This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-150 
entitled 'Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges 
in Responding to New Product Risks' which was released on December 20, 
2012. 

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: 

December 2012: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

Agency Faces Challenges in Responding to New Product Risks: 

GAO-13-150: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-150, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Growing numbers of consumer product recalls in 2007 and 2008, 
particularly of imported toys and children’s products, focused 
increased attention on CPSC. In the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, Congress directed GAO to analyze the potential safety risks 
associated with new and emerging consumer products. CPSC’s approach 
focuses on new hazards, which could be risks associated with both new 
and existing products. Therefore, this report evaluates the authority 
and ability of CPSC to (1) stay generally informed about new risks 
associated with consumer products and use available information to 
identify product hazards, and (2) assess and address new risks posed 
by consumer products in a timely manner. 

GAO reviewed CPSC’s statutory and regulatory authorities to respond to 
product hazards; reviewed agency documents on risk assessment; 
reviewed CPSC corrective actions; and met with agency officials and 
representatives from national consumer, industry, and legal 
organizations with expertise in consumer product safety and risk 
assessment. GAO observed CPSC’s testing facility and demonstrations of 
its information system upgrades. 

What GAO Found: 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has broad authority to 
identify, assess, and address product risks, but faces some challenges 
in identifying and responding to new risks in a timely manner. CPSC 
uses various means to stay informed about risks that may be associated 
with new or existing products. These methods include (1) market 
surveillance activities for imported products, retail stores, and 
Internet sales; and (2) formal agreements and various activities with 
other agencies. However, certain legal restrictions may hamper CPSC’s 
ability to stay informed about new product hazards to public health 
and safety. Specifically, because of certain restrictions in the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), CPSC cannot agree to allow foreign 
agencies to disclose nonpublic information they receive from CPSC. 
While the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) allows CPSC 
greater freedom to disclose information to U.S. courts, Congress, and 
state and local agencies, CPSC has been unable to complete information-
sharing agreements with foreign counterparts as envisioned because it 
cannot offer its counterparts reciprocal terms on disclosure of 
nonpublic information. Due to the growing number of imported consumer 
products, this restriction on sharing information may hinder CPSC’s 
ability to identify risks from new products in a timely manner, 
possibly leading to injury and death if unsafe products enter the U.S. 
market. CPSC also faces challenges in collecting and analyzing large 
quantities of data in order to identify potential product risks. Some 
sources CPSC uses to identify injuries or death are dated—for example, 
death certificates can be 2 or more years old—or contain limited 
information about the product involved in the incident. To respond to 
these challenges, the agency has key efforts under way. First, CPSC is 
upgrading its data management system. According to CPSC, the upgrades 
are designed to enhance CPSC’s efficiency and effectiveness, enable a 
more rapid dissemination of information, and allow consumers to search 
the database through a publicly available Internet portal. CPSC 
officials expect the upgrades to be completed in fiscal year 2013 and 
fully operational in fiscal year 2014. Second, in response to a CPSIA 
requirement, CPSC is working with Customs and Border Protection to 
test a new approach for identifying unsafe consumer products at the 
ports. CPSC port investigators have found this approach to be 
effective and have prevented hundreds of consumer products that were 
in violation of U.S. safety rules or found to be hazardous from 
entering commerce. 

Timeliness of CPSC’s actions to assess and address new risks depends 
on the specific product or hazard. For example, the simplest 
assessments may only take a few days, such as testing a product for 
lead content. More complex assessments can take years to complete, 
such as tracking potential chronic hazards from certain chemicals and 
nanotechnology (which involves the ability to control matter at the 
scale of one billionth of a meter) because no standard method for 
measuring toxicity associated with nanotechnology currently exists. 
CPSC uses various approaches to address product hazards, including 
conducting compliance activities, developing mandatory safety 
standards, and educating the public about safety hazards and safe 
practices. CPSC can take action to address a product hazard more 
quickly if it is addressing a known hazard. However, addressing a new 
or emerging risk can take CPSC years because it may need to develop 
new standards or approaches. 

What GAO Recommends: 

To better enable CPSC to target unsafe consumer products, Congress may 
wish to amend section 29(f) of CPSA to allow CPSC greater ability to 
enter into information-sharing agreements with its foreign 
counterparts that permit reciprocal terms on disclosure of nonpublic 
information. CPSC supported this matter. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-150]. For more 
information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley, 202-512-8678, 
cackleya@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

CPSC Uses Several Mechanisms to Stay Informed about New Product 
Hazards, but Statutory Provisions Constrain Its Ability to Identify 
Risks: 

Timeliness of CPSC's Actions to Assess and Address New Risks Depends 
on the Specific Product or Hazard: 

Conclusion: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: CPSC's and Other Agencies' Coordinated Responses to 
Hazards Posed by Defective Chinese Drywall: 

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

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key CPSC Information Sources to Facilitate Timely 
Identification of Consumer Product Hazards, Fiscal Year 2011: 

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

Figures: 

Figure 1: CPSC Incident Intake/Screening Process: 

Figure 2: CPSC Review and Assessment Process: 

Figure 3: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Fire pots and Gel Fuel, 
2001 to 2012: 

Figure 4: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Magnets, 2006 to 2012: 

Figure 5: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Problem Drywall, 2008 to 
2011: 

Abbreviations: 

ANPR: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

CCA: chromated copper arsenate: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CHAP: Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel: 

CPSA: Consumer Product Safety Act: 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

CPSIA: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: 

CPSRMS: Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IT: information technology: 

MOU: memorandum of understanding: 

NEISS: National Electronic Injury Surveillance System: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

State: Department of State: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 20, 2012: 

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

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

Growing numbers of consumer product recalls in 2007 and 2008, 
particularly of toys and other children's products, focused increased 
attention on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). As 
globalization and technological advances expand the range of products 
on the market, the challenge of overseeing and regulating the 
thousands of product types becomes all the more complex. Some risks 
include the growth of global supply chains that assemble products 
across a vast web of interconnected geographies as well as the 
difficulty of identifying product hazards among hundreds of containers 
entering U.S. ports. According to CPSC, the value of U.S. imports 
under its jurisdiction reached about $637 billion in 2010 and about 
four out of five consumer product recalls involved imported products, 
making imports a critical focus of the agency. These challenges are 
likely to grow in the future. In response to the growing concerns 
about unsafe consumer products, on August 14, 2008, Congress enacted 
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) to reform CPSC and 
strengthen its authority to enforce consumer product safety standards. 
[Footnote 1] 

CPSC continues to face significant public scrutiny about its ability 
to properly assess risks related to consumer products and take 
appropriate action in a timely manner. CPSC's risk management process 
includes obtaining information about consumer products from various 
sources, identifying risks, assessing those risks, and taking actions 
to address them. The process focuses on risks associated with both new 
and existing products. How quickly CPSC identifies, assesses, and 
addresses a particular product hazard depends on several factors, 
including whether or not a particular product risk is within their 
authority and ability to address. 

In the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress directed us to 
analyze the potential safety risks associated with new and emerging 
consumer products, including chemicals and other materials used in 
their manufacture, taking into account CPSC's ability and authority to 
identify, assess, and address such risks in a timely manner and keep 
abreast of the effects of new and emerging consumer products on public 
health and safety.[Footnote 2] This report evaluates the authority and 
ability of CPSC to (1) stay generally informed about new risks 
associated with consumer products and use available information to 
identify product hazards, and (2) assess and address new risks posed 
by consumer products in a timely manner. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed CPSC's statutory and 
regulatory authority related to identifying, assessing, and addressing 
new risks associated with consumer products. We reviewed CPSC's policy 
on establishing priorities, procedures, strategic plan, performance 
and accountability reports, budget operating plans, and incident and 
compliance data, as well as relevant prior GAO reports. We reviewed 
existing information about CPSC data systems and interviewed agency 
officials knowledgeable about the data. Based on our review of 
documentation, we believe the data are reliable for our purposes. To 
assess CPSC's authority to obtain and share information that could 
help identify new hazards posed by consumer products, we reviewed our 
prior work on CPSC's authorities and legislation related to the 
agency.[Footnote 3] We met with CPSC officials to discuss their 
authorities and their ability to identify, assess, and address risk, 
including all of CPSC's current commissioners and the Chairman. 
[Footnote 4] To assess certain measures of timeliness, we reviewed 
CPSC's performance goals and obtained information on time frames for 
risk assessments. We toured CPSC's testing laboratory in Rockville, 
Maryland, and observed various tests conducted as part of CPSC's risk 
assessment process. Additionally, we interviewed national consumer and 
industry organizations and legal professionals that have expertise in 
consumer product safety. See appendix I for additional information on 
our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 through December 
2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

CPSC's Authorities and Mission: 

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 the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, Coast Guard, Department of Justice, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--have jurisdiction over these 
products. 

CPSC has broad authorities for identifying, assessing, and addressing 
risks associated with consumer products. The Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA) consolidated federal safety regulatory activity relating to 
consumer products within CPSC. As a result, in addition to its 
responsibilities for protecting against product hazards in general, 
CPSC administers the following laws that authorize various performance 
standards for specific consumer products:[Footnote 5] 

* the Flammable Fabrics Act, which among other things, authorizes CPSC 
to prescribe flammability standards for clothing, upholstery, and 
other fabrics;[Footnote 6] 

* the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which establishes the 
framework for the regulation of substances that are toxic, corrosive, 
combustible, or otherwise hazardous;[Footnote 7] 

* the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, which authorizes CPSC 
to prescribe special packaging requirements to protect children from 
injury resulting from handling, using, or ingesting certain drugs and 
other household substances;[Footnote 8] 

* the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956, which mandates CPSC to 
prescribe safety standards for household refrigerators to ensure that 
the doors can be opened easily from the inside;[Footnote 9] 

* the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act of 2007, which 
establishes mandatory safety standards for swimming pool and spa drain 
covers, as well as a grant program to provide states with incentives 
to adopt pool and spa safety standards;[Footnote 10] and: 

* the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act of 2008, which 
establishes safety standards for child-resistant closures on all 
portable gasoline containers.[Footnote 11] 

* the Child Safety Protection Act of 1994, which requires the banning 
or labeling of toys that pose a choking risk to small children and the 
reporting of certain choking incidents to the CPSC.[Footnote 12] 

In 2008 CPSIA mandated that CPSC develop an approach, not later than 
August 2010, to identify products imported into the United States that 
are most likely to violate consumer product safety statutes enforced 
by the Commission. CPSIA specifically requires that CPSC develop this 
methodology in partnership with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) using information from shipment data from the International 
Trade Data System and other databases. CPSC was required to 
incorporate this approach into its information technology (IT) 
modernization plan, to move to a single integrated data system 
intended to upgrade the data systems that support CPSC's regulatory 
activities. The act also required that CPSC use this information to 
examine ways to identify possible shipments of violative consumer 
products and share this information with CBP to prevent such items 
from entering the marketplace. CPSC has subsequently reported on its 
efforts to develop this approach for import surveillance.[Footnote 13] 
These efforts are discussed in greater detail later in this report. 

While CPSC has statutory authority to regulate many types of products, 
it does not have authority to require pre-approval of products before 
they enter the U.S. market.[Footnote 14] Because CPSC regulates 
consumer products after they enter the market, identifying new 
products and any new hazards that may be associated with new products 
is difficult. Generally, CPSC can require every manufacturer of an 
imported product subject to a consumer product safety rule to issue a 
certificate that certifies based on reasonable laboratory testing that 
the product complies with all rules, bans, standards or regulations. 
[Footnote 15] 

Under several of the acts that it administers, CPSC's primary mission 
is to protect consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from 
consumer products under its jurisdiction. To achieve its mission, CPSC 
uses various approaches captured under five strategic goals: (1) to 
provide leadership in safety; (2) to reinforce a commitment to 
prevention; (3) to engage in rigorous hazard identification; (4) to 
provide a decisive response to identified product hazards; and (5) to 
raise awareness of safety issues and CPSC capabilities. 

