaccuracies: (1) the option for  companies to respond to reports of harm that identify them as the  manufacturer or private labeler, (2) the ability of CPSC to remove material  inaccuracies, and (3) the attestation by submitters that the information  contained in the report of harm is accurate. Further, officials noted that  historically the agency has not required firsthand knowledge as a criterion  for reporting to the agency because such a requirement may prevent  individuals and entities with expertise in product safety, such as fire and  medical personnel, from filing incident reports, thereby impacting CPSC’s  ability to obtain consumer product safety data.
section_title: Most Submitters Provided Optional Consent for Manufacturer Contact
paragraphs: According to our analysis of CPSC data, as of July 7, 2011, 83 percent  (1,527) of the 1,847 submitters whose reports were published on  SaferProducts.gov included their optional consent to allow the  manufacturer or private labeler to contact them to discuss the report. Of  these reports, consumers were about five times more likely to include  their consent rather than disallow manufacturer contact (see table 2).
Industry representatives have raised concerns that companies are unable  to adequately investigate the reported incident without the submitter’s  contact information. Manufacturers with whom we spoke explained that  they are able to respond to an incident report more promptly when they  can contact the submitter in order to gather more information on the  product itself. For example, one manufacturer explained that when it  contacted the consumer, the manufacturer was able to determine where  the product was purchased and access previous warranty claims and  maintenance records—all of which allowed for a better understanding of  the reported incident and more thorough investigation of how the reported  product was involved.
While CPSC does not require that submitters provide consent to have the  manufacturer contact them, guidance on the report filing page of  SaferProducts.gov indicates that providing this optional consent may help  the manufacturer or private labeler to address the safety concern the  submitter has identified. According to CPSC officials, requiring submitters  to consent to the release of their contact information to manufacturers  could potentially limit the number of submissions of complaints and  therefore impact CPSC’s ability to identify emerging hazards. Further,  CPSC’s statutory manufacturer notification process gives companies the  opportunity to provide public comments to a report of harm in which they  are identified. According to CPSC officials, many manufacturer comments  have included a toll-free number and asked that submitters contact the  company directly in order to discuss the reported incident.
section_title: CPSC Has Generally Been Able to Identify Products and Resolve Inaccuracy Claims but Could More Fully Identify Numeric Product Information Provided
paragraphs: Specific, numeric identifying information for products, such as model  number or serial number, is optional rather than required for those  submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov. The  SaferProducts.gov Web form used for submitting a report contains fields  in which a submitter can provide numeric product information, but such  information is not required in order for CPSC to publish the report.  Instead, the only identification information required in a report is “a word  or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as a consumer product, a  component part of a consumer product, or a product or substance  regulated by the Commission.” In the 1,847 published reports we  reviewed, submitters included descriptions of the product in various fields,  including a field for numeric information and fields for a more general  description of the incident or product. Submitters also included a variety  of product information, such as the manufacturer and product name,  physical descriptions of the product, and numeric identifiers, including  model numbers and serial numbers. Some submitters chose to complete  fields in the Web form with descriptions of the product involved but no  specific numeric identifiers. Other submitters included model or serial  numbers but entered this information in fields other than those designated  for numeric information.
subsections: section_title: Majority of Reports of Harm Contain Numeric Identifiers, but CPSC Could Analyze This Information More Thoroughly
paragraphs: When we asked CPSC how many reports of harm contained model  numbers and serial numbers, it analyzed its data and reported to us that  model information or serial numbers appeared in 84 percent of reports of  harm published on SaferProducts.gov as of June 2011. However, CPSC’s  inclusion of “model information” may consist of numeric values, including  model number, as well as less specific text entries, such as product  descriptions or names. For example, in one report the submitter listed  only the phrase “cookie sheet, nonstick” in the model field, and in another  report, the submitter listed “bar table.” Our analysis of CPSC data showed  that out of 1,847 reports of harm published on SaferProducts.gov as of  July 7, 2011, 72 percent (1,339) contained specific numeric identifiers,  such as a model number or serial number, somewhere in the report.
