This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-30 
entitled 'Consumer Product Safety Commission: Action Needed to 
Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products' which was 
released on October 12, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

October 2011: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

Action Needed to Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe 
Products: 

GAO-12-30: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-30, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

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. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-30] or key 
components. For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at 
(202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

For Reports That Meet Publication Requirements, Many Submitters Have 
Firsthand Knowledge and Provide Optional Contact Information: 

CPSC Has Generally Been Able to Identify Products and Resolve 
Inaccuracy Claims but Could More Fully Identify Numeric Product 
Information Provided: 

Most Reports with MII Claims Were Published within the Mandated Time 
Frame: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Majority Commissioners of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Minority Commissioners of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Published Reports of Harm by Type of Submitter, as of July 7, 
2011: 

Table 2: Submitters of Published Reports Who Provided or Did Not 
Provide Consent to Release of Their Contact Information to the 
Manufacturer, as of July 7, 2011: 

Table 3: CPSC's Resolution of MII Claims to Reports of Harm Published 
within 10-Day CPSIA Time Frame, as of July 7, 2011: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: CPSC's Electronic Process for Publishing a Report of Harm 
Submitted Through SaferProducts.gov: 

Figure 2: CPSC's Review Process for Publishing Reports of Harm, as of 
July 7, 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

CPSA: Consumer Product Safety Act: 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

CPSIA: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008: 

MII: materially inaccurate information: 

NHTSA: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

October 12, 2011: 

The Honorable Richard Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jerry Moran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable José E. Serrano: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

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.[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 
2] 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.[Footnote 3] 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[Footnote 4].: 

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.[Footnote 5] 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. 

Background: 

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.[Footnote 6] 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.[Footnote 7] 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.[Footnote 8] As required by CPSIA, 
the submitter of a report of harm must fit into one of the following 
five categories: 

1. consumers; 

2. local, state, or federal government agencies; 

3. health care professionals; 

4. child service providers; and: 

5. public safety entities.[Footnote 9] 

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.[Footnote 10] 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 
figure 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. 

Figure 1: CPSC's Electronic Process for Publishing a Report of Harm 
Submitted Through SaferProducts.gov: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Submitter: SaferProducts.gov public portal: 

Submitter enters information in all eight required data fields, and 
any additional (optional) information; 

Consumers can also search the public database to look for prior safety 
issues for a specific consumer product. 

Report of Harm: to CPSC. 

CPSC: Required fields of information missing (report stored and not 
published) to Cental repository. 

CPSC: Eight required fields of information verified: to Manufacturer. 
Manufacturer’s response(s): 
* General comment; 
* Confidential Business Information claim; 
* Materially Inaccurate Information (MII) claim. 
Optional response using business portal (see figure 2): to CPSC. 

CPSC makes a determination whether to publish the report of harm, 
including the manufacturer's comment, on SaferProducts.gov. 

CPSC publishes the report on SaferProducts.gov. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC regulation and CPSIA, as amended; Art 
Explosion (images). 

Note: SaferProducts.gov is a part of CPSC's larger Consumer Product 
Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS). CPSC officials described 
CPSRMS as a centralized, integrated data environment that upgrades 
legacy data systems that support many efforts at the agency including 
its case management and investigative processes among others. It is 
intended to replace CPSC's historically segmented data systems with a 
unified information technology system. The updated system is intended 
to allow CPSC to study data from multiple sources in a centralized 
location to identify emerging consumer product safety hazards. 

[End of figure] 

For Reports That Meet Publication Requirements, Many Submitters Have 
Firsthand Knowledge and Provide Optional Contact Information: 

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.[Footnote 11] 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.[Footnote 12] 

CPSC Determined That about One-Third of Reports of Harm Submitted 
Contained Required Information: 

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.[Footnote 13] Of 
these reports of harm, 2,084 (38 percent) passed the CPSIA check, and 
1,847 (34 percent) were published on SaferProducts.gov.[Footnote 14] 
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. 

Table 1: Published Reports of Harm by Type of Submitter, as of July 7, 
2011: 

Submitter of report of harm: Consumer; 
Number of published reports of harm: 1,786. 

Submitter of report of harm: Federal, state, and local government 
agency; 
Number of published reports of harm: 21. 

Submitter of report of harm: Public safety entity; 
Number of published reports of harm: 20. 

Submitter of report of harm: Health care professional; 
Number of published reports of harm: 16. 