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSC is authorized to evaluate 
a consumer product to determine whether the product creates what the 
act calls a "substantial product hazard" or whether the Commission 
should issue a consumer product safety standard or ban by regulation 
to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk.[Footnote 16] CPSC considers 
the risks associated with a consumer product and assesses whether a 
particular risk is known or is a new or emerging hazard. New hazards 
can be associated with either a new or existing product. For example, 
a new hazard could materialize in the form of new material used to 
manufacture a type of product already in existence. To address product 
hazards, CPSC can issue regulations that establish performance or 
labeling standards for consumer products, often referred to as 
mandatory standards. CPSC refers to products subject to such mandatory 
standards as regulated products. Those regulated products that do not 
comply with mandatory standards are referred to as violative products. 
In contrast, many consumer products that are under CPSC's jurisdiction 
are subject to voluntary standards, which are generally determined by 
standard-setting organizations, with input from government 
representatives and industry groups, and are also referred to as 
consensus standards. Unregulated products are those products not 
subject to any mandatory standards and may include those covered by 
voluntary standards, which do not have the force of law. However, many 
voluntary standards are widely accepted by industry.[Footnote 17] The 
1981 amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Act require CPSC to 
defer to a voluntary standard--rather than issue a mandatory standard--
if CPSC determines that the voluntary standard adequately addresses 
the hazard and that there is likely to be substantial compliance with 
the voluntary standard. As a result, voluntary standard development is 
an important tool in CPSC's hazard-reduction efforts. In some cases, 
Congress has enacted a specific statutory requirement for CPSC to 
create a mandatory standard, or convert a voluntary standard to a 
mandatory standard. For instance, CPSA, as amended by CPSIA, mandated 
the conversion of voluntary standards for durable infant and toddler 
products, all-terrain vehicles, and children's toys to mandatory 
standards.[Footnote 18] 

CPSC's Criteria for Establishing Agency Priorities: 

CPSC has established criteria for setting agency priorities and 
selecting potential hazards to address.[Footnote 19] These criteria, 
which are incorporated into the agency regulations, include the 
following: 

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

* the cause of the hazard, which should be analyzed to help determine 
the extent to which injuries can reasonably be expected to be reduced 
or eliminated through CPSC action; 

* the number of chronic illnesses and future injuries predicted to 
result from the hazard; 

* preliminary estimates of costs and benefits to society resulting 
from CPSC action; 

* unforeseen nature of the risk, which refers to the degree to which 
consumers are aware of the hazard and its consequences; 

* vulnerability of the population at risk (such as children and the 
elderly); 

* probability of consumer exposure to the product hazard; and: 

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

CPSC's regulations do not specify whether any particular criterion 
should be given more weight than the others or that all criteria must 
be applied to every potential hazard. However, CPSC officials have 
noted that a product hazard that could result in death is typically 
granted the highest priority. 

CPSC's Organizational Structure for Managing Risks: 

Risk management is a primary function throughout the Commission, but 
certain offices have specific responsibilities for identifying, 
assessing, and addressing product hazards. CPSC's Office of Hazard 
Identification and Reduction is tasked with responsibility for 
identifying emerging hazards that can be addressed by agency projects, 
warnings, mandatory or voluntary standards, and public awareness 
campaigns. This office also provides technical support to the Office 
of Compliance and Field Operations, which is responsible for capturing 
information about regulated products and substantial product hazards 
and conducts compliance and administrative enforcement activities 
under the acts that CPSC administers.[Footnote 20] The Office of 
Compliance and Field Operations has responsibility for identifying and 
addressing safety hazards for consumer products already in commerce, 
promoting industry compliance with existing safety rules, and 
conducting administrative litigation seeking remedies that may include 
public notice and refund. The office receives information about 
potential product hazards through industry reporting requirements and 
through its own investigation of defective products.[Footnote 21] 

CPSC's Information System Modernization: 

The CPSIA required that CPSC establish and maintain a database on the 
safety of consumer products and other products or substances regulated 
by the Commission and that it improve its IT architecture. In 
response, CPSC created a public database, which is accessible through 
the Internet at SaferProducts.gov and allows consumers to directly 
report product-related incidents. SaferProducts.gov was launched in 
March 2011 and is integrated with CPSC's larger, internal Consumer 
Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS). To address the 
requirement to upgrade its IT architecture, CPSC is currently 
implementing improvements to CPSRMS. CPSC officials have described 
this system as a centralized, integrated data environment that 
upgrades its legacy systems to support multiple efforts at the agency, 
such as its case management and investigative processes.[Footnote 22] 
When fully integrated, CPSRMS will replace CPSC's historically 
segmented data systems with a unified information technology system. 
The updated system is intended to allow CPSC to analyze data from 
multiple sources in a centralized location to identify emerging 
consumer product safety hazards. The purpose of this centralization 
component of CPSC's IT modernization effort is to improve its ability 
to collect and analyze the hazard information it receives from 
consumers and other data sources. CPSC has reported that modernizing 
its IT systems will improve efficiency by connecting separate data 
systems, reducing or eliminating manual and redundant processing, and 
eliminating redundant and inefficient steps required to code the 
information and to share the information with businesses. In addition 
to this modernization effort, CPSC is developing an automated system 
to improve its ability to target imported products by integrating data 
from both CPSC and CBP. This system will also be integrated into 
CPSRMS. 

CPSC Uses Several Mechanisms to Stay Informed about New Product 
Hazards, but Statutory Provisions Constrain Its Ability to Identify 
Risks: 

CPSC gathers information about new and emerging risks through several 
means, such as surveiling retail markets and coordinating with other 
agencies. CPSC could also potentially obtain nonpublic information on 
product-related hazards from its foreign counterparts, but its legal 
restrictions on public disclosure of information have hampered its 
ability to establish information-sharing agreements. Further, CPSC 
collects data on product-related injuries and deaths from a variety of 
sources, such as consumer reports and death certificates, and as 
discussed above is currently working to improve the system it uses to 
manage these data. Finally, CPSC has another effort under way to 
improve its surveillance of imported products, which could prevent 
violative products from entering the U.S. markets. 

CPSC Uses Various Means to Stay Informed about New Product Risks: 

CPSC uses multiple mechanisms to stay informed about new and emerging 
risks from consumer products, especially new products entering the 
market. CPSC's market surveillance activities are one primary 
mechanism staff use to track new products entering the markets, 
including surveillance of imported products entering the United 
States, retail stores, and the Internet: 

* Import surveillance, which is discussed in greater detail later in 
this report, targets products before they enter the market and is 
CPSC's stated key activity to address the challenge of overseeing and 
regulating the thousands of product types under its jurisdiction. 
Import surveillance activities include scrutiny of import 
documentation and physical screening of products at the ports. 

* CPSC field program surveillance includes compliance monitoring of 
specified products with CPSC requirement to ensure conformance. 
Surveillance and inspections are done at the manufacturer, importer, 
and retail locations. 

* CPSC's retail surveillance includes targeted activities to identify 
potentially unsafe products, such as children's products with unsafe 
lead content and unsafe electrical products, as well as some products 
subject to mandatory standards. This retail surveillance includes in-
store screening of products to ensure they are appropriately labeled 
and are contained in proper child-resistant packaging when required. 
At times, such as for holiday sales, CPSC field staff also screen 
certain products to find out if they meet generally accepted industry 
voluntary standards. 

* CPSC compliance staff also conduct searches of the Internet, to 
monitor the compliance of certain product sales. Since many firms sell 
their products exclusively from Internet websites, this surveillance 
functions as the primary CPSC oversight of these sellers. 

Staff also attend trade shows to target possible products of interest 
by observing what new products are coming to market. These visits may 
be announced or unannounced. 

Another mechanism CPSC has relied on for keeping informed about new 
and emerging risks is its agreements with other federal and state 
agencies to research various emerging issues.[Footnote 23] For 
example, CPSC participates in a federal effort to leverage its limited 
staff resources with larger research efforts under way on 
nanomaterials, as part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. 
[Footnote 24] CPSC has a joint agreement with EPA to research the 
health effects of nanotechnology in consumer products.[Footnote 25] 
This effort is part of a larger international research project 
intended to provide a systematic, multidisciplinary approach, 
including both experimental and computational tools and projects, for 
predicting potential human and environmental risks associated with a 
range of nanomaterials (i.e., silver and titanium dioxide). 

CPSC is also working with the National Science Foundation and EPA, 
which has funded and supported the development of two university-based 
Centers for Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology. CPSC staff 
support this research to use new techniques to characterize 
nanomaterials in selected consumer products and quantify exposures to 
humans.[Footnote 26] Under a CPSC interagency agreement with the 
National Science Foundation and EPA, a related project is under way 
that is designed to synthesize data to develop a risk assessment 
framework for nanomaterials used in consumer products. CPSC also has a 
collaborative research effort with the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST). CPSC signed an interagency agreement with NIST 
in 2011 to develop protocols to assess the potential release of 
nanoparticles into the indoor air from various consumer products and 
determine the potential exposure to people. Measurement protocols do 
not exist yet to characterize these particle emissions or to assess 
the properties of the emitted particles that may relate to any health 
impacts. Under this agreement, NIST will begin testing to assess the 
properties of nano-sized particles. At the completion of this project, 
CPSC staff expect to complete a status report on the measurement 
protocols developed for laboratory testing for the release of 
nanoparticles from consumer products, as well as for testing in actual 
residences. Additionally, CPSC is working with the National Library of 
Medicine to identify approaches to expand and improve a database to 
provide information on nanomaterials in consumer products.[Footnote 
27] One researcher emphasized that this database is quite important to 
further research efforts because companies are not required to report 
whether nanomaterials are used in their products. 

Staff also use other channels to exchange information about consumer 
products with other federal agencies, including the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), and FDA, within the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the Department of Labor-Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, EPA, and the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD). CPSC staff participate in product safety committees 
with these agencies. For example, staff serve on the Chemical 
Selection Working Group sponsored by NIH/National Cancer Institute, as 
well as the Federal Liaison Group on Asthma and the National Cancer 
Advisory Board. Staff also participate in multiple working groups 
sponsored by the National Institute for Environmental Health and 
Safety and the National Toxicology Program.[Footnote 28] CPSC staff co-
chair the Interagency Lead-based Paint Task Force, working with EPA 
and HUD on human exposure to lead. CPSC staff also serve on the Core 
Committee at the Center for Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction 
under the National Toxicology Program. Staff participate in 
interagency committees that develop U.S. positions for international 
harmonization on test guidelines developed by the Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development, guidance documents, and the 
globally harmonized system for the classification and labeling of 
chemicals.[Footnote 29] Staff also use their professional connections, 
subscribe to professional journals, and attend scientific and consumer 
product safety conferences. For example, CPSC staff maintain contacts 
with individual scientists at FDA on multiple issues, such as 
phthalates, lead, and nanotechnology.[Footnote 30] 

Furthermore, CPSC has authority to establish advisory committees to 
assist in advising it on new and emerging risks. Such advisory 
committees can be appointed to advise the agency on chronic hazards 
that may contribute to cancer, birth defects, and gene mutations 
associated with consumer products. As required by CPSIA, in 2010 CPSC 
appointed a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to review the 
potential effects on children's health of phthalates and phthalate 
alternatives in children's toys and child care articles.[Footnote 31] 
The CHAP is currently the only operating advisory committee to CPSC. 
The CHAP is to consider the cumulative effects of exposure to multiple 
phthalates from all sources, including personal care products. The 
CHAP was required by CPSIA to submit a final report based on its 
examination by April 2012. The CHAP examination is still ongoing and 
the report is expected to be completed in fiscal year 2013. The CHAP 
must recommend to the Commission whether any additional phthalates or 
phthalate alternatives should be declared banned hazardous substances. 
Within 180 days after this recommendation is made, CPSIA requires CPSC 
to promulgate a final rule based on the report. Pending completion of 
the report, staff are to provide a briefing package to the Commission 
for its consideration of whether to continue the interim ban that 
CPSIA established (effective Feb. 10, 2009) for certain phthalates, or 
whether to regulate other phthalates or phthalate substitutes. 

Statutory Restrictions Hamper CPSC's Information-Sharing Efforts with 
Foreign Counterparts: 

Several of CPSC's strategic goals emphasize working with other federal 
agencies, as well as agencies of state and foreign governments. This 
cooperation is important to the Commission's effectiveness, 
particularly in light of the large volume of imported products that 
enter the United States each year. One key aspect of interagency 
cooperation is sharing information with CPSC's counterparts in other 
countries. CPSC has memorandums of understanding (MOU) with several 
foreign counterparts to share publicly available information about 
unsafe consumer products. These agreements provide a formal mechanism 
for general exchanges of information on consumer product safety, and 
in some cases include plans for informational seminars and training 
programs. For example, CPSC has taken the lead with several MOU 
partners on an international initiative to work towards harmonizing 
global consumer product standards or developing similar mechanisms to 
enhance product safety, known as the Pilot Alignment Initiative. This 
initiative involves staff from the central consumer product safety 
authorities of Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United 
States.[Footnote 32] The initiative seeks to reach consensus positions 
among the participants on the hazards to children and potential 
solutions for three products: corded window coverings (i.e., window 
blinds), chair-top booster seats, and baby slings. 

CPSC's existing MOUs do not permit the exchange of nonpublic 
information because of specific statutory limitations. When we 
reported on CPSC's authorities in August 2009, we concluded that CPSC 
had adequate authorities to perform its mission and we made no 
recommendations to change its authorities.[Footnote 33] CPSC concurred 
with our conclusion. CPSIA amended section 29 of CPSA to allow the 
Commission to make publicly available information to any federal, 
state, local, or foreign government agency upon prior certification or 
agreement that the information will be maintained in confidence, as 
defined in the act.[Footnote 34] At that time, CPSC was working with 
its foreign counterparts to implement its new authorities under CPSIA 
that allow it to share nonpublic information with foreign 
counterparts. In the course of this review, however, we found that 
when attempting to implement these authorities, CPSC has faced certain 
legal constraints in sharing information with its foreign counterparts 
and has not completed any new agreements concerning the exchange of 
nonpublic information, as they had expected at the time of our 2009 
report. 