According to CPSC, to conduct the analysis that resulted in its statement  that 84 percent of reports of harm contained model information or serial  numbers, it analyzed two fields in the database—model and serial  number. CPSC counted any entry in the model or serial number field— whether numeric or text—which resulted in its statistic of 84 percent.  However, we analyzed these fields, as well as additional fields in which  submitters at times entered numeric identifiers, and determined that 72  percent of reports contained numeric identifiers somewhere in the report.  Therefore, CPSC’s statistic of 84 percent reflects how many submitters  filled in the optional model or serial number fields, but it does not reflect  how many reports actually contain numeric identifiers.
Some industry representatives we spoke with have claimed that numeric  product information such as model numbers or serial numbers should be  required in all reports of harm in order to enable the product involved in  the reported incident to be accurately identified. When only a product  name or general description is provided, these industry representatives  note that it is not always possible for the manufacturer to determine which  version of the product was involved in the incident of harm, especially  when new versions of a given product may be released each year with no  change to the name of the product. We spoke with five manufacturers  that submitted MII claims, who all stated that numeric identifiers help their  companies identify the exact product included in a report of harm, further  investigate the submitter’s claim, and respond to the report. However,  according to CPSC, individuals submitting reports of harm may not have  access to numeric identifiers, such as the model number or serial  number. If CPSC were to require this information, it expects that it would  receive fewer reports of harm.
CPSC does not currently analyze its data to identify the number of reports  of harm that contain either model numbers or serial numbers. Instead its  method of analysis combines numeric identifiers—model or serial  numbers—and text entries. Furthermore, some submitters include model  and serial numbers in other database fields that CPSC does not include  in its analysis. As noted earlier, on August 12, 2011, a new law was  signed containing a requirement for CPSC to attempt to obtain the model  number or serial number from submitters who did not provide this  information in a report of harm. To determine which reports to follow up  on to fulfill this new requirement, CPSC must identify all reports of harm  that are missing model numbers or serial numbers. However, because  CPSC’s current analysis does not track this information accurately, CPSC  will likely not be able to identify all reports that require the agency to  contact the submitter for more product information.
section_title: Nearly All Claims of Inaccuracy Have Been Resolved, Although Two Industry Representatives Consider Aspects of the Process Burdensome for Manufacturers
paragraphs: A manufacturer may make a claim of material inaccuracy when it believes  the information in a report of harm is false or misleading and so  substantial as to affect a reasonable consumer’s decision making about a  product. The alleged false or misleading information may regard the  identification of a consumer product, manufacturer or private labeler,  harm or risk of harm related to the use of the product, or the date on  which the incident occurred. CPSC reviews MII claims for the following  information: a unique identifier of the report of harm, the specific disputed  sections of the report of harm, the basis for the allegation that the report  of harm is inaccurate, evidence of the inaccuracy (such as documents or  photographs), the type of relief requested (such as exclusion from the  database or redaction of a section of the report), alternatives for  correction other than removing the report from the database, and a  statement that the person submitting the MII claim is authorized to do so  by the manufacturer or private labeler.
After CPSC reviews an MII claim, it will resolve the claim in one of three  ways:    CPSC can disagree completely with the claim and reject it;    CPSC can agree completely with the claim and accept it; or    CPSC can partially agree with the claim and correct only part of the  report of harm or add information.
If CPSC accepts an MII claim in total or in part, it will remove, correct, or  add information in a report of harm indicating that information was added  by CPSC. According to our analysis of CPSC data, as of July 7, 2011,  manufacturers or private labelers had made 223 MII claims on reports of  harm submitted to SaferProducts.gov since the Web portal launch on  March 11, 2011. Of the 223 MII claims submitted, CPSC accepted 149  claims (67 percent). Many of the accepted claims were simple cases  where the wrong manufacturer of a product was identified in the report of  harm. Additionally, 18 of the MII claims (8 percent) were accepted in part,  and 43 MII claims (19 percent) were rejected.
