CPSIA requires, at a minimum, that the submitter  include the following eight pieces of information when submitting a report  of harm: (1) description of the consumer product sufficient to distinguish  the product as a product or component part regulated by CPSC; (2)  identity of the manufacturer or private labeler by name; (3) description of  the harm related to use of the consumer product; (4) approximate or  actual date of the incident; (5) category of submitter; (6) submitter’s  contact information; (7) submitter’s verification that the information  contained therein is true and accurate; and (8) consent to publication of  the report of harm. Our analysis  of CPSC data showed that as of July 7, 2011, 5,464 reports of harm were  received by CPSC from eligible submitters. Instead, the only identification information required in a report is “a word  or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as a consumer product, a  component part of a consumer product, or a product or substance  regulated by the Commission.” In the 1,847 published reports we  reviewed, submitters included descriptions of the product in various fields,  including a field for numeric information and fields for a more general  description of the incident or product. Majority of Reports of Harm Contain Numeric Identifiers, but CPSC Could Analyze This Information More Thoroughly

When we asked CPSC how many reports of harm contained model  numbers and serial numbers, it analyzed its data and reported to us that  model information or serial numbers appeared in 84 percent of reports of  harm published on SaferProducts.gov as of June 2011. CPSC does not currently analyze its data to identify the number of reports  of harm that contain either model numbers or serial numbers. Instead its  method of analysis combines numeric identifiers—model or serial  numbers—and text entries. Furthermore, some submitters include model  and serial numbers in other database fields that CPSC does not include  in its analysis. As noted earlier, on August 12, 2011, a new law was  signed containing a requirement for CPSC to attempt to obtain the model  number or serial number from submitters who did not provide this  information in a report of harm. To determine which reports to follow up  on to fulfill this new requirement, CPSC must identify all reports of harm  that are missing model numbers or serial numbers. The report involved a product that was outside of CPSC’s jurisdiction. CPSC published 1,085 of these reports  of harm with responses on SaferProducts.gov, and 94 percent of these  (1,020) were published within 10 business days of CPSC’s having notified  the company that a report of harm had been submitted. To address concerns about the time allowed to respond to claims of  harm, Congress passed amendments to CPSIA to allow for a 15 business  day publication time frame from the time CPSC transmits a report of harm  to the manufacturer or private labeler in certain situations (when an MII  claim is made or the report does not contain a model number or serial  number), during which CPSC reviews any response the company submits  and determines whether or not to publish the report on  SaferProducts.gov. According to CPSC officials, the agency plans to conduct  outreach to businesses to increase the number of manufacturers and  private labelers registered to receive electronic notifications. Unless CPSC strengthens the analytic methods used to identify  reports with missing model numbers or serial numbers, it will not be able to  identify all reports that require the agency to contact the submitter for more  product information because it currently does not track all reports of harm  missing such information. Recommendation for Agency Action

To effectively implement the recent amendments to CPSIA, we  recommend that CPSC enhance the analytic methods it uses to identify  product information in a report of harm, such as by verifying whether the  model field in its data contains a number (versus a text response, which  would not meet the statutory requirement) or by searching for model  numbers or serial numbers that may be listed in other fields. We report this fact, but also acknowledge that an additional 24  percent of submitters stated that the victim was the child, spouse, parent,  or other relative of the submitter. The minority commissioners also raised issues concerning the resources  required of CPSC to recover additional information to resolve questions of  public safety and material inaccuracy. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The reporting objectives were to examine (1) the information required for  submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the extent to which  the information required for submitting a report of harm is sufficient to  identify the product and to allow CPSC to review a manufacturer’s claim  that a report of harm contains materially inaccurate information, and (3)  the length of time CPSC takes to review and resolve manufacturers’  claims of material inaccuracy in a report of harm.
Why GAO Did This Study

In the wake of increased product recalls in 2007-2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). Among other things, CPSIA requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish a database on the safety of consumer products that is publicly available, searchable, and accessible through the CPSC Web site. In response, CPSC launched SaferProducts.gov in March 2011. The Department of Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011 requires GAO to report on the data collected by CPSC in its safety information database. This report examines (1) the information required for submitting a report of harm to SaferProducts.gov, (2) the information used to identify the product and to allow CPSC to review manufacturer claims of material inaccuracy in a report of harm, and (3) the length of time CPSC takes to review a manufacturer's claim that