CPSC's ability to share information that identifies a specific product 
or manufacturer is subject to several complex statutory provisions. 
For example, section 6 of CPSA imposes significant restrictions on 
CPSC's ability to publicly disclose information.[Footnote 35] Section 
6(a) generally prohibits the disclosure of trade secrets and other 
confidential commercial and financial information.[Footnote 36] Before 
publicly disclosing information that would readily identify a 
manufacturer, CPSC must afford the manufacturer the opportunity to 
designate the information as business confidential--that is, 
information a company considers and designates to be proprietary or 
confidential--and barred from disclosure.[Footnote 37] The CPSA 
contains an additional restriction on the public disclosure of certain 
regulatory information, such as information that identifies a product 
manufacturer or private labeler. Specifically, section 6(b)(1) 
generally prohibits CPSC from publicly disclosing information that 
would readily identify the product manufacturer unless it first takes 
reasonable steps to assure that the information is accurate and that 
the disclosure is fair in the circumstances and reasonably related to 
carrying out CPSC's purposes under its jurisdiction. The inclusion of 
section 6(b) grew out of concern about damage that manufacturers would 
incur if the agency released inaccurate information about the 
manufacturers' products. Before publicly disclosing the information, 
CPSC must give the manufacturer advance notice and the opportunity to 
comment on the disclosure of the information, which adds more time 
before CPSC can publicly respond to a potential product hazard. If 
CPSC decides to disclose information that the manufacturer claims to 
be inaccurate, it generally must provide 5 days advance notice of the 
disclosure, and the manufacturer may bring suit to prevent the 
disclosure.[Footnote 38] CPSC has issued a rule that interprets the 
public disclosure restrictions of section 6(b) as covering disclosures 
to any person unless specified exceptions apply.[Footnote 39] 

Section 29(e) of CPSA permits CPSC to disclose accident or 
investigation reports to officials of other federal, state, and local 
agencies engaged in health, safety, or consumer protection activities, 
but only if business-confidential information is removed and the 
recipient agency agrees to maintain certain confidentiality 
restrictions. Section 29(f) of CPSA, as amended by CPSIA, authorizes 
CPSC to disclose certain information to foreign government agencies in 
addition to federal, state, and local government if the recipient 
agency certifies in writing in advance that the information will be 
kept confidential.[Footnote 40] In addition, it provides that CPSC 
generally is not required to disclose under the Freedom of Information 
Act or other law confidential information it has received from a 
foreign agency (although this provision does not authorize withholding 
of information from Congress or a court in an action commenced by the 
United States or CPSC). 

Both Senate and House of Representatives committee reports on CPSIA 
legislation provided the rationale and expectation underlying the 
provisions enacted as section 29(f). Specifically, the Senate report 
noted that goods made overseas are sold not only in the United States 
but also in Europe, Africa, and other continents. Additionally, the 
Senate report noted, "To the extent that the European Union bans an 
unsafe product and the United States does not, shipments to Europe may 
well be diverted to American shores. Once in the United States, the 
products may move from state to state."[Footnote 41] Both the Senate 
and House committees' reports noted expectations that CPSC would work 
closely with any other federal, state, local, or foreign governments 
to share information, so long as those entities have established the 
ability to protect such information from premature public disclosure. 
The House report further noted that "The Committee expects that the 
CPSC will revisit and renegotiate, where necessary, existing memoranda 
of understanding with foreign governments and negotiate new agreements 
with other governments as necessary."[Footnote 42] 

Although the addition of section 29(f) was intended to encourage 
information sharing, in our discussions with CPSC staff, they 
expressed concern that restrictive language in section 29(f) has 
hindered their ability to share information. Specifically, CPSC 
explained that during the interagency review process to address this 
new authority, the Department of State (State) reviewed CPSC's 
suggested language for an agreement to implement information sharing 
under section 29(f). According to CPSC, State identified that, because 
of certain language in section 29(f), CPSC could not agree to allow a 
foreign agency to further disclose information it had received under a 
confidentiality agreement, even under tightly controlled 
circumstances. As a result, CPSC cannot approve text in the 
information-sharing agreement that allows for further disclosures. For 
example, CPSC could not permit Health Canada to disclose information 
it received from CPSC under a section 29(f) agreement to a sister 
agency or provincial-level safety agency. Likewise, CPSC cannot grant 
approval to the European Commission to disclose such information to 
member states. In contrast, the confidentiality restrictions section 
29(f) imposes on information CPSC receives from a foreign agency are 
less severe than those that apply when a foreign agency receives 
information from CPSC--that is, CPSC has greater freedom to disclose 
information than it may grant to its foreign counterparts. CPSC is 
required to make available to Congress and the courts information it 
receives, but its foreign counterparts would not be allowed to make 
similar disclosures to their own governing bodies or court systems. 
According to CPSC staff, this lack of reciprocity has made foreign 
agencies unwilling to enter into agreements with the United States to 
share nonpublic information. In August 2012, CPSC staff told us that 
the Commission has been unable to enter into any international 
agreements pursuant to section 29(f) because CPSC's foreign 
counterparts will only share information if the terms are reciprocal. 
In contrast to this difficulty in completing agreements with foreign 
counterparts, CPSC has on occasion been able to share information it 
has gathered with U.S. state and local agencies. For example, in 
dealing with hazards associated with defective Chinese drywall, CPSC 
was able to share information from the investigation involving the 
Chinese government with U.S. state and local agencies, which is 
discussed in greater detail in appendix II. 

According to CPSC staff and our further analysis of the statute, 
section 29(f) has not achieved the results expected by Congress when 
it enacted this provision, as expressed in the previously cited 
committee reports. The primary reason for this, according to CPSC 
staff, is that section 29(f) does not contain a provision allowing 
foreign agencies to further disclose the information CPSC provides to 
a foreign agency pursuant to a section 29(f) agreement--even 
disclosures required by the foreign agency's laws or to other agencies 
within the same nation or administrative area. This inability to 
establish information-sharing agreements may hinder CPSC's ability to 
respond to a potential hazard in a timely manner because of the delay 
that might occur between when a foreign counterpart decides to take 
action in response to a product hazard and when that action becomes 
public. This delay may allow injuries and deaths to occur from the 
unsafe product's use in the United States. 

CPSC Faces Challenges in Identifying Risks Associated with New 
Products, but Is Taking Steps to Improve Data Systems: 

CPSC uses information from a number of sources to identify specific 
risks associated with both new and existing products. However, many of 
these sources have limitations, such as missing details. CPSC's 
Emerging Hazards Team and Integrated Teams review the collected data 
to identify patterns of new hazards, but analyzing large quantities of 
information presents challenges. To address these challenges, CPSC is 
currently implementing upgrades to CPSRMS, its data management system, 
as required by CPSIA. 

Information Sources: 

CPSC has authority to identify and act on a wide range of consumer 
product hazards. However, obtaining useful and timely information 
about products involved in injuries and fatalities is an ongoing 
challenge for CPSC.[Footnote 43] Additionally, according to CPSC 
officials, it faces challenges in identifying risks from new and 
emerging products largely because statutorily CPSC was established to 
respond to risks after products have been introduced into market. To 
fulfill its mission of protecting the public against unreasonable 
risks of injuries associated with consumer products, CPSC collects, 
reviews, and analyzes information on consumer-product-related injuries 
and deaths from many sources, such as the National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System (NEISS), consumer incident reports, death reports, 
and reports from manufacturers (see table 1).[Footnote 44] CPSC uses 
this information to identify a hazard or hazard pattern. 

Table 1: Key CPSC Information Sources to Facilitate Timely 
Identification of Consumer Product Hazards, Fiscal Year 2011: 

Information source: NEISS; 
Purpose: Provides statistically valid national estimates of product-
related injuries from a probability sample of hospital emergency rooms; 
Approximate number of reports received in fiscal year 2011: 400,000. 

Information source: Consumer incident reports; 
Purpose: Permit consumers, health care professionals, public safety 
entities, and others to submit reports of harm involving consumer 
products; 
Approximate number of reports received in fiscal year 2011: 13,000. 

Information source: Death certificates; 
Purpose: Provide information on unintentional product-related deaths; 
Approximate number of reports received in fiscal year 2011: 8,000. 

Information source: Reports from manufacturers (i.e., CPSA section 
15(b) reports); 
Purpose: Require businesses to immediately report to the Commission 
when they obtain information which reasonably supports the conclusion 
that a product (1) fails to comply with a voluntary standard upon 
which the Commission has relied under section 9 of CPSA or (2) creates 
an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death[A]; 
Approximate number of reports received in fiscal year 2011: 467. 

Information source: News clips; 
Purpose: Fill gaps in reporting from other sources and provide a 
source of incidents to investigate in support of hazard identification 
and analysis activities; 
Approximate number of reports received in fiscal year 2011: 6,207. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information. 

[A] For purpose of this section, CPSC has defined immediately as 
within 24 hours of businesses obtaining information reasonably 
supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect that could 
create a substantial product hazard or an unreasonable risk of serious 
injury or death. Businesses include manufacturers, importers, 
distributors, and retailers. 

[End of table] 

CPSC obtains most of its injury information from NEISS reports. 
According to CPSC staff, this information is timely and useful in 
projecting national injury estimates and monitoring historical trends 
in product-related injuries and is immediately accessible to CPSC 
staff once hospital staff input information into the database. 
[Footnote 45] However, staff told us that the information contained in 
the reports has limitations. As noted in CPSC's 2011 annual report, 
while the reports may indicate that a consumer product was involved in 
an incident, a product may not necessarily have caused the incident. 
Nonetheless, the reports provide an important source of information 
concerning the nature of the incidents and injuries and the product 
associated with the incident. To obtain more specific information, 
CPSC sometimes supplements the NEISS information by conducting further 
investigations. 

CPSC also identifies risks through incident reports received from 
consumers and others, such as health care professionals and child 
service providers, through its websites, telephone hotline, e-mail, 
fax, or postal service.[Footnote 46] According to CPSC officials, 
information in the incident reports is not always complete. 
Furthermore, the reports may not identify the risk associated with the 
incident, thus CPSC may conduct a more in-depth review of the incident. 

According to its 2011 annual report, CPSC also collects mortality data 
from each state. CPSC purchases death certificates that have a high 
probability of consumer product involvement. However, CPSC reported 
that because it does not purchase all death certificates, and because 
those it purchases do not always identify the products involved, the 
total number of actual product-related deaths may be higher than the 
number represented in the death certificates CPSC purchases. CPSC 
reported in its annual report that, similar to the NEISS reports, the 
death certificates do not necessarily indicate that the product 
involved caused the death. CPSC staff also told us that while death 
certificates are a good source of information on fatalities, they 
generally do not contain any specific product or manufacturer 
information. Moreover, there is often a 2 to 3 year lag before the 
mortality data become available. CPSC supplements information from the 
NEISS system, death certificates, and reports from individual 
consumers with reports from medical examiners and coroners. These 
reports are also limited because they do not typically contain 
information that specifically identifies the product (such as brand 
name, model or serial number) or manufacturer. 

CPSC also receives information from manufacturers, distributors, and 
retailers about products distributed in commerce that the 
manufacturers conclude are potential substantial product hazards. 
Manufacturers of consumer products must notify the Commission 
immediately if they obtain information that reasonably supports the 
conclusion that a product fails to comply with a product safety 
standard the Commission has relied upon; fails to comply with any 
rule, regulation, standard, or ban under CPSA or any other act 
enforced by the Commission; contains a defect that could create a 
substantial product hazard; or creates an unreasonable risk of serious 
injury or death.[Footnote 47] However, CPSC does not rely solely on 
manufacturers to report a product defect in order to identify and 
address hazards because CPSC sometimes obtains information on a 
product defect before the manufacturer becomes aware of the problem. 
For example, according to CPSC staff, retailers may provide CPSC with 
reports of safety-related information and CPSC uses this retailer 
information in identifying and assessing risks. 

Incident Report Coding and Screening Process: 

Before the information previously discussed can be reviewed and 
analyzed, it must be coded and entered into CPSC's data management 
system--CPSRMS. Based on our review of CPSC's documentation, staff 
must enter, for example, a short summary from the narrative of the 
incident and assign a product code and the primary hazard category for 
the product.[Footnote 48] According to CPSC staff, applying a product 
code allows for standardization of incidents involving similar 
products to help staff identify and monitor the frequency of the 
occurrence and the hazard types by product category. CPSC's public 
database--SaferProducts.gov--which was launched in March 2011 as 
required by CPSIA, allows consumers to directly enter incident 
information online. Previously, CPSC staff had to manually enter and 
code these reports. While staff must still code some data, such as 
submitter's information and relationship to the victim, reports 
consumers submit through the public database reduce some of the manual 
tasks, such as rekeying of incident data.[Footnote 49] According to 
CPSC staff, for reports received through the hotline, staff use a 
template to enter information directly into the database. Other 
reports continue to be manually coded by staff.[Footnote 50] According 
to CPSC officials, staff must review incident reports daily to 
identify pertinent information to "code" the reports in the database. 
This work requires staff to read the narrative and extract the 
information, such as a description of the incident, location where the 
incident occurred, number of victims, severity of the injury, the 
source of the incident report, and a description of the product 
involved in the incident. 