Our review of MII claim data showed four common allegations made by  manufacturers to assert that a report of harm was materially inaccurate.  1.  Report did not identify the correct manufacturer. Among 149 accepted  MII claims, 119 accepted claims (80 percent) involved an inaccurately  identified manufacturer. 2.  Report did not describe a harm or risk of harm from a product.
Specifically, 14 accepted MII claims stated that the submitter had not  asserted a risk or incident of harm. For example, one report described  a garden tractor that would stop operating when in use. However, the  submitter did not describe a risk or incident of harm. 3.  The report did not show that the product was the source of the  problem. Specifically, five accepted MII claims stated that the  evidence in the report of harm did not show that the product was the  source of the problem. For example, in one report of harm a service  technician found that a loose gas pipe leading to a stove caused a  gas leak rather than the stove itself, which was identified by the  submitter as the source of the problem. 4.  The report involved a product that was outside of CPSC’s jurisdiction.
Specifically, four accepted MII claims made this assertion. For  example, an over-the-counter drug product was the subject of one  report and the manufacturer claimed, and CPSC acknowledged, that  this was not within CPSC’s jurisdiction.
For 35 of the 43 rejected MII claims, CPSC determined that the  manufacturer had failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate that  the information in the report of harm was inaccurate. However,  manufacturers can submit additional MII claims with more information to  meet the burden of proof. The reasons for the rejections for the remaining  eight claims included duplicate claims and a determination by CPSC that  an importer that sought to have its name removed from reports of harm  was indeed a valid responsible party.
According to two industry representatives, completing the documentation  required for the submission of an MII claim is difficult for manufacturers  because CPSC requires a high burden of proof by specifying that the  false or misleading information must be so substantial as to affect a  reasonable consumer’s decision making. According to these observers,  an MII claim submission often requires legal assistance, which small or  mid-sized companies may not have the means to access. However,  according to two manufacturers that have submitted MII claims, the  process is not difficult if the disputed information is limited and clear, and  it is easier than submitting additional paper submissions under the  process used before the creation of the online database. For example,  when one of these manufacturers submitted claims that the consumer  product in the report of harm was not made by the company, the  manufacturer did not find it difficult to provide CPSC with the required  information. One manufacturer suggested that for more complex MII  claims, it may take more time and effort to gather evidence to support the  claim. For example, a claim that the company’s product was not the  cause of the incident of harm may require more research and  documentation than other claims. In such a case, a manufacturer may, for  example, try to obtain the product from the consumer and have a  laboratory test the product to determine whether it could have been the  cause of the incident. Gathering evidence to prove that a company’s  product was not the cause of the harm could be time-consuming and  costly, according to this manufacturer.
section_title: Most Reports with MII Claims Were Published within the Mandated Time Frame
paragraphs: Our analysis of CPSC data, as of July 7, 2011, showed that  manufacturers and private labelers responded to 1,335 reports of harm  with a general comment, claim of confidential information, or claim of  materially inaccurate information. CPSC published 1,085 of these reports  of harm with responses on SaferProducts.gov, and 94 percent of these  (1,020) were published within 10 business days of CPSC’s having notified  the company that a report of harm had been submitted. During the  period of our analysis, CPSC was statutorily required to send reports of  harm that met the criteria set forth in CPSIA to the manufacturer or  private labeler identified in the report and publish it on SaferProducts.gov  within 10 business days (see fig. 2) from that notification date. Once  CPSC sends the report to the manufacturer or private labeler, the  company can provide comments or dispute information in the report. The  company may respond to the report of harm in three ways: (1) with a  general comment, (2) with a claim that the report reveals confidential  business information, or (3) with a claim that the information is materially  inaccurate (referred to as an MII claim), as previously discussed.