Submitter of report of harm: Child service provider; 
Number of published reports of harm: 4. 

Submitter of report of harm: Total; 
Number of published reports of harm: 1,847. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data. 

[End of table] 

According to CPSC officials, during CPSC's initial CPSIA check, 
reports of harm are sometimes deemed ineligible for publication on 
SaferProducts.gov because the identified product is outside CPSC's 
jurisdiction. Officials explained that once CPSC determines that the 
product is not within its jurisdiction, the report of harm is 
forwarded to the appropriate federal agency. CPSC officials also 
explained that they are not required to determine the accuracy of 
submitted reports of harm and noted that the SaferProducts.gov Web 
site includes the following disclaimer mandated by CPSIA: 

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.[Footnote 15] 

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.[Footnote 16] 
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.[Footnote 17] 

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. 

At Least One-Third of Submitters Appear to Have Firsthand Knowledge, 
Citing Harm to Themselves: 

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. 
[Footnote 18] 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. 

Most Submitters Provided Optional Consent for Manufacturer Contact: 

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). 

Table 2: Submitters of Published Reports Who Provided or Did Not 
Provide Consent to Release of Their Contact Information to the 
Manufacturer, as of July 7, 2011: 

Submitter of report of harm: Consumer; 
Consent provided: 1,484; 
No consent provided: 302. 

Submitter of report of harm: Federal, state, and local government 
agency; 
Consent provided: 18; 
No consent provided: 3. 

Submitter of report of harm: Public safety entity; 
Consent provided: 11; 
No consent provided: 9. 

Submitter of report of harm: Health care professional; 
Consent provided: 10; 
No consent provided: 6. 

Submitter of report of harm: Child service provider; 
Consent provided: 4; 
No consent provided: 0. 

Submitter of report of harm: Total; 
Consent provided: 1,527; 
No consent provided: 320. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data. 

[End of table] 

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. 

CPSC Has Generally Been Able to Identify Products and Resolve 
Inaccuracy Claims but Could More Fully Identify Numeric Product 
Information Provided: 

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.[Footnote 19] 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."[Footnote 20] 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. 

Majority of Reports of Harm Contain Numeric Identifiers, but CPSC 
Could Analyze This Information More Thoroughly: 

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. 

Nearly All Claims of Inaccuracy Have Been Resolved, Although Two 
Industry Representatives Consider Aspects of the Process Burdensome 
for Manufacturers: 

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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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. 
[Footnote 23] 

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.[Footnote 24] 

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.[Footnote 
25] 

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. 

Most Reports with MII Claims Were Published within the Mandated Time 
Frame: 

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. 
[Footnote 26] 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 
figure 2) from that notification date.[Footnote 27] 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.[Footnote 28] 

Figure 2: CPSC's Review Process for Publishing Reports of Harm, as of 
July 7, 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

CPSC: CPSC transmits reports that pass the CPSIA check to the
manufacturer within 5 business days. 
Report of harm notification to Manufacturer. 

Manufacturer: Manufacturer submits optional response(s) to report of 
harm within 10 business days[A] of notification from CPSC[B]; 
CPSC publishes the report on SaferProducts.gov: 
CPSC reviews manufacturer comments: 
No comment: CPSC publishes the report; 
General comment(s): General comment(s) published along with report; 
Confidential Business Information claim: If claim is accepted, 
information removed from published report; If claim is rejected, report
published as is; 
Materially Inaccurate Information (MII) Claim: If claim is accepted or
accepted in part, report of harm is not published, or information is 
redacted, corrected, or added; If claim is rejected, report published 
as is. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC regulation and CPSIA, as amended; Art 
Explosion (images). 

[A] Under Public Law No. 112-28, CPSC now has 15 business days from 
the date it notified the manufacturer of the report of harm to publish 
it on SaferProducts.gov 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). 

[B] CPSC provides expedited resolution of MII claims to registered 
manufacturers or private labelers when the claim is less than 5 pages 
long. CPSC also accepts general comments, claims of confidential 
business information, and MII claims from companies after the 10-day 
time frame has expired and the report has been published on 
SaferProducts.gov. If CPSC staff receive an MII claim or make a 
determination on an MII claim after CPSC has published the report of 
harm, the claim must be resolved within 7 business days of the 
submission of the claim, at which time CPSC may remove the report of 
harm entirely from SaferProducts.gov or redact portions of the report. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 29] 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). 