After the coding is completed, the incident reports advance to the 
Emerging Hazards Team. The Emerging Hazards Team is composed of 
statisticians, whose responsibilities include reviewing incident 
reports to identify new and emerging product-associated hazards, 
performing product safety assessments, directing new reports to 
appropriate Integrated Product Teams, and sending out daily death 
notifications. The Emerging Hazards Team's review is CPSC's first step 
in identifying a hazard and determining whether the hazard is new and 
emerging. According to CPSC staff, the Emerging Hazards Team reviews 
all incident reports daily, including those stored in the data 
management system, to identify trends and patterns. They said that 
this review is intended to determine whether reports should be 
forwarded to one of six Integrated Product Teams, which are composed 
of subject-matter experts from the Office of Hazard Identification and 
Reduction, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations, and staff 
from other CPSC offices and are organized by type of hazard.[Footnote 
51] (We discuss the Integrated Product Teams' role in CPSC's 
assessment of risk in greater detail later in this report.) 

CPSC officials told us that in making their determination, the 
Emerging Hazards Team considers the criteria set forth in 16 CFR 
1009.8, such as the frequency and severity of the injury and the 
vulnerability of the population at risk. These criteria are considered 
at each step of the risk process and in setting agency priorities. 
CPSC officials also told us that the Emerging Hazards Team uses 
criteria provided to them by the Integrated Product Teams to classify 
reports within the system as needing no further review. Reports 
requiring no further review are stored in the database (see figure 1). 
According to CPSC officials, incidents involving a death, particularly 
if it involves a vulnerable population, are granted the highest 
priority and are immediately forwarded to the appropriate Integrated 
Product Team for action. 

Figure 1: CPSC Incident Intake/Screening Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

Incident reports: 
Sources: 
* CPSC public database; 
* NEISS system (hospital data); 
* Hotline; 
* News clips; 
* Coroners' reports. 

Reports entered into data management system: CPSRMS. 

Preliminary review by the Emerging Hazards Team: 
* No further review: Electronically archived; 
* Further review: Made available electronically to integrated teams: 
- Children's Hazard Team; 
- Mechanical Hazard Team; 
- Chemical Hazard Team; 
- Combustion Hazard Team; 
- Fire Hazard Team; 
- Electrical Hazard Team; 
Electronically archived. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information; Art Explosion. 

[End of figure] 

In performing its review, the Emerging Hazards Team said it uses the 
historical data to identify trends and patterns of potentially new and 
emerging hazards while at the same time forwarding the reports to the 
appropriate Integrated Product Team. Specifically, incidents that are 
unusual or that appear to be similar to previously reported incidents 
are analyzed more closely to determine whether they need to be 
assessed by both the Emerging Hazards and Integrated Product Teams. 
For instance, according to the staff, in April 2012 CPSC received a 
news clip that detailed an incident involving a toy with a mirror that 
was attached but protected by a plastic cover. The staff conducted a 
search of CPSC's database and identified a similar incident in August 
2011. In both cases, the child was able to remove the cover and gain 
access to the hazardous component within it. Based on this finding, 
the team determined that the toy was a choking hazard and the reports 
were forwarded to the appropriate Integrated Product Team for a more 
in-depth review. 

According to an agency official, identifying patterns of risk is 
particularly challenging in situations involving many different makes 
and models of a particular product category. For example, CPSC staff 
completed a comprehensive review of crib-related infant fatalities 
reported to the agency between January 2000 and May 2010 involving 
drop-side crib hazards. During that period, staff was aware of 32 
fatalities and hundreds of incidents that were caused by or related to 
brackets that detached from the drop-side cribs made by various 
manufacturers. According to the CPSC official, because the fatalities 
occurred across several different makes and models of cribs, it was 
difficult for CPSC to identify a pattern. In 2007 CPSC launched its 
Early Warning System to look for patterns in order to identify 
emerging hazards in a specific group of children's products--including 
bassinets, cribs, and play yards--quickly and efficiently. This system 
relied on the integration of timely input from technical experts and 
technology to rapidly identify emerging hazards and led to millions of 
products being recalled. According to a CPSC news release issued 
October 2008, since the creation of its Early Warning System, the 
agency has conducted five crib recalls. Because of the success of the 
Early Warning System in identifying hazards in these children's 
products, CPSC expanded the use of new technologies to address hazards 
in other product areas through its system upgrade and the Integrated 
Product Team concept. 

In fiscal year 2011, staff within the Office of Hazard Identification 
and Hazard Reduction implemented a new business process building upon 
the existing NEISS coding system. The new process required that all 
incident reports be reviewed and screened by the Emerging Hazards Team 
and that all incident reports associated with certain product codes be 
reviewed and analyzed by the appropriate Integrated Product Teams. 
However, according to agency officials, before they can fully 
implement this process, more automation of the screening process in 
the data-management system remains to be completed to allow the 
technical experts time to focus their attention on those incidents 
that could indicate a potential new hazard that needs further analysis. 

Data System Improvements: 

To improve the processing of the voluminous data it receives, CPSC is 
upgrading its data-management system--CPSRMS--as previously discussed. 
According to CPSC, the upgraded system is designed to enhance CPSC's 
efficiency and effectiveness, enable a more rapid dissemination of 
information, and allow consumers to search the database through a 
publicly available portal. CPSC officials expect the system upgrades 
to be completed in fiscal year 2013 and fully operational in fiscal 
year 2014. Further, CPSC anticipates that staff will be able to create 
electronic files of related incidents, investigations, assessments, 
and other information to manage the high volume of incident reports 
the agency receives in order to identify emerging hazards more 
quickly. Finally, as part of the data system upgrade, CPSC expects to 
automate the process to determine which incident reports will be 
assigned for investigation. 

As previously noted, CPSC's incident reports contain information that 
CPSC enters into the data system using standardized codes. However, 
CPSC officials told us that in order to be more efficient in 
identifying patterns and trends, the Integrated Product Teams need 
additional standardized codes built into the system for identifying 
product hazards. According to CPSC staff, they are in the process of 
developing additional standardized codes and eventually algorithms to 
conduct searches using key words, such as product manufacturer or 
country of origin. While the officials said it will take 3 to 5 years 
to develop the standardized language for the system, they added that 
the goal of this new capability is to help the agency achieve 
consistency as it loses institutional knowledge due to attrition and 
retirement. Ultimately, they expect the upgraded system to expedite 
the process for identifying emerging hazards. 

CPSC officials told us that before this upgraded database system, 
staff turnover had a more dramatic impact on CPSC's ability to 
identify patterns or trends in the incident information it analyzed. 
In addition, the Commission did not have the capability to monitor the 
incidents in such a way that one person could see all the historical 
data, which interrupted the continuity in staff analysis. Furthermore, 
reviewing incident reports requires individual judgment, and 
automating the screening process is expected to allow the technical 
experts the opportunity to focus their efforts on specific records. As 
a result of the upgrade to CPSC's information infrastructure, 
manufacturers are also able to enter information about substantial 
product hazards directly into CPSRMS, allowing the information to go 
through the coding and screening process more quickly. Furthermore, 
CPSC is in the process of developing case-management software for the 
Office of Compliance and Field Operations that will integrate the 
various databases to provide efficiency to all staff working on the 
compliance cases. The case management system is intended to allow 
staff to track the progress of an investigation throughout the agency 
and is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2013. 

CPSC Is Taking Actions to Improve Its Ability to Identify Unsafe 
Imported Products before They Enter the Marketplace: 

As we have previously reported, CPSC has had limited ability to 
identify unsafe products at the ports.[Footnote 52] In our 2009 
report, we recommended that the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC 
take several actions to improve the agency's ability to target 
shipments for further screening and review at U.S. ports of entry as 
follows: 

1. To ensure that it has appropriate data and procedures to prevent 
entry of unsafe products into the United States, we recommended that 
CPSC update agreements with CBP to clarify each agency's roles and to 
resolve issues for obtaining access to advance shipment data. 

2. To improve its targeting decisions and build its risk-analysis 
capability, we recommended that CPSC (a) work with CBP, as directed 
under CPSIA, through the planned targeting center for health and 
safety issues, to develop the capacity to analyze advance shipment 
data; and (b) link data CPSC gathers from surveillance activities and 
from international education and outreach activities to further target 
incoming shipments. 

CPSC views its import surveillance activities as a preventative 
strategy, intended to stop unlawful products before they are received 
into the United States. CPSC considers this strategy more proactive 
than relying on traditional compliance and recall efforts to remove 
violative products from the marketplace after harm may have occurred. 
In response to CPSIA, CPSC has developed and is pilot testing an 
approach for identifying and targeting unsafe consumer products at 
U.S. ports.[Footnote 53] CPSC is designing this approach to evaluate 
products entering the United States based on a predetermined set of 
rules (i.e., to target specific hazardous products or importers) 
intended to identify imports with the highest risks to consumers. CPSC 
has reported that given its low staffing levels and limited coverage 
at the ports (as of November 2012, CPSC had 20 port investigators 
stationed full-time at 15 of the largest U.S. ports), developing an 
automated process for identifying violative products was essential to 
increasing its ability to target unsafe products before they enter 
commerce. 

As detailed in CPSIA and based on our prior recommendation, CPSC is 
designing its approach to integrate its information with import data 
from CBP. CPSC has completed its agreement with CBP and obtained the 
shipment data as we recommended. CPSC is in the process of moving to a 
computer-based, systematic approach for targeting imports from its 
prior process for screening imported products. Under its prior 
process, established in 2007, CPSC staff manually screened importers' 
documentation and telephoned CBP staff at the ports to detain 
shipments for inspection. CPSC is designing the new targeting approach 
to provide a framework that permits rules to be added and modified 
easily to accommodate new risk factors and changes in operations. For 
example, its approach is designed to allow CPSC staff to rank or risk-
score incoming shipments in order to prioritize the Commission's 
responses to product hazards that can be addressed at the ports. 

CPSC's initial activities are focused on import compliance, such as 
screening children's imported products for lead content. CPSC reported 
that in 2011, it conducted an analysis of children's product importers 
that have had a history of noncompliance with safety standards and 
continues to target these importers for safety assessment. In a CPSC 
staff demonstration of this new targeting approach, we observed the 
use of their rule sets and the integration of import data used to make 
determinations for which shipments to target. When this import 
targeting system is fully implemented, CPSC expects to be able to 
systematically analyze 100 percent of shipments within CPSC 
jurisdiction to ensure that adequate resources are dedicated to the 
highest risk shipments, as indicated by its targeting rules. CPSC 
reported that it began limited testing of its targeting concept in 
fall 2011. 

According to its 2013 Performance Budget, in 2011, CPSC port 
investigators, working with CBP agents, screened almost 10,000 import 
samples at U.S. ports of entry and collected more than 1,800 import 
samples for testing at the CPSC laboratory. CPSC projects that the 
full implementation of this new system will take about 4 to 7 years, 
depending on resources devoted to this effort. CPSC's detailed 
proposal on this import-targeting approach reported the need for 
additional staff for strengthening their coverage at the ports and for 
additional laboratory staff.[Footnote 54] In its report to Congress, 
CPSC also recommended certain legal changes to better align the 
Commission's authorities with those of CBP and other health and safety 
agencies for targeting and addressing unsafe products at import. In 
addition, to complete the technology piece of the import targeting 
system, CPSC estimated the costs to be $40 million from fiscal years 
2013 through 2019. CPSC's planned next step in this effort is to 
reduce the duplication of effort between cases initiated by the Office 
of Compliance and Field Operations and those initiated by the Office 
of Import Surveillance by creating a case management system, as part 
of upgrading its information system. 

Timeliness of CPSC's Actions to Assess and Address New Risks Depends 
on the Specific Product or Hazard: 

CPSC assesses product risks on a case-by-case basis using information 
it collects from various sources. Once it has assessed the risk and 
determined the need to address a product hazard, CPSC can take a 
number of actions to reduce the risks of product-related injuries to 
consumers. 

CPSC's Risk Assessment Varies with the Particular Product or Hazard 
Being Assessed: 

Once CPSC identifies product risks, it assesses those risks on a case-
by-case basis.[Footnote 55] According to CPSC staff, an assessment 
could pertain to a particular model of a product or to a class of 
products, such as drop-side cribs, or it may be specific to a type of 
hazard, such as fire hazards associated with appliances. In addition, 
according to CPSC officials, the types of information CPSC collects to 
assess product risk depend on the product and the type of assessment 
being conducted. In general, CPSC requires information on the severity 
of an injury, the probability of the hazard occurring, consumers' 
ability to recognize hazardous conditions, and how the consumer uses 
the product. In addition, officials stated that manufacturer, model, 
serial number, number of products sold, life-cycle of the product, and 
safety incidents involving the products are all useful information. As 
noted earlier, most of CPSC's information sources are limited in the 
information available. Additionally, CPSC officials told us that most 
information on sales of a particular product is not readily available, 
and surveys to establish use and exposure information are costly and 
often take up to a year to get approval (from the commissioners and 
the Office of Management and Budget) to conduct. As a result, CPSC 
often tries to estimate consumers' exposure using assumptions based on 
sales data and product life-cycle information. 