During the period of our analysis, CPSC had until the tenth business day  from the date it notified the company of the report of harm to receive and  review the manufacturer’s response and determine whether to publish the  report. According to CPSC officials, as of June 2011 about 2,500  manufacturers were registered to receive reports of harm. As of July 7,  2011, our analysis of CPSC data showed that of the 1,085 reports of  harm with manufacturer responses that CPSC had published, 923 were  reports of harm with general comments, 160 were MII claims, and 2 were  claims of confidential business information. If the manufacturer or private  labeler requested publication of the general comment, CPSC included the  comment with the report of harm when published on SaferProducts.gov.  Claims of confidential business information and MII, however, are not  published with the report of harm.
To address concerns about the time allowed to respond to claims of  harm, Congress passed amendments to CPSIA to allow for a 15 business  day publication time frame from the time CPSC transmits a report of harm  to the manufacturer or private labeler in certain situations (when an MII  claim is made or the report does not contain a model number or serial  number), during which CPSC reviews any response the company submits  and determines whether or not to publish the report on  SaferProducts.gov. Industry representatives and manufacturers with  whom we spoke had raised concerns about the length of time companies  have to respond to a report of harm before it is published. Many  suggested that the 10 business day time frame from manufacturer  notification of the report of harm to publication of the report on  SaferProducts.gov, during the period of our analysis, was too short,  particularly for reports of harm that may contain materially inaccurate  information. They explained that 10 business days is insufficient to  adequately investigate how the consumer product identified in the report  of harm may have been involved in the harm or risk of harm described by  the submitter. Some manufacturers and industry representatives noted  that a company’s reputation may be damaged when a report of harm is  published on SaferProducts.gov prior to CPSC’s resolution of an MII  claim from the company identified in the report.
Although industry representatives expressed concerns about not being  able to respond to a report of harm with an MII claim before CPSC  publishes the report on SaferProducts.gov, our analysis showed that  CPSC resolved and published most reports of harm to which companies  submitted MII claims within the 10 business day time frame. For example,  as of July 7, 2011, of the 223 MII claims CPSC received, it published 160  associated reports of harm. Of these, CPSC published 145 reports with  MII claims on SaferProducts.gov within 10 business days after notifying  the company of the initial report. CPSC resolved 133 (92 percent) of the  145 MII claims 10 business days or less after manufacturer notification.  Of these, CPSC accepted 91 MII claims, partially accepted 13, and  rejected 29 MII claims within the 10-day time frame (see table 3).
The statutory change allowing CPSC 15 business days from the date that  it notifies a company of a report of harm to publish it gives companies  more time than previously allotted to respond to reports and gives CPSC  additional time to resolve the company’s response before publication in  certain situations (such as when a claim of materially inaccurate  information is made, or when the report does not contain a model number  or serial number). Had the 15 business day statutory time frame been in  place, CPSC would have resolved all but two reports with MII claims  within this mandated publication time frame. As noted in table 3, CPSC  did not resolve 12 of the 145 reports of harm with MII claims before  posting them on SaferProducts.gov within the 10 business day time  frame. Specifically, 10 of these reports were resolved within 11 to15  business days from the date on which the company was notified, and 2  reports were resolved 16 days or longer from notification (see table 3).