Table 3: CPSC's Resolution of MII Claims to Reports of Harm Published 
within 10-Day CPSIA Time Frame, as of July 7, 2011: 

CPSC resolution of MII claim: Accepted; 
Resolved 10 days or less after notification: 91; 
Resolved 11-15 days after notification: 3; 
Resolved 16 days or more after notification: 0; 
Total: 94. 

CPSC resolution of MII claim: Accepted in part; 
Resolved 10 days or less after notification: 13; 
Resolved 11-15 days after notification: 2; 
Resolved 16 days or more after notification: 1; 
Total: 16. 

CPSC resolution of MII claim: Rejected; 
Resolved 10 days or less after notification: 29; 
Resolved 11-15 days after notification: 5; 
Resolved 16 days or more after notification: 1; 
Total: 35. 

CPSC resolution of MII claim: Total; 
Resolved 10 days or less after notification: 133; 
Resolved 11-15 days after notification: 10; 
Resolved 16 days or more after notification: 2; 
Total: 145. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC data. 

[End of table] 

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).[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote 31] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Recommendation for Agency Action: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 
[hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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. 
[Footnote 32] 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.[Footnote 33] 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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Majority Commissioners of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission: 

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission: 
4330 East West Highway: 
Bethesda, MD 20814: 

October 3, 2011: 

Ms. Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Cackley: 

We are writing to provide comments of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) on the draft U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) report entitled "Action Needed to Strengthen Identification of 
Potentially Unsafe Products." 

The draft report undertook a rigorous assessment of the data collected 
via the Commission's consumer product incident database, 
SaferProducts.gov. We appreciate the determination that the database 
information collection procedures "could enhance CPSC's broader 
efforts to identify consumer product safety risks and unsafe consumer 
products in the marketplace." In addition, the CPSC has already taken 
two concrete steps to address the recommendation in the draft report, 
which asks the Commission to "enhance the analytic methods it uses to 
identify product information in a report of harm," by verifying model 
and serial numbers submitted with consumer product incident reports. 

First, on August 15, 2011, CPSC staff began implementing the 
provisions of section 7 of Public Law 112-28 by reaching out to 
submitters of reports of harm that lacked model or serial numbers. Any 
information obtained through this follow-up contact will be included 
in the incident report posted on SaferProducts.gov. 

Second, on September 15, 2011, CPSC staff implemented a strengthened 
analytical method for reviewing product model and serial number 
information contained in incoming reports of harm. As part of this 
strengthened method, Commission staff are reviewing report submissions 
and are manually entering model and serial numbers provided in other 
parts of reports into the respective model and serial number fields. 

Since the launch of SaferProducts.gov in March 2011. the site has 
averaged more than 100,000 consumer visits per month. Through the 
adjustments detailed above, we are pleased to have addressed the 
requirements of P.L. 112-28 and the GAO recommendations. The net 
result is a strengthened SaferProducts.gov that will continue to 
provide useful product safety incident information to consumers for 
years to come. 

Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to comment on 
the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Inez M. Tenenbaum: 
Chairman: 

Signed by: 

Robert S. Adler: 
Vice Chairman 

Signed by: 

Thomas H. Moore: 
Commissioner: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Minority Commissioners of the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission: 

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission: 
4330 East West Highway: 
Bethesda, MD 20814: 

October 4, 2011: 

Ms. Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Cackley: 

We are writing as the minority Republican Commissioners on the U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide our views on the draft 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled "Action 
Needed to Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products." 

We agree with the Majority that the draft report undertook an unbiased 
and scientific assessment of the data collected via the Commission's 
consumer product incident database, SaferProducts.gov, and concur in 
your assessment that the Commission should "enhance the analytic 
methods it uses to identify product information in a report of harm" 
by verifying model and serial numbers submitted with consumer product 
incident reports. However, unlike the Majority, we do not believe that 
the Commission's actions to date have adequately addressed your 
concerns. Section 7 of Public Law 112-28 does require the Commission 
to seek the model and serial numbers for products when that 
information is not included in an incident report, but it is not a 
condition of publication that such information actually be obtained. 