As part of its assessment, CPSC evaluates consumer products to 
identify both acute and chronic hazards. Acute hazards are conditions 
that create the potential for injury or damage to consumers as a 
result of an accident or short-duration exposure to a defective 
product. Chronic hazards are presented by substances that can damage 
health over a relatively long period, after continuous or repeated 
exposures. Hazards may be either physical or chemical in nature. The 
adverse effects from exposure to a chemical substance can be acute, 
such as poisonings, or chronic, such as cancer or reproductive or 
genetic abnormalities. As stated earlier, CPSC relies on its criteria 
for establishing priorities in assessing risk. More specifically, CPSC 
staff can assess a product's potential health effects to consumers 
using well-established chronic hazard guidelines based on the Federal 
Hazardous Substances Act. 

CPSC staff with whom we spoke said CPSC relies on the knowledge and 
judgment of its staff to review and analyze incident reports in order 
to identify emerging hazards that the agency could address. According 
to CPSC's documentation, as part of their analysis, Integrated Product 
Team staff read all the incidents within each product code assigned to 
them. If a pattern emerges, they are required to review historical 
records and update those records accordingly. These teams are also 
responsible for other risk-related activities, such as requesting 
investigations; recommending new activities to management as needed, 
depending on the severity and addressability of emerging hazards; and 
monitoring follow-up status on compliance corrective actions and 
status of projects for standard development (see figure 2).[Footnote 
56] According to CPSC staff, the agency plans to develop standard 
operating procedures tailored to each team and to establish benchmarks 
for the teams to use in completing their analyses of hazards and 
identifying a strategy to address the hazards. 

Figure 2: CPSC Review and Assessment Process: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration] 

CPSRMS: 
Incident report warranting further review: 

Integrated teams: 
Initial review; 
In-depth investigation assigned: Field investigations (outside of 
integrated teams); 
Product safety assessment assigned. 

Possible outcomes: 
Monitor product; 
Refer product for corrective action; 
Refer product for standards development; 
Refer product for public safety campaign. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information; Art Explosion. 

[End of figure] 

When one of the Integrated Product Teams identifies a potentially new 
hazardous product, the team may request an investigation. CPSC staff, 
one Commissioner, and product safety experts said that assessing the 
risks posed by new products is challenging because hazards from new 
products are not readily apparent because historical data are not 
available for analysis. An investigation provides staff an opportunity 
to obtain additional information about use of the product that could 
potentially assist in their assessment. Investigation reports, which 
are prepared by the Office of Compliance and Field Operations staff, 
provide details about the sequence of events surrounding the incident, 
human and environmental factors, and product involvement.[Footnote 57] 
The incident reports generally contain the consumer's version of what 
occurred based on discussion with the incident victim or individual 
most knowledgeable about the incident. CPSC staff noted that the 
investigative activity is an ongoing process and the Integrated 
Product Teams decide whether to continue the investigative process as 
they evaluate new evidence they receive. Investigations may also 
include follow-up inspections at retail stores, discussion with fire 
and police investigators, as well as the inclusion of fire and police 
reports. 

CPSC's guidance for staff involved in risk-assessment activities 
identifies certain factors based upon the Commission's criteria for 
establishing priorities. As discussed earlier, these factors include 
the frequency and severity of injuries, consumers' exposure to the 
risk, causality of injuries, foreseeability of the risk, and the 
vulnerability of the population at risk. CPSC's guidance specifically 
states that staff should consider these factors when deciding whether 
to investigate hazards or initiate corrective actions. According to 
CPSC officials, staff consider these factors throughout the risk-
assessment process and in prioritizing which product hazards require 
action by the Commission. As an example, a CPSC official said that in 
a hypothetical situation involving an appliance that poses a fire 
hazard, staff may first determine the number of incidents involving 
this product, the extent of injuries, the level of exposure, and the 
likelihood that exposure to this appliance will result in death or 
serious injury. To evaluate the hazard, CPSC would collect samples of 
the product in order to determine the source of the defect and gather 
market data, such as the useful life of the product and the number of 
products in the marketplace. As part of their assessment, CPSC would 
also consider whether other types of products may be subject to this 
type of hazard, potentially extending the time needed for the 
assessment. 

Product Evaluation: 

CPSC evaluates some products, which it has identified through 
investigation and market surveillance, at CPSC's National Product 
Testing and Evaluation Center.[Footnote 58] Integrated Product Teams' 
evaluation and analysis of products being tested is generally geared 
toward improving standards or initiating rulemaking.[Footnote 59] The 
testing center is staffed with engineers and scientists from the 
Office of Hazard Identification and Hazard Reduction, some of whom are 
members of the Integrated Product Teams. According to CPSC laboratory 
staff, many of the samples at the testing center were imported 
products that CPSC intercepted at the ports before they were 
distributed into commerce. During our tour of CPSC's test facility, we 
observed, for example, several bunk beds being tested to ensure they 
did not pose an entrapment hazard for children.[Footnote 60] We also 
observed an off-road stroller that was submitted for testing. The 
staff explained that the Integrated Product Team was testing this 
stroller for stability. As designed, the stroller had three wheels and 
posed a tip-over hazard. As noted in table 2, according to CPSC staff, 
the time needed to complete testing of regulated products varies. 
These times reflect typical duration to complete the tests once a 
sample is received by laboratory staff. 

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

Product: Toys; 

Regulation/Standard: Lead content; 
Typical time frame (days): 1-4; 

Regulation/Standard: Small parts; 
Typical time frame (days): 2-3; 

Regulation/Standard: Phthalates; 
Typical time frame (days): 3-5. 

Product: Children's products; 

Regulation/Standard: Lead content; 
Typical time frame (days): 1-4; 

Regulation/Standard: Phthalates; 
Typical time frame (days): 3-5; 

Regulation/Standard: Bunk bed; 
Typical time frame (days): 5-7 

Regulation/Standard: Cribs; 
Typical time frame (days): 5-10. 

Product: Mattresses; 
Regulation/Standard: Open flame; 
Typical time frame (days): 3-5. 

Product: All-terrain vehicles; 
Regulation/Standard: Regulation; 
Typical time frame (days): 14-21. 

Product: Fireworks; 
Regulation/Standard: Regulation; 
Typical time frame (days): 14-28. 

Product: Sleepwear; 
Regulation/Standard: Flammability; 
Typical time frame (days): 18-21. 

Product: Trampolines and enclosures; 
Regulation/Standard: Consensus Standard; 
Typical time frame (days): 30-45. 

Product: Pool and spa drain covers; 
Regulation/Standard: Regulation; 
Typical time frame (days): 40-60. 

Product: Carbon monoxide alarms; 
Regulation/Standard: Consensus Standard; 
Typical time frame (days): 40-60. 

Product: Electric space heater; 
Regulation/Standard: Consensus Standard; 
Typical time frame (days): 40-60. 

Source: CPSC. 

Note: The durations listed are typical ranges for the specific 
product. Actual times may be shorter or longer depending on the scope 
of the testing that needs to be done. The time frames do not include 
time from collection or when follow-up determinations are executed 
after testing is completed. A consensus standard is also referred to 
as a voluntary standard. 

[End of table] 

The Office of Compliance and Field Operations relies on the expertise 
of the Emerging Hazards Team statisticians and other staff in the 
Office of Hazard Identification and Hazard Reduction to perform other 
safety assessments, such as database reviews and engineering file 
reviews. As part of this process, the Office of Compliance and Field 
Operations may request that the Emerging Hazards Team conduct a 
technical evaluation of a specific type of product, such as all gas 
appliances that showed a pattern of fire or explosion hazard. This 
assessment entails searching CPSC's database for all incidents 
involving certain types of gas appliances with reports of gas leaks or 
fires using certain selection criteria. The Office of Compliance and 
Field Operations may also request that engineering staff review the 
full report from a manufacturer about a product and check the 
company's information against CPSC's database. 

Timeliness of Assessments Varies: 

According to CPSC officials, the timeliness of completing a risk 
assessment varies. For example, the risk assessment process for a 
chemical substance may be completed in a matter of days if acceptable 
and valid toxicity and exposure data are readily available. CPSC is 
familiar with the hazard posed by lead and has developed a testing 
method that can be performed quickly. As a result, testing toys for 
compliance with lead content regulation can be completed within 1 to 4 
days, depending on whether the product can be tested using X-ray 
fluorescent equipment or requires traditional chemical analysis. In 
contrast, the risk assessment process of some chemical substances may 
take years to complete if CPSC needs to generate toxicity and exposure 
data through laboratory experiments. For example, in assessing the 
risk to children from playing on wood playground equipment treated 
with chromated copper arsenate (CCA), CPSC staff reviewed toxicity 
data and determined that there were insufficient data available on the 
exposure to arsenic from CCA-treated wood on which to base a 
recommendation to the Commission on the risk to children. As a result, 
CPSC staff designed and performed new laboratory and field studies to 
obtain exposure data to assess the health risk to children. CPSC began 
this project in 2001 and presented the results of its study to the 
Commission in 2003.[Footnote 61] CPSC's timeline for conducting other 
safety assessments varied from 4 hours to perform a consultation by a 
technical engineer on a hazard classified as a high priority (where 
the risk of death or grievous injury or illness is likely or very 
likely or serious risk of illness is very likely) to 8 weeks to test a 
product sample for a routine case identified as a hazard that is 
possible but not likely to occur.[Footnote 62] 

Furthermore, CPSC faces challenges assessing the risks associated with 
products manufactured using nanomaterials. In particular, the 
introduction of consumer products containing nanomaterials into the 
marketplace may require unique approaches to determine exposure and 
risk and poses new regulatory challenges for CPSC. According to CPSC's 
statement on nanomaterial, the potential safety and health risks of 
nanomaterials, as well as other compounds that are incorporated into 
consumer products, can be assessed under existing CPSC statutes, 
regulations, and guidelines. However, because testing methods are 
still being developed, conducting its risk assessment of such products 
will take longer. Neither CPSA nor the Federal Hazardous Substances 
Act requires the premarket registration or approval of consumer 
products. Thus, CPSC would usually not evaluate the product's 
potential risk to the public until a product containing nanomaterials 
has been distributed into commerce. 

CPSC Uses Various Approaches to Address Product Hazards, but Faces 
Challenges in Addressing New Product Risks: 

To address product-related hazards, CPSC uses various approaches 
designed to reduce injuries and deaths. CPSC's enforcement role is 
based on its statutory authority to address unreasonable risks 
associated with consumer products. Based on CPSC's documents, CPSC 
staff use investigations and assessments of product hazards to 
determine (1) whether corrective action is appropriate and (2) what 
type of actions may be appropriate to address potential risks of 
injury to the public. Before deciding to take action, CPSC must 
consider whether the risk is one that the Commission can address. For 
example, the blade of a kitchen knife can harm a consumer, but the 
sharpness of the knife, by design, is not a defect and the risk it 
poses cannot be addressed by CPSC's actions. However, according to 
CPSC staff, if the handle of the knife breaks while the knife is in 
use and injures the consumer, CPSC would consider the product to be 
defective and the risk to be addressable. 

CPSC's actions to address and reduce the risks of injury to consumers 
include the following. 

* Compliance--conducting compliance activities, such as voluntary 
recalls and corrective actions, product bans, and enforcement of 
existing regulations by seeking civil and criminal penalties, and 
injunctive relief against prohibited acts.[Footnote 63] 

* Standards--developing mandatory safety standards or participating in 
the voluntary standards process. 

* Public Education--notifying the public of safety hazards and 
educating them about safe practices. 

According to CPSC, its multifaceted approach is intended to not only 
address immediate problems but also future problems. For instance, 
CPSC identified fire pots used with gel fuel as an emerging hazard in 
June 2011, after a severe injury was reported (see figure 3).[Footnote 
64] As of September 2011, CPSC was aware of 76 incidents involving 
fire pots used with gel fuel that resulted in two deaths and 86 
injuries. CPSC reported that preliminary testing and evaluation of 
fire pots and gel fuels showed that they pose a serious risk of burn 
injuries to consumers due to certain features of the fire pot design, 
the burning and physical characteristics of the gel fuel, and the 
packaging of the gel fuel container. In the short term, CPSC worked 
with the individual manufacturers to recall the product. To address 
longer term concerns with the product, the agency is also working to 
develop mandatory standards to address risks associated with similar 
and future products. Between June and October 2011, CPSC announced 12 
voluntary recalls involving more than 2 million bottles of gel fuel. 
In December 2011, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) to address the injuries and deaths associated with 
this product. As we previously reported, according to CPSC, the time 
required for mandatory rulemaking varies depending on the complexity 
of the product or legal requirements for enacting the rules, the 
severity of the hazard, and other agency priorities, among other 
factors.[Footnote 65] For example, a legal expert told us that a 
mandatory rulemaking for cigarette lighters took 10 years from the 
decision to take action to final rule. CPSC also has been considering 
a mandatory rule to address the risk of fire associated with ignitions 
of upholstered furniture since 1994. 