Additionally, according to our discussions with CPSC staff, it can resolve  a company’s MII claim more quickly using an electronic notification  method to transmit the report of harm to the manufacturers or private  labelers registered with SaferProducts.gov than using postal notification  for those companies not registered. As previously noted, companies that  have registered on the business portal of SaferProducts.gov receive the  report of harm from CPSC via electronic transmittal. Our analysis of  CPSC data as of July 7, 2011, showed that CPSC electronically  transmitted 87 percent of reports of harm to manufacturers and private  labelers. According to CPSC officials, the agency plans to conduct  outreach to businesses to increase the number of manufacturers and  private labelers registered to receive electronic notifications.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Data collected through SaferProducts.gov could enhance CPSC’s broader  efforts to identify consumer product safety risks and unsafe consumer  products in the marketplace. Therefore, the ability to accurately identify a  product in a report of harm is an important aspect of the usefulness of the  database to CPSC and to other users, such as consumers and  manufacturers. During the development of SaferProducts.gov and the  rulemaking process for the regulation that governs the safety information  database, industry representatives questioned whether numeric product  identification information collected in reports of harm by CPSC should be  required rather than optional. CPSC reported that a high percentage of  reports of harm published as of June 2011 contained model information or  serial numbers. However, we found that CPSC’s analysis grouped reports  containing specific numeric identifiers with reports containing only text  descriptions, from which it could be difficult to identify the product, while at  the same time potentially overlooking numeric product information in other  fields. While the model and/or serial numbers remain optional information  for the submitter to include, under the recent amendments to CPSIA,  CPSC now must contact submitters who did not report a model number or  serial number to attempt to obtain this information, or a photograph of the  product, before sending the report of harm to the manufacturer for  comment. Unless CPSC strengthens the analytic methods used to identify  reports with missing model numbers or serial numbers, it will not be able to  identify all reports that require the agency to contact the submitter for more  product information because it currently does not track all reports of harm  missing such information.
section_title: Recommendation for Agency Action
paragraphs: To effectively implement the recent amendments to CPSIA, we  recommend that CPSC enhance the analytic methods it uses to identify  product information in a report of harm, such as by verifying whether the  model field in its data contains a number (versus a text response, which  would not meet the statutory requirement) or by searching for model  numbers or serial numbers that may be listed in other fields.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to CPSC for review and comment. The  commissioners provided written comments in two separate response  letters—one from a majority of commissioners, and one from a minority of  commissioners—that are presented in appendices II and III. In both  response letters, CPSC’s five commissioners agreed with our  recommendation and noted that we undertook a rigorous assessment of  the data collected via SaferProducts.gov. In the majority letter, three  commissioners described actions underway to help CPSC meet our  recommendation and the requirement in the August 2011 amendment to  CPSIA that it contact submitters that have not included a model number or  serial number in the report of harm to attempt to obtain that information or a  photograph of the product. The minority commissioners do not believe that  the Commission’s actions to date have adequately addressed GAO’s  concerns. We have not verified CPSC’s actions and plan to follow up on  our recommendation during our mandated review of CPSC’s database.
In a separate letter, the two minority commissioners raised additional  concerns about the information contained in the CPSC database and  suggested further analyses. In the first instance, the minority  commissioners wanted to better understand why only slightly more than a  third of all incidents were reported with firsthand knowledge of the  incident. We report this fact, but also acknowledge that an additional 24  percent of submitters stated that the victim was the child, spouse, parent,  or other relative of the submitter. We analyzed the data to determine who  submitted the 5,464 reports from March 11, 2011, through July 7, 2011.  During our review, we met with various consumer groups and others that  use the database. In designing our next mandated study, we will consider  the feasibility of contacting individual submitters about reported incidents.
The minority commissioners also wanted to clarify the statistic that 97  percent of the reports of harm published on SaferProducts.gov were  submitted by consumers. Submitters designate themselves as consumers  or another type of submitter when they complete a report of harm. In our  report, we noted how the CPSC had defined the submitter category of  “consumer” in the regulation. However, in our analysis, we do not use the  designation of “consumer” to determine whether or not someone has  firsthand knowledge of the reported incident. We found that at least one- third of submitters reported that they were the victims of the incident in  the report of harm. As noted above, 24 percent said that the victim was  their child, spouse, parent, or other relative.