We also believe the GAO Report identifies additional problems with the 
database that should be more thoroughly examined. For example, we are 
alarmed that GAO found that only slightly more than one third of all 
incidents were reported by an individual with firsthand knowledge of 
the incident. This problem could be better understood if GAO were to 
audit a representative sample of incident reports posted to 
SaferProducts.gov to determine the relationship between the submitter 
and the report, and to gauge the accuracy of the reports. We are 
particularly concerned about the prevalence of entries based on 
reports of incidents detailed elsewhere on the Internet. We discovered 
a number of reports that appear to be verbatim copies of information 
previously posted on the Internet by parties other than the 
SaferProducts.gov submitter. 

GAO could assist the CPSC further by suggesting other changes that 
could better protect the public from incorrect information. For 
example, GAO might recommend that we include the identification and 
contact information of the consumer, product owner, or injured party, 
as well as the approximate date of the injury, in order to establish 
the age of the product and determine whether the product is still sold. 

We would also like to clarify a statistic offered by the GAO that may 
cause some confusion. The report states that 97% of the incidents 
reported to the Commission come from consumers. But this statistic may 
be misleading without an understanding of the Commission's
definition of "consumer." During the rulemaking process, the 
Commission chose to define "consumer" to include many parties not 
commonly understood to be consumers, including "attorneys," and 
"consumer advocates or individuals who work for nongovernmental 
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and trade 
associations." 16 C.F.R. § 1102.10(a). As a result, a report's 
designation as having been submitted by a "consumer" is not a reliable 
proxy for determining whether a report is based on first-hand 
knowledge. We objected to this definition and believe that Congress's 
enumeration of the classes of persons who may submit an incident 
report was intended to limit submissions to individuals with a direct 
relationship to the product or incident at issue. 

The agency's basis for believing that it has increased its control 
over inaccuracies is questionable. While manufacturers may comment on—
and the CPSC can remove—materially inaccurate information, the lack of 
specifics in many cases makes those safeguards trivial. And while the 
rule requires the submitter to attest to the accuracy of the report he 
or she submits, the attestation is only "to the best of [the 
submitter's] knowledge," which may amount to no real knowledge at all. 

We are also concerned that the general lack of specific information 
drives the consumption of an enormous amount of Commission resources 
because the agency must work to recover such information to resolve 
questions of public safety and material inaccuracy. There are many 
instances where the amount of recoverable information is insufficient 
to resolve these questions despite time-consuming efforts on the part 
of the staff to obtain it. The GAO could provide valuable insight into 
these problems by determining the number of incidents that are entered 
without the contact information of someone who can directly answer 
questions about the exact product and incident, and the number of 
manufacturers that lack enough information (the exact product 
identity, the year it was purchased, etc.) to make a Material 
Inaccuracy claim. Some reports listing the incorrect manufacturer have 
been posted only to be taken down after the agency discovered, almost 
by coincidence, the misidentification. But current procedures provide 
no way to ascertain how many times this has happened or to assess the 
reasons why incidents have been removed. All of this information would 
help improve the database's accuracy and efficacy for the CPSC and 
consumers. 

Further, it is important to highlight another difficulty that the 
database creates for licensors and licensees. The database is only 
structured to allow one manufacturer to respond to a report. Thus, 
when a report lists the brand name of a product and the brand name is 
being used under a license, the manufacturer is the only party 
permitted to respond through the business portal. While this is 
generally acknowledged to be a problem, the Commission has not moved 
to correct it nor does it appear to have any plans to do so in the 
near future. 

Finally, with respect to the database's usefulness to the public, it 
is important that the information not only be reliable but also be 
easily accessible to all users regardless of their knowledge of 
computers. Most consumer product databases (Amazon corn, Yelp, etc.) 
offer user-friendly platforms that can be navigated intuitively. 
Unfortunately, the CPSC's platform is anything but user friendly. We 
fear that the current search process, as well as the format of
SaferProducts.gov, does little to help the average computer user. 

In addition to problems with the database's software, we worry about 
the adequacy of its hardware. The current CPSC system is becoming 
increasingly slow, and averages a significant number of outages each 
week. Does the GAO believe that the current system can handle the 
growing number of incidents and the new additional IT components 
planned to be added in the near future? We encourage the GAO to expand 
its investigation to ensure that these significant investments in 
technology do not result in a final product that neither protects the 
public nor provides the promised efficiencies. 