Figure 3: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Fire pots and Gel Fuel, 
2001 to 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

2001:   
Gel fuel began to be marketed for gel fuel fireplaces. These are not 
fire pots.[A] 

2009: 
Gel fuel began to be offered in bottle containers rather than single-
use cans. 

Late 2009: 
Fire pots, a new product, started to be marketed. 

2010 to mid-2011: Most fire pots purchased. 

April 3, 2010: First incident with gel fuel occurred. 

May 28, 2011: 
First fatality related to gel fuel, 51 year old man died of severe 
burns covering 60 percent of his body. 

June 2011: 
CPSC identified fire pots used with gel fuel as an emerging hazard, 
after a severe injury was reported. CPSC initiated an investigation 
during this time. 

June – October 2011: 
CPSC issued 12 voluntary recalls of gel fuel (recalling more than 2 
million bottles of gel fuel). 

July 3, 2011: 
Second fatality related to gel fuel, 84 year old woman died of severe 
burns covering 40 percent of her body. 

As of Sept. 30, 2011:
76 incidents (2 deaths/186 injuries)-—between April 3, 2010 to 
September 1, 2011.[B] 

December 7, 2011: 
CPSC staff presented briefing package to commissioners to vote on 
issuance of Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).[C] 

December 16, 2011: 
Commissioners voted unanimously to issue ANPR (4-0). 

December 27, 2011: 
ANPR issued on fire pots using gel fuel. 

Feb. 27, 2012: 
Written comments in response to ANPR due.[D] 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information, 

[A] Gel fuel for fireplaces has been available in single-use cans 
since the mid-1980s. 

[B] An incident may include more than one death or injury. According 
to CPSC briefing to commissioners, the earliest incident known to 
staff occurred on April 3, 2010. In some cases, the incident is 
reported to CPSC days after it occurred, and in other cases, it has 
taken more than a year. Several incidents that occurred in 2010 were 
reported to CPSC in 2011. 

[C] The purpose of the ANPR was to determine what voluntary or 
mandatory standards should be implemented, what, if any, changes 
should be made to labeling, and if the products should be banned or no 
regulatory action taken. 

[D] According to CPSC, in fiscal year 2013 staff plan to review 
comments to the ANPR and develop performance criteria and test methods 
for a potential mandatory rule. In fiscal year 2014, CPSC plans to 
prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking package for the Commission's 
consideration. 

[End of figure] 

Reliance on Voluntary Standards: 

CPSC's statutory authority requires the Commission to rely on 
voluntary standards to build safety into consumer products if the 
Commission determines that compliance with a voluntary standard is 
likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of risk of 
injury identified and that there will be substantial compliance with 
the voluntary standard.[Footnote 66] CPSC officials told us that 
compliance with applicable voluntary standards would be one of many 
factors in the decision on whether an unregulated product is defective 
and poses a risk of injury, thus requiring corrective action. In 
addition to taking steps to ensure compliance, the agency may address 
the risk presented by unregulated products--that is, products not 
subject to mandatory standards--by recommending revisions to voluntary 
standards. However, having a voluntary standard that does not address 
the particular defect or hazard that is being examined can slow down 
the process of getting a corrective action. In some instances, the 
manufacturer may disagree with CPSC's finding that a product can meet 
a voluntary standard but has a defect that creates a serious risk of 
injury or death. If the strategy to address a risk is to develop a 
voluntary standard, the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction 
will work to develop the standard. 

If CPSC finds that a manufacturer's product fails to comply with 
voluntary standards or presents a substantial product hazard, it can 
take an enforcement action, such as seeking a public notice or recall. 
When a recall is deemed necessary, the Office of Compliance and Field 
Operations negotiates with the responsible firm to seek a "voluntary" 
or a negotiated recall whenever possible. According to CPSC officials, 
if the firm does not cooperate, CPSC can seek to (1) issue a 
unilateral press release asking consumers to discontinue use of the 
product, (2) ask distributors and retailers to stop selling the unsafe 
products, (3) obtain injunctive relief, (4) file an administrative 
complaint before an administrative law judge to affirm its position, 
although this process can take several months or years to complete, or 
(5) pursue an action against the product and manufacturer under the 
imminent hazard provision of CPSA. CPSC staff told us that for each 
recall, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations works with the 
Office of Hazard Identification on a case-by-case basis to determine 
whether standards (voluntary or mandatory) need to be developed to 
address similar or future products. In addition, CPSC can assess civil 
penalties if a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer knowingly fails 
to report potential substantial product hazards. 

Improving Timeliness of CPSC's Response: 

CPSC has established the Fast-Track recall program, which provides 
firms the opportunity to streamline the recall process by removing 
hazardous products from the marketplace immediately. Under section 
15(b) of CPSA, if a company suspects that a product could be 
hazardous, the company must report it to CPSC. The Fast-Track recall 
program allows the company to propose a plan for an expedited recall. 
If CPSC considers the firm's plan satisfactory--and finds no other 
cause for concern in its review--it approves the plan and works with 
the firm to expedite the recall to begin within 20 days of the initial 
report to CPSC. This program is intended to remove dangerous products 
from the marketplace faster and save the company and CPSC both time 
and money. While some industry representatives have questioned the 
timeliness of the Fast-Track program, CPSC stated that a number of 
factors could slow the process, such as delays in receiving 
information from the firm, delays in completing product safety 
assessments, or evaluation of the remedy being suggested. CPSC 
reported that in 2011 staff completed technical reviews of hazardous 
products and initiated corrective actions within 20 days 95 percent of 
the time, thereby exceeding the Commission's goals for initiating Fast-
Track recalls by 5 percent. Since August 1997, CPSC reported that it 
has used the Fast-Track recall program to conduct 2,000 recalls on 
over approximately 200 million products. 

The timeliness of CPSC's response to new and emerging hazards depends, 
in part, on the extent to which U.S. companies are motivated to 
quickly institute and enforce stringent product safety standards 
because selling products that cause injury or death can have negative 
impacts on their brands. In addition, the tort system in the United 
States--by exposing companies selling unsafe products to lawsuits--
helps ensure that companies are motivated to comply with product 
safety standards. CPSC faces a trade-off between consumer protection 
and industry cooperation when deciding what actions to take, such as 
developing standards or banning a particular product, and whether 
industry self-regulation can be used to protect consumers. Balancing 
the interests of both consumers and industry participants adds 
complexity and affects the timeliness of CPSC's response. If CPSC does 
not act quickly enough, a consumer may be harmed by using an unsafe 
product. However, if CPSC acts too quickly, it can be subject to 
lawsuits from companies that claim it has not presented sufficient 
evidence to prove a product hazard, which could result in a reversal 
of its decision and any action taken against a company. 

Other Efforts to Address Risks: 

Although CPSC has broad regulatory powers, the agency's efforts to 
address product hazards are also carried out using other methods, such 
as through consumer and manufacturer outreach. For example, CPSC can 
provide information to consumers on safety practices that can help 
prevent product-related accidents. These outreach efforts are carried 
out by the Office of Education, Global Outreach, and Small Business 
Ombudsman. This office's primary responsibility is to coordinate and 
provide education and outreach activities to various domestic and 
international stakeholders. The office is also responsible for working 
with manufacturers to help build safety into their products to prevent 
dangerous products from ever entering the marketplace. 

CPSC uses a range of communication strategies to inform the public 
about safety issues. This information is intended to help consumers 
make informed choices about the products they purchase and to educate 
consumers on how to use the products safely and to act quickly if they 
own a recalled product. According to CPSC, the Commission has had 
success in educating the public through increased use of social media 
to communicate safety messages and through targeted campaigns that aim 
to reach the most vulnerable populations affected by certain product 
hazards. Examples include the "Safe Sleep" and "Pool Safely" 
campaigns, which addressed risks associated with baby cribs, baby 
monitor cords and sleep positioners, and swimming pools and spas, 
respectively. CPSC posts recalls and press releases to its website in 
a format that allows television stations and other media to obtain 
information from CPSC's website to post on their own websites. 
Consumers also have the option of accessing [hyperlink, 
http://www.SaferProducts.gov] or calling the CPSC hotline to ask 
questions about recalls or request safety information. 

Challenges in Addressing New Product Hazards: 

CPSC finds it challenging to address hazards posed by new products 
because first, the product defect or hazard must be identified; 
second, the associated risk must be assessed; and as noted earlier, it 
is harder to identify and assess the risk associated with new products 
when there is no historical data to assess. Furthermore, according to 
one agency official, because CPSC does not have authority to require 
pre-approval of products before they enter the U.S. market, CPSC 
cannot take action unless a product creates a risk of harm. Generally, 
new products are unregulated--that is, they are not subject to 
existing mandatory standards. To illustrate the challenge CPSC faces 
with addressing risks associated with new products, an agency official 
cited an instance where the agency collected a handful of incident 
reports involving a new infant sleep product. They performed a hazard 
profile on the product but because there had been no injury associated 
with the product, CPSC could not make a good case to have the 
manufacturer remedy an identified potential problem. In instances 
where CPSC may identify a potential hazard before a product is 
introduced into commerce, the agency's only action is to alert the 
manufacturer of the potential hazard or product defect. 

Moreover, CPSC may not have prior experience with the potential hazard 
from a new consumer product and may need to take a number of actions 
to address a specific hazard, which can take years. For example, CPSC 
has recognized for several years that the ingestion of small magnets 
can pose a hazard for children. After 34 incidents were reported, 1 
resulting in the death of a 20-month old child, and after 
investigating these incidents, CPSC issued a recall of children's toys 
with magnets in March 2006. After further incidents of magnet 
ingestion were reported, CPSC issued an expanded recall in April 2007. 
From 2007 to 2008, CPSC worked with the toy industry and other 
stakeholders to develop a voluntary standard, which the Commission 
made mandatory in August 2009. However, high-powered magnet sets 
became available during 2008, with sales increasing in 2009. In 
February 2010, CPSC received its first report of an ingestion of high-
powered magnets by a child. Although there was no injury associated 
with this magnet ingestion, CPSC noted that the product was 
inappropriately labeled for children and did not comply with the 
mandatory toy standards. In response, in May 2010, CPSC worked with 
one manufacturer to issue a voluntary recall due to the improper 
labeling. In December 2010, CPSC received another report of high-
powered magnet ingestion by a child that required surgery. Because the 
circumstances differed from those of previous incidents, CPSC 
continued to track these incidents and conducted a follow-up 
investigation.[Footnote 67] In November 2011, CPSC and two 
manufacturers issued a public service announcement related to 
ingestion of magnets. CPSC continued to receive reports of incidents 
involving the ingestion of high-powered magnets. In 2012, the majority 
of manufacturers agreed to stop selling the product, but two 
manufacturers, one of which sold more than 70 percent of the magnet 
sets purchased in the United States, did not. To address the hazard 
associated with the products remaining in the market, CPSC filed 
administrative actions against the companies in July and August 2012. 
[Footnote 68] On September 4, 2012, CPSC took further action and 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to prohibit high-powered magnet 
sets. The public comment period ended on November 19, 2012. See figure 
4 for a timeline of CPSC's actions in response to hazards associated 
with magnets. 

Figure 4: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Magnets, 2006 to 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

2006: 
CPSC issued a recall of children's toys with magnets based on one 
death. 

2007-2008: 
CPSC staff worked with the toy industry and other stakeholders to 
develop a mandatory standard to prevent magnets from detaching from 
toys. The standard prohibits magnets and magnet components that are 
loose and of a size that could be swallowed to be in toys for children 
under 14 years of age. 

April 2007: 
COSC issued a warning about the possibility of magnets detaching from 
children's toys, such as building sets, causing injuries and death. At 
that time, CPSC was aware of the death of a 20-month-old child and of 
33 incidents involving children who had swallowed magnets. 

2008: 
High-powered magnet sets are introduced into the market. 

2009: 
Sales increase of high-powered magnet sets. 

August, 2009: 
Voluntary standards for toys with magnets became mandatory. 

February 2010: 
First incident with high-powered magnet set involving a child, no 
injury. 

May 2010: 
Recall of high-powered magnet sets issued for one manufacturer. 

December 2010: 
First incident involving surgical removal of high-powered magnets from 
a child. 

November 2011: 
CPSC along with two manufacturers issues a public service announcement 
related to high-powered magnets. 

May-June 2012: 
Eleven of 13 manufacturers agree to stop selling high-powered magnet 
sets. 

July 25-August 6, 2012: 
CPSC filed administrative complaints against two firms when efforts 
between CPSC and the firm to issue a voluntary recall plan failed. 

August 8, 2012: 
CPSC staff provided briefing packet to commissioners. 

September 4, 2012: 
CPSC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

November 19, 2012: 
Comment period for September 4, 2012 rulemaking ends. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusion: 

CPSC has broad authority for identifying, assessing, and addressing 
risks from unsafe consumer products. However, it faces challenges in 
identifying risks from new and emerging products largely because 
statutorily CPSC was established to respond to risks after products 
have been introduced into the U.S. market. Neither CPSA nor any other 
acts administered by CPSC require a premarket registration or approval 
of consumer products. Thus, CPSC does not evaluate a product's 
potential risk to the public until a product is introduced into 
commerce. CPSC also faces challenges in identifying product risks in a 
timely manner because of the large quantity of information it must 
gather and manage. CPSC has taken steps to improve its responsiveness 
through better technology for identifying risks, more targeted 
surveillance of imported products, and a program for manufacturers to 
streamline the process for conducting recalls. CPSC's efforts to 
improve its ability to identify unsafe products and target unsafe 
imported products through IT improvements are still under way, and the 
agency projects that they will be completed in 3 to 7 years. 

Because CPSC faces challenges in identifying and targeting unsafe 
products at import, it has attempted to update information-sharing 
agreements with its foreign counterparts, as Congress expected when it 
amended CPSA by including section 29(f). However, restrictive language 
in CPSA, as amended by CPSIA, has hindered CPSC's ability to share 
certain information with its counterparts internationally. Therefore, 
the Commission has been unable to enter into any international 
agreements pursuant to section 29(f) because CPSC's foreign 
counterparts will only share information under reciprocal terms that 
permit those foreign counterparts to make nonpublic information 
available to their own governing bodies or court systems. Based on our 
analysis of the statute, section 29(f) has not achieved the results 
expected by Congress when it enacted this provision and CPSC may 
benefit from having more flexibility to exchange information with its 
counterparts in other countries, which would help CPSC prevent unsafe 
products from entering the U.S. marketplace. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

To better enable CPSC to target unsafe consumer products, Congress may 
wish to amend section 29(f) of CPSA to allow CPSC greater ability to 
enter into information-sharing agreements with its foreign 
counterparts that permit reciprocal terms on disclosure of nonpublic 
information. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to CPSC for comment. In their 
written comments, reproduced in appendix III, CPSC supported our 
matter for congressional consideration and believed that it would 
benefit from having more flexibility to exchange information with its 
counterparts from other countries through agreements that permit 
reciprocal terms on disclosure of information. CPSC staff also 
provided technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees and the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC. The report also 
is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act requires GAO to analyze the 
potential safety risks associated with new and emerging consumer 
products, including chemicals and other materials used in their 
manufacture, taking into account the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's (CPSC) ability and authority to identify, assess, and 
address the risks of new and emerging consumer products in a timely 
manner and to keep abreast of the effects of these products on public 
health and safety. Our objectives were to evaluate the authority and 
ability of CPSC to (1) stay generally informed about new risks 
associated with consumer products and use available information to 
identify product hazards, and (2) assess and address new risks posed 
by consumer products in a timely manner. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed the statutes and regulations 
that provide the basis for CPSC's authorities related to protecting 
consumers from unreasonable risk of injury. We also examined guidance 
developed by CPSC that informs their approach to identifying, 
assessing, and addressing new and emerging risks, such as CPSC's 
policy on establishing priorities for action by the Commission, 
guidance on risk-related activities, and information-quality 
guidelines. In addition, we reviewed CPSC's operating procedural 
manuals for coding incident reports into its data-management system 
and for assigning hazard codes to these reports, performance and 
accountability reports, strategic plans, budget operating plans, 2013 
performance budget request, and annual reports. We reviewed existing 
information about CPSC data systems and interviewed agency officials 
knowledgeable about the data. Based on our review of documentation, we 
believe the data are reliable for our purposes. We also reviewed prior 
GAO reports on CPSC, risk assessment in the federal government, and 
nanotechnology, and consulted GAO's Standards for Internal Control in 
the Federal Government and Internal Control Management and Evaluation 
Tool to assess CPSC's policies and procedures. We also examined the 
chronic hazard guidelines based on the Federal Hazardous Substance Act 
that CPSC uses to assess a product's potential health effects. In 
addition, we reviewed data on CPSC corrective actions. To assess 
CPSC's timeliness in identifying, assessing, and addressing new and 
emerging risks, we examined the Office of Management and Budget's 
(OMB) Memorandum on Principles for Risk Analysis, OMB's 2006 Proposed 
Risk Assessment Bulletin, and the National Research Council's Review 
of OMB's Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin. We also reviewed CPSC's 
performance goals and obtained data on its time frames for performing 
product safety assessments and testing at the National Product Testing 
and Evaluation Center. 

To assess CPSC's authority to obtain and share information that could 
help identify new hazards posed by consumer products, we reviewed our 
prior work on CPSC's authorities and legislation related to the 
agency.[Footnote 69] In addition, we reviewed CPSC's list of its 
collaborative efforts with other federal agencies to remain informed 
of new and emerging risks. We reviewed memorandums of understanding 
between CPSC and some of its foreign counterparts as well as 
information on risk management practices developed by other countries 
such as the European Union. 

In addition to our document review, we interviewed CPSC officials and 
staff as well as all of CPSC's current commissioners and the Chairman 
to understand the organizational structure and the roles and 
responsibilities of the offices involved in safety operations and data 
collection, as well as to gain their perspectives on CPSC's ability 
and authority to identify, assess, and address new and emerging risks 
in a timely manner. We also interviewed national consumer and industry 
organizations and legal professionals and toured CPSC's National 
Product Testing and Evaluation Center. At the center, we watched staff 
conduct flammability testing of a product and learned of other types 
of testing CPSC conducts such as chemical, combustion, and durability 
testing. We also observed, through CPSC staff's illustration, the data-
management system CPSC uses to code and screen incident data in order 
to identify and assess risks. Finally, through a demonstration of 
CPSC's import targeting system, we viewed the type of information CPSC 
is using in piloting its target system to identify unsafe products at 
the ports. 

We conducted this performance audit from January 2012 to December 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: CPSC's and Other Agencies' Coordinated Responses to 
Hazards Posed by Defective Chinese Drywall: 

When an emerging risk related to drywall (i.e., sheetrock used in 
construction) was identified in 2008 that crossed the jurisdiction of 
several federal agencies, CPSC took the lead in coordinating what the 
agency reported as the largest investigation in its history. CPSC 
participated in an intergovernmental task force with the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and 
Department of Homeland Security.[Footnote 70] In 2008, CPSC was 
informed of a high level of hydrogen sulfide emissions in drywall made 
in China that was imported into the United States from 2001 through 
2008. The bulk of the almost 4,000 complaints involved homes built in 
2006 through 2007.[Footnote 71] A high level of hydrogen sulfide 
emissions is associated with metal corrosion, which can damage 
household appliances and electrical systems. CPSC performed testing 
and found the level of hydrogen sulfide emissions in Chinese drywall 
to be 100 times that of non-Chinese drywall. Some of the Chinese 
manufacturers were aware of the issue in 2006 but did not share the 
information with CPSC, as required. CPSC coordinated with EPA to 
conduct an elemental analysis on the components contained in Chinese 
and non-Chinese drywall, as well as develop a protocol for conducting 
air-quality testing. CDC's role was to assess health effects and 
develop a public awareness campaign. HUD's role was to develop 
guidance for the identification and remediation of problem drywall in 
homes and provide grants to help in these efforts. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) worked to identify any imports of Chinese drywall. 
CPSC also worked closely with the Federal Council on Environmental 
Quality and the Domestic Policy Council. In addition, the Commission 
worked with state partners including state attorneys general and 
health departments. The timeline in figure 5 illustrates how CPSC 
addressed the emerging risk. 

Figure 5: Timeline of CPSC Actions Related to Problem Drywall, 2008 to 
2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 

December 2008: 
CPSC first received drywall-related complaints from customers. 

January 23, 2009: 
CPSC staff contacted Florida Department of Health officials. 

March 25-27, 2009: 
CPSC staff traveled to Florida to meet with health officials and visit 
four affected homes. 

April 14, 2009: 
CPSC staff hosted a joint meeting with EPA and CDC to discuss 
coordination of a federal action plan to address the health hazards 
from Chinese drywall. At the meeting, the agencies agreed that CPSC 
would take the lead effort and EPA and CDC would support its efforts 
by developing a protocol for air testing and developing a public 
health awareness publication. 

August 2009: 
CPSC staff completed an investigatory trip to China. 

October 2009: 
CPSC investigated every 2009 import with a possible connection to 
imported Chinese drywall and confirmed that no new drywall was 
imported starting at the beginning of 2009. CPSC staff set up 
mechanisms to detect any possible future imports and continued to 
investigate all suspected drywall imports. CPSC sent notices to the 
warehouses where any remaining Chinese drywall was stored informing 
them of CPSC's ongoing investigation and informing them that they 
should notify CPSC if they sell, transport, or dispose of any drywall 
from their inventory. 

November 2009: 
Established procedure with CBP to flag all new drywall imports for 
investigation. 

December 22, 2009: 
HUD announced that Federal Housing Administration-insured families 
experiencing problems associated with problem drywall may be eligible 
for assistance to help them rehabilitate their properties. In 
addition, HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program may also be 
a resource to help local communities combat the problem. 

January 28, 2010: 
CPSC and HUD issued interim guidance on identifying problem drywall. 

April 2010: 
Bulk of CPSC scientific investigation completed. 

April 2, 2010: 
HUD and CPSC issue interim guidance on repairing homes with problem 
drywall. 

May 25, 2010: 
CPSC identified manufacturers of problem drywall made in China. 

August 27, 2010: 
CPSC revised interim guidance on the identification of problem drywall 
based on additional results fro the investigation. 

September 30, 2010: 
The Internal Revenue Service issued guidance providing relief to some 
homeowners who had suffered property losses due to the effects of 
imported drywall installed in homes between 2001 and 2009. 

September 15, 2011: 
CPSC concluded drywall investigation. CPSC staff worked with voluntary 
standards organizations to develop improved standards for drywall to 
prevent this problem from re-emerging. The standard-setting body also 
planned to require that all drywall sheets be marked with the 
manufacturer's name or a unique identification code, the manufacture 
date, and the source materials. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC information. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

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

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: 
4330 East West Highway: 
Bethesda, MD 20814:
CPSC Hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772): 
CPSC's Web Site: [hyperlink, http://www.cpsc.gov] 

December 5, 2012: 

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

Dear Ms. Cackley: 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) appreciates the 
opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft U.S. 
Government Accountability Office report "Agency Faces Challenges in 
Responding to New Product Risks." 

The draft report provides a comprehensive evaluation of the CPSC's 
authority and ability to stay informed of, address. and assess new and 
emerging risks posed by consumer products, and we appreciate the 
thorough review. We support GAO's recommendation that Congress may 
wish to amend Section 29(f) of the CPSA to allow the CPSC greater 
ability to enter into information-sharing agreements with our foreign 
counterparts. We believe the CPSC would benefit from having more 
flexibility to exchange information with our counterparts in other 
countries through agreements that permit reciprocal terms on 
disclosure of information. 

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:        
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 contact named above, Debra Johnson (Assistant 
Director), Tim Bober, Christine Broderick, Marcia Crosse, Philip 
Curtin, DuEwa Kamara, Yola Lewis, Alexandra Martin-Arseneau, Marc 
Molino, Nadine Garrick Raidbard, Jessica Sandler, Jennifer Schwartz, 
Sushil Sharma, Andrew Stavisky, and Henry Wray made key contributions 
to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, Division C - Financial 
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2012, Title V, 
Pub. L. No. 112-74, § 503, 125 Stat. 786, 908 (2011). CPSC defines a 
new product as a redesign of an already existing product or a product 
entering commerce for the first time. 

[3] We previously have reported on CPSC's authorities, and we discuss 
specific authorities as appropriate throughout this report. See GAO, 
Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen 
CPSC's Oversight of Imported Products, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 
2009). 

[4] The Consumer Product Safety Act established CPSC as an independent 
regulatory commission. The act provides for the appointment by the 
President of five commissioners for staggered 7-year terms. One of 
these commissioners may be designated the Chairman, who directs all 
the executive and administrative functions of the agency. See 
generally 15 U.S.C. § 2053. As of November 2012, CPSC was led by three 
commissioners. 

[5] See Consumer Product Safety Act § 30, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 
1207, 1231 (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2079); Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007, § 1403, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 
121 Stat. 1492, 1795 (classified at U.S.C. § 8003). 

[6] Act of June 30, 1953, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 111 (classified, as 
amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1191 et seq.). 

[7] Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372 (July 12, 1960) (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261 et seq.). Under the Federal Hazardous 
Substance Act, CPSC is authorized to declare a substance to be 
hazardous and to regulate the labeling of substances which are 
declared to be hazardous. 15 U.S.C. § 1261(f)(1)(B) and § 1262. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (Dec. 30, 1970) (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1471 et seq.). 

[9] Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 70 Stat. 953 (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1211 et seq.). Under the act, it is unlawful 
for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into 
interstate commerce any household refrigerator, unless it is equipped 
with a device enabling the door to be opened from the inside and which 
conforms with the standards prescribed by CPSC. 15 U.S.C. § 1211. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title XIV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1794 (Dec. 19, 
2007) (classified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 8001 et seq.). 

[11] Pub. L. No. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602 (July 17, 2008) (classified 
as a note to 15 U.S.C. § 2056). 

[12] Pub. L. No. 103-267, 108 Stat. 722 (June 16, 1994) (classified, 
as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 1278). 

[13] CPSC, Staff Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 222 of the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Risk Assessment 
Methodology (Bethesda, MD.: Sept. 9, 2011). 


[14] See, CPSC Nanomaterial Statement ("the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA) does not require the premarket registration or approval"); 
CPSC Drywall Information Center, [hyperlink, 
http://www.cpsc.gov/info/drywall/faqs.html] ("CPSC does not have the 
legal authority to perform premarket testing and approval of 
products.") Although, CPSC does not have premarket approval authority 
it does have the authority to stop items from entering the U.S. 
customs territory if the product, among other requirements, fails to 
meet applicable consumer product safety rules. 15 U.S.C. § 2066(a). 

[15] CPSA, 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a). 

[16] CPSA defines a substantial product hazard as a failure to comply 
with an applicable consumer product rule that creates a substantial 
risk of injury to the public, or a product defect, which (because of 
the pattern of defect, the number of defective products distributed in 
commerce, the severity of the risk, or other circumstances) creates 
substantial risk of injury to the public. 

[17] See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role 
in Voluntary Standards Development Should Be Considered, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-582] (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2012). We previously have reported that voluntary standards may 
benefit manufacturers by giving consumers added confidence in a 
product, providing some degree of protection from product liability, 
and allowing manufacturers to benefit from the safety expertise 
developed by voluntary standards groups. In addition, although federal 
law does not compel manufacturers to comply with voluntary standards, 
state or local regulations may incorporate some voluntary standards 
regarding consumer products, and some retailers prefer to carry only 
those goods that comply with the applicable voluntary standards. 

[18] 15 U.S.C. §§ 2056a, 2056b, and 2089. 

[19] 16 C.F.R. § 1009.8 (2012). 

[20] The Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction and the Office 
of Compliance and Field Operations report to CPSC's Office of 
Executive Director for Safety. 

[21] The Consumer Product Safety Act requires manufacturers, 
distributors, and retailers of a consumer product to inform the 
Commission if they obtain information that reasonably supports the 
conclusion that the product contains a defect that could create a 
substantial product hazard. CPSA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089. 

[22] CPSC's legacy systems and databases are currently comprised of 
multiple disconnected databases that are not linked so investigations 
are not integrated. Additionally, these systems do not have a case 
management function to track the progress of an investigation 
throughout the agency. 

[23] Section 27(g) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. § 
2076(g)).The Commission is authorized to enter into contracts with 
governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals for the 
conduct of activities authorized under this act. 

[24] Launched in 2001, the Nanotechnology Initiative is an interagency 
research effort involving 25 federal agencies, including CPSC. This 
initiative is intended to bring together the expertise needed to 
advance the broad and complex field of nanotechnology and to create a 
framework for common research goals and to leverage agencies' 
resources. See GAO, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information 
Needed for Environmental, Health and Safety Research, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-427] (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2012) and Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food 
Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-246] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 3, 2010). 

[25] There is a growing use of compounds and materials that have been 
produced using nanotechnologies, which directly manipulate matter at 
the atomic level and fabricate molecules and materials that could not 
have been produced in the past. Nanomaterials are defined as 
materials/particles that range from 1 to 100 nanometers in length. 
Although they may have the same name as a material currently in use, 
because of their small size, these new materials may demonstrate 
different physical and chemical properties. Some of these new 
nanomaterials are being used in consumer products with the stated 
purpose of improving the performance and durability. 

[26] Nanomaterials represent a wide range of compounds that may vary 
significantly in their structural, physical, and chemical properties, 
and potentially in their behavior in the environment and in the human 
body. Because of the wide variation in potential health effects and 
the lack of data on exposure and toxicity of specific nanomaterials, 
CPSC has been unable to make any general statements about the 
potential consumer exposures to or the health effects that may result 
from exposure to nanomaterials during consumer use and disposal. 

[27] Founded in 1836, the National Library of Medicine, located on the 
campus of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, is 
considered to have the world's largest biomedical library. The 
National Library of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, and 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provide information 
online for thousands of consumer products in the Household Products 
Database [hyperlink, http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov]. This 
database provides information to consumers, scientists, and other 
stakeholders on the chemicals contained in brand-name products and the 
potential health effects of these chemicals. 

[28] The National Toxicology Program is an interagency program whose 
mission is to evaluate chemical agents of public health concern by 
developing and applying tools of modern toxicology and molecular 
biology. The program was established because of increasing scientific, 
regulatory, and congressional concerns about the human health effects 
of chemical agents in the environment. 

[29] The mission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development is to promote policies that will improve the economic and 
social well-being of people around the world. The origins date to the 
1960s when 18 European countries plus the United States and Canada 
joined forces to create an organization dedicated to global 
development. In 2012, there were 34 member countries. 

[30] The term "phthalate" is used to refer to certain chemicals used 
as plasticizers for products such as floor tiles, wire and cable 
insulation, and other applications where there is a need for a 
flexible plastic that is tough and durable. Section 108 of CPSIA 
permanently prohibits the sale of any children's toy or child care 
article containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three specified 
phthalates: Di-(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate 
(DBP), and butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108 of CPSIA also 
prohibits, on an interim basis, the sale of any children's toy that 
can be placed in a child's mouth or child care article containing more 
than 0.1 percent of each of three additional phthalates: diisononyl 
phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n-octyl 
phthalate (DnOP). 

[31] Under section 108 of CPSIA, CPSC was required to appoint a 
Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel not earlier than 180 days after 
enactment, that is, after February 10, 2009. CPSIA was enacted on Aug. 
14, 2008. CPSC appointed scientists to the committee in early 2010 and 
the first meeting was held in April 2010. 

[32] CPSC is also a member of the International Consumer Product 
Health and Safety Organization, a global organization of health and 
safety professionals. Founded in 1993, this organization meets 
annually to exchange ideas, share information, and address health and 
safety concerns affecting all consumers. CPSC participates in various 
committees and is part of the international caucus. 

[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803]. 

[34] 15 U.S.C. § 2078. 

[35] 15 U.S.C. § 2055. 

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

[37] "Confidential information" means information that contains or 
relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in 18 U.S.C. 
§1905 or that is subject to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(4). If CPSC disagrees 
with such a designation and determines that the information is not 
business confidential, the manufacturer has the right to contest the 
Commission's determination. A private labeler has similar rights. 
"Private labeler" is a legal reference to a company that licenses or 
sells products under their private label but does not manufacture the 
product. 

[38] Private labelers have similar rights under this section. 

[39] See CPSA Sec. 6(b)(4) (15 U.S.C. § 2055(b)(4)). See also 16 
C.F.R. § 1101.12. There are several exceptions to the section 6 
disclosure restrictions. Section 6 excludes disclosures to Commission 
officials, employees, agents, representatives, and contractors. It 
also excludes disclosures in connection with judicial or 
administrative proceedings under CPSA or with respect to products CPSC 
has reasonable cause to believe violate a consumer product safety rule 
or similar rule or a provision of CPSA or other CPSC-enforced statute. 

[40] Section 207 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 
2008 (commonly known as section 29(f)) provides that notwithstanding 
the requirements of sections 6(a)(3) and 6(b) relating to public 
disclosure of information, CPSC may disclose section 6 information to 
federal, state, local, or foreign government agencies if the recipient 
agency certifies in writing in advance that such material will be 
maintained in confidence and used only for official law enforcement or 
consumer protection purposes and if certain other conditions are met. 
Among other things, the agency must provide a bona fide legal basis 
for its authority to maintain the confidentiality of the information. 

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

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

[43] See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Action Needed to 
Strengthen Identification of Potentially Unsafe Products, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-30] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 
2011), Consumer Product Safety Commission: Better Data Collection and 
Assessment of Consumer Information Efforts Could Help Protect Minority 
Children, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-731] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2009), and Consumer Product Safety 
Commission: Better Data Needed to Help Identify and Analyze Potential 
Hazards, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-97-147] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1997). 

[44] NEISS, an emergency department system for collecting injury and 
death information, gathers information from a nationally 
representative sample of about 96 hospital emergency rooms. Each 
hospital reports information on emergency treatments related to the 
use of consumer products to CPSC. NEISS provides national estimates of 
the number and severity of emergency room-treated injuries associated 
with, although not necessarily caused by, consumer products in the 
United States. 

[45] According to CPSC, in 2011, of the 400,000 records collected in 
NEISS, 50 percent of the records are received within 5 days of when 
the injured person was treated in the hospital emergency department, 
75 percent within 10 days, and 95 percent within 31 days. 

[46] Every incident report CPSC receives does not necessarily involve 
a hazardous incident. In some instances, consumers report concern that 
a potential hazard might exist. 

[47] CPSA, 15 U.S.C § 2064(b). 

[48] The hazard type or category classifies the general nature of the 
actual or potential hazard presented by the incident, such as a 
chemical or mechanical hazard. 

[49] Specifically, for reports submitted through [hyperlink, 
http://www.SaferProducts.gov], staff accept the information the 
submitter entered and verified online such as the product description, 
how the product was being used, and any injuries that were sustained. 

[50] Unlike other data sources, NEISS reports are entered by CPSC 
contractors from medical records and are not a part of CPSC's general 
coding process. 

[51] In 2011, CPSC adopted the Integrated Product Team approach, which 
is modeled after its Early Warning System. CPSC's six integrated teams 
are children's, mechanical, chemical, combustion, fire, and electrical 
hazard. These teams are comprised of staff from the Office of General 
Counsel, Office of Communications, Office of Import Surveillance, and 
subject-matter experts such as engineers, human factors experts, and 
health scientists from the Office of Hazard Identification and Hazard 
Reduction and Office of Compliance and Field Operations. 

[52] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803]. 

[53] Section 222 of CPSIA requires CPSC to formulate a risk assessment 
methodology to identify products imported into the United States that 
are most likely to violate consumer product safety statutes and 
regulations enforced by the Commission. 

[54] See CPSC, Staff Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 222 of the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Risk Assessment 
Methodology. 

[55] CPSC staff defines risk assessment as a four-step process that 
encompasses hazard identification, dose-response assessment 
(determining the magnitude of exposure to a contaminant and the 
probability and severity of adverse effects), exposure assessment, and 
risk characterization. 

[56] Each integrated team develops a portfolio of projects, based on 
their assessments, that is included in their budget request for the 
Commission to consider as a part of the agency's prioritization 
process. According to CPSC officials, these projects are ranked based 
on CPSC's criteria under section 1009.8. 

[57] Staff within the Office of Compliance and Field Operations 
conduct investigations on specific cases to gain additional knowledge 
about injuries or hazards. Staff use this information to determine 
where hazards exist and how to address them. Some of these 
investigations are conducted entirely by telephone, while others are 
conducted at the accident site. 

[58] Products may include samples of new products on display at trade 
shows that CPSC staff attend, products detained at the ports for 
testing, or products involved in an incident. 

[59] Based on the results of these and other assessments, the samples 
are stored because they could become evidentiary items to support 
CPSC's position in legal proceedings. CPSC staff emphasized the 
importance of maintaining the samples' chain of custody for 
evidentiary proceedings. 

[60] According to CPSC staff, a bunk bed design that allows a child's 
torso to pass through but not the head poses a head and neck 
entrapment hazard. 

[61] Based on the assumptions used in the risk assessment, the staff 
concluded that a young child who plays on such a structure during 
early childhood has an increased risk of 2 to 100 per million of 
developing lung or bladder cancer during his or her lifetime. 

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

[63] Under certain conditions cited in its statutes CPSC can apply to 
a district court to restrain the distribution of a product that the 
Commission believes is a substantial product hazard. 15 U.S.C §2064(g). 

[64] Fire pots are portable, decorative lighting accents marketed for 
indoor and outdoor use. Gel fuel composed primarily of alcohol was 
designed to be used as fuel for fire pots. The gel fuel produced a 
clean-burning flame with no visible smoke or ash. They are usually 
sold as separate products but are often marketed for use together, and 
some companies manufacture both products. 

[65] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-582]. Interested 
parties generally have 60 days to comment on an ANPR and 75 days to 
comment on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. CPSIA contains some 
provisions designed to shorten the time frame for rulemaking, such as 
making an ANPR optional, though it may be issued when CPSC deems it a 
necessary part of rulemaking. 

[66] Consumer Product Safety Amendments of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97-35, 
title XII-A, 95 Stat. 357, 703 (1981), amending 15 U.S.C. §§ 2056 and 
2058 and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-582]. 

[67] According to CPSC NEISS data from January 2009 to December 2011, 
the agency estimated 1,700 ingestion incidents of high-power magnets. 

[68] CPSC noted that legal action against a company is rarely taken 
and that this is the first administrative complaint filed by the 
agency since 2001. In October 2012, one of the companies decided to 
discontinue importing the high-powered magnet sets. 

[69] We previously have reported on CPSC's authorities, and we discuss 
specific authorities as appropriate throughout this report. See GAO, 
Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen 
CPSC's Oversight of Imported Products, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 
2009). 

[70] The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security 
participated in the investigation. 

[71] Complaints were received from 43 states, Washington, D.C., 
American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. 

[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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [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 
website, [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. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

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

Contact: 
Website: [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: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. 

[End of document]