The minority commissioners also raised issues concerning the resources  required of CPSC to recover additional information to resolve questions of  public safety and material inaccuracy. The letter suggested that GAO could  provide valuable insights regarding contact information in reports of harm  and the number of manufacturers that lack enough information to make a  claim of material inaccuracy. We determined that 83 percent of published  reports contained the submitter’s consent to allow CPSC to provide contact  information to manufacturers. As noted in the report, under the  amendments to CPSIA, CPSC must now contact consumers when certain  information is absent from the report to attempt to obtain additional  information that should help manufacturers and CPSC better identify  unsafe products. In addition, CPSC told us that it plans to conduct outreach  to manufacturers to encourage them to register to use the new database.
Finally, the minority commissioners question the usability of the new  consumer database. They also asked whether GAO believes the current  system can handle the growing number of incidents and the new  information technology components planned to be added in the near  future. As previously mentioned, CPSIA requires that we conduct an  additional study to analyze the utility of the safety information database,  including assessing the use of the database by consumers and efforts by  CPSC to inform the public of the database, and making recommendations  for measures to increase the use of the database by consumers and a  broad range of the public. We will consider these concerns in designing  this forthcoming study, which is to be submitted to congressional  committees within 2 years of the establishment of the database by CPSC.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC. In addition,  the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members 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 III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The reporting objectives were to examine (1) the information required for  submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the extent to which  the information required for submitting a report of harm is sufficient to  identify the product and to allow CPSC to review a manufacturer’s claim  that a report of harm contains materially inaccurate information, and (3)  the length of time CPSC takes to review and resolve manufacturers’  claims of material inaccuracy in a report of harm.
To address the first objective, we obtained and analyzed electronic data  collected by CPSC through SaferProducts.gov. To determine how many  reports of harm were submitted by the statutory categories of submitters,  we analyzed the electronic data extract that CPSC provided as of July 7,  2011. We found that 5,464 reports of harm were submitted to  SaferProducts.gov by the five categories of submitters eligible to file a  report of harm—(1) consumers; (2) local, state, or federal government  agencies; (3) health care professionals; (4) child service providers; and  (5) public safety entities. We then analyzed relevant data fields in order to  determine how many of these submitted reports contained the information  required for publication on SaferProducts.gov. We found that 2,084  contained the required information. Some of these CPSIA-eligible reports  were not listed as published at the time we obtained our data extract  because, according to CPSC, they were still within the 10-day window to  allow for manufacturer response. Additionally, CPSC explained that for  some reports of harm eligible under the Consumer Product Safety  Information Act of 2008 (CPSIA), it may have accepted a claim of material  inaccuracy and decided not to publish the report. We determined that  1,847 CPSIA-eligible reports of harm were published. Of these, we  reviewed relevant data fields to determine how many submitters opted to  provide additional information, such whether they or a family member  were the victim (1,128 submitters) and consent to manufacturer contact  (1,527 submitters). We did not determine whether those submitters who  reported that a family member was the victim had firsthand knowledge of  the incident of harm. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1)  performing electronic testing, (2) reviewing existing information about the  data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency  officials knowledgeable about the data and related management controls.  Based on this assessment, we determined these data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report.
We also reviewed CPSIA and the safety information database regulation  to determine the eligibility criteria for submitting a report of harm to  SaferProducts.gov, including eight types of required information. We  discussed these requirements with CPSC officials and requested  electronic data from SaferProducts.gov in order to identify the reports of  harm that contained required and optional information, and to ascertain  who submitted these reports. We obtained documentary evidence from  CPSC to understand their review process from the time a report of harm  is submitted to SaferProducts.gov through publication.
Further, we researched other federal government agency Web sites that  have been established for consumer-driven complaints. We determined  that the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA)  administers a searchable, public consumer-complaint database— SaferCar.gov—that is most comparable to CPSC’s SaferProducts.gov.  We met with NHTSA officials to obtain documentary and testimonial  evidence to determine who submits incident reports of harm, the required  information for publication, and optional information that submitters may  provide. Finally, we interviewed industry representatives, including trade  associations and legal counsel to manufacturers and private labelers, as  well as consumer groups, in order to obtain their views on the eligibility  and publication requirements for reports of harm on SaferProducts.gov.
To address the second objective, we reviewed CPSIA and the safety  information database regulation to determine (1) the type of information  required in a report of harm to identify the consumer product and (2)  CPSC’s process to review claims of material inaccuracy. We discussed  these requirements with CPSC officials. To determine how many reports  of harm contained product identification information, particularly such  numeric identifiers as model number or serial number, we obtained and  analyzed electronic data from CPSC’s safety information database. We  reviewed the database fields provided and determined that submitters  had entered numeric product identifiers in four database fields: incident  narrative, product description, model, and serial number. We reviewed  each of these four fields for 1,847 reports of harm published on  SaferProducts.gov and counted each numeric identifier provided in any of  these fields to determine how many reports of harm contained numeric  product identifiers somewhere in the report. We obtained documentary  and testimonial information from CPSC officials to determine how the  agency developed its statistic that, as of June 2011, 84 percent of reports  of harm contained model information or serial numbers. To examine how  the agency resolved claims of material inaccuracy, including how many  MII claims were accepted, accepted-in-part, or rejected, we analyzed a  data field from the safety information database that contained this  information. To obtain the perspectives of industry and consumer groups  regarding required and optional product identification information in a  report of harm and CPSC’s process for reviewing and resolving MII  claims, we conducted interviews with associations of manufacturers and  retailers, attorneys that counsel these groups and individual companies,  consumer advocacy groups, and individual companies that submitted MII  claims. For the latter group, we reviewed CPSC’s list of MII claims and  randomly selected two companies with accepted MII claims, two  companies with MII claims that were accepted-in-part, and two  companies with rejected MII claims. Five of these companies responded  affirmatively to our request for an interview, and one did not respond.
To address the third objective, we reviewed CPSIA and the safety  information database regulation to determine (1) the procedural  requirements for transmission of reports of harm to the identified  manufacturer or private labeler within the statutory 10 business day time  frame and (2) CPSC’s review time of MII claims from manufacturers and  private labelers. We discussed these requirements with CPSC officials  and requested electronic data and documentary evidence from  SaferProducts.gov in order to identify the reports of harm that were  transmitted to the manufacturer or private labeler, and, of these reports,  those manufacturer comments that CPSC reviewed and determined  whether to publish by the tenth business day. To determine the number  reports of harm to which companies responded, we analyzed the  electronic data extract that CPSC provided as of July 7, 2011. We found  that CPSC published 1,020 reports of harm to which manufacturers or  private labelers responded with general comments, claims of confidential  business information, and MII claims on SaferProducts.gov within the 10  business day statutory time frame.
We also analyzed the electronic data extract that CPSC provided as of  July 7, 2011, to determine the number of MII claims that CPSC received  from companies. We found that CPSC published 145 reports of harm with  MII claims within the 10 business day statutory time frame, and resolved  133 of these claims during this period. While we conducted our audit  work, Congress passed amendments to CPSIA, which were signed on  August 12, 2011, to extend the 10 business day statutory time frame to  15-business days. Our analysis showed that CPSC would have resolved  all but 2 of the reports of harm with MII claims within the statutory time  frame for publication had the new 15 business day time frame been in  place. As noted previously, we assessed the reliability of these data by  (1) performing electronic testing, (2) reviewing existing information about  the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency  officials knowledgeable about the data and related management controls.  Based on this assessment, we determined the data to be sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, to address the third  objective, we obtained testimonial information about this process from  manufacturers and private labelers, as well as legal counsel to companies  that have submitted claims of material inaccuracy.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to October 2011 in  San Francisco, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Washington, D.C., 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Majority Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Minority Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Debra Johnson, Assistant  Director; Farah Angersola; Marc Molino; Patricia Moye; Linda Rego;  Jennifer Schwartz; Andrew Stavisky; Vanessa Taylor; and Julie Trinder  made major contributions to this report.