Since the launch of SaferProducts.gov in March 2011, the site has 
averaged more than 100,000 visits per month, but it is impossible to 
identify the classes of users that are visiting this site. They may be 
actual consumers, manufacturers, CPSC staff, trial lawyers, or 
consultants. Without that relevant information, it is nearly 
impossible to determine whether or not the database is providing 
valuable information for the purchasers of consumer products, or just 
feeding the agendas of special interest groups. 

Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to comment on 
the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Anne M. Northup: 
Commissioner: 

Signed by: 

Nancy A. Nord: 
Commissioner: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (2008) (codified in scattered 
sections of title 15 of the U.S. Code). 

[2] See 15 U.S.C. § 2055a. 

[3] Pub. L. No. 112-10, § 1574, 125 Stat. 38 (2011). 

[4] In addition to these objectives, CPSIA requires that we analyze 
the utility of the safety information database, including an 
assessment of the use of the database by consumers, efforts by CPSC to 
inform the public of the database, and recommendations for measures to 
increase the use of the database by consumers and a broad range of the 
public. This additional study is to be submitted to congressional 
committees within 2 years of the establishment of the database by 
CPSC. Additional issues that this study may examine include an 
assessment of the types of companies that have registered to receive 
and respond to reports of harm and the extent to which CPSC is 
publishing only those reports that contain information required by 
CPSIA. 

[5] Congress recently passed amendments to CPSIA that altered some of 
CPSC's data collection processes. Our analysis was conducted using 
electronic data prior to the enactment of these amendments. 
Specifically, Congress passed the amendments, which were signed on 
August 12, 2011, to provide CPSC with greater authority and discretion 
in enforcing the consumer product safety laws, and for other purposes. 
Pub. L. No. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (2011). Section 7 of the law amended 
section 6A(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act by requiring that 
CPSC follow up with submitters of reports of harm that do not contain 
the product's model or serial number. The law also extended the 10-day 
publication timeline to 15 business days when a claim of materially 
inaccurate information is made or when the report does not contain a 
model or serial number. When such numeric information is missing from 
a report, CPSC is to follow up with submitters to attempt to obtain 
the model or serial number of the product, or a photograph of the 
product if the model or serial number is not available. If CPSC 
receives this information, CPSC must then transmit this information to 
the manufacturer or private labeler identified in the report of harm. 
CPSC has 15 business days from the date on which it notifies the 
manufacturer of the initial report of harm to publish the report on 
SaferProducts.gov, whether or not additional product identification 
information is successfully obtained from the submitter. 

[6] Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 (1972) (codified, as amended, at 
15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089). 

[7] 75 Fed. Reg. 76,832 (codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 1102). 

[8] 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(1)(A). CPSIA and CPSC define "harm" as 
injury, illness, or death or risk of injury, illness or death. 15 
U.S.C. § 2055a(g); 16 C.F.R. § 1102.6(b)(4). 

[9] 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(1)(A). 16 C.F.R. § 1102.10(a) specifies that 
the category "consumers" includes, but is not limited to, users of 
consumer products, family members, relatives, parents, guardians, 
friends, attorneys, investigators, professional engineers, agents of a 
user of a consumer product, and observers of the consumer products 
being used. Local, state, or federal government agencies include, but 
are not limited to, local government agencies, school systems, social 
services, child protective services, state attorneys general, state 
agencies, and all executive and independent federal agencies as 
defined in Title 5 of the United States Code. Health care 
professionals include, but are not limited to, medical examiners, 
coroners, physicians, nurses, physicians' assistants, hospitals, 
chiropractors, and acupuncturists. Child service providers include, 
but are not limited to, child care centers, child care providers, and 
prekindergarten schools. Public safety entities include, but are not 
limited to, police, fire, ambulance, emergency medical services, 
federal, state, and local law enforcement entities, and other public 
safety officials and professionals, including consumer advocates or 
individuals who work for nongovernmental organizations, consumer 
advocacy organizations, and trade associations, so long as they have a 
public safety purpose. 

[10] According to CPSC officials, it will mail a letter to submitters 
who did not include all of the information required under CPSIA if the 
submitters provided contact information and asked that the report be 
published on SaferProducts.gov. This letter describes the information 
missing from the report of harm, and officials explained that some 
submitters contact CPSC to add the missing information to the report. 

[11] See 15 U.S.C. § 2055a. Under 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(c)(1) and 16 
C.F.R. § 1102.20(c), CPSC must transmit an eligible report of harm, to 
the extent practicable, to the manufacturer or private labeler within 
5 business days of submission of the report of harm. 

[12] 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(2)(B); C.F.R. § 1102.10(d). Subject to §§ 
1102.24 and 1102.26, CPSC will publish in the Publicly Available 
Consumer Product Safety Information Database reports of harm 
containing all of the minimum information required. 

[13] CPSC also collects reports of harm from news services, which do 
not meet CPSIA criteria for publication on SaferProducts.gov. 

[14] According to CPSC officials, although eligible for publication, 
some reports of harm may not have been published because they were 
still in pending publication status or because CPSC had accepted a 
claim that the report included materially inaccurate information. 

[15] See 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(5). 

[16] As we described earlier, according to CPSC, when a report of harm 
is missing information, if the submitter has included contact 
information and requested that the report be published, CPSC will send 
the submitter a letter describing the missing items that make the 
report ineligible for publication. 

[17] 15 U.S.C. § 2055a(b)(6); 16 C.F.R. § 1102.10. 

[18] Section 6A of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), as amended 
by the Section 212 of CPSIA, allows for manufacturer comment, 
prescribes the procedures for claims of materially inaccurate 
information, and requires that the public database publish a 
disclaimer. 

[19] Pub. L. No. 112-28 amended CPSIA by requiring that CPSC follow up 
with submitters of reports of harm that do not contain the product's 
model number or serial number to try to obtain this information (or a 
photograph of the product in the event such numeric information is 
unavailable). However, the model or serial number fields on initial 
reports by submitters remain optional. 

[20] 16 C.F.R. § 1102.10(d)(1). 

[21] 16 C.F.R. § 1102.26(a)(2). 

[22] 16 C.F.R. § 1102.26(a)(2). 

[23] 16 C.F.R. § 1102.26(b). 

[24] At the time we received CPSC's data, 13 additional MII claims had 
been submitted and were under review by the agency pending a 
resolution. 

[25] When manufacturers assert that a report of harm should not be 
included in the database because it is out of CPSC's jurisdiction, 
these reports initially passed CPSC's review for CPSIA compliance, as 
described earlier. According to CPSC, it initially assesses each 
report to make sure it is within its jurisdiction, based on the 
information the submitter provides. CPSC stated that MII claims 
submitted after the agency's initial review can provide additional 
information that demonstrates that the report is out of CPSC's 
jurisdiction. In this case, CPSC will then redesignate the report of 
harm as noncompliant under CPSIA. 

[26] Our analysis showed that CPSC did not publish 250 of the 1,335 
reports of harm to which companies responded. According to CPSC 
officials, some of these reports may have been pending publication 
status or associated with MII claims that CPSC accepted and determined 
not to publish. 

[27] This analysis was conducted using data collected prior to August 
12, 2011, when a new law was signed amending CPSIA. As discussed 
above, Pub. L. 112-28 amends CPSIA to allow for a 15-day publication 
time frame from when CPSC notified the manufacturer of the report of 
harm in certain situations (when a claim of materially inaccurate 
information is made or when the report does not contain a model number 
or serial number) during which CPSC must transmit a report of harm to 
the manufacturer or private labeler, review the company's response, 
and determine whether or not to publish the report on 
SaferProducts.gov. 

[28] Manufacturers and private labelers may submit multiple responses 
to a report of harm. For example, a manufacturer may submit general 
comments and MII claims to CPSC in response to the same report of harm. 

[29] Under 15 U.S.C. §2055a(c)(3)(A), prior to the passage of Pub. L. 
112-28 discussed above, CPSC was required to publish all eligible 
reports of harm-whether or not they included manufacturer comment-on 
SaferProducts.gov not later than the tenth business day after it 
transmitted the report to the manufacturer or private labeler. 

[30] Pub. L. No. 112-28, § 7. 

[31] CPSC transmitted 7 percent of reports of harm via postal mail 
because the manufacturers and private labelers were not registered on 
SaferProducts.gov and 5 percent of CPSC transmittals did not specify 
the method of notification. Due to rounding, percentages do not add to 
100. 

[32] Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (2008); 16 C.F.R. § 1102. 

[33] As noted above, submitters may provide information beyond what is 
required for publication on SaferProducts.gov, such as their 
relationship to the victim, the model or serial number of the reported 
product, and consent to the release of their contact information to 
the manufacturer or private labeler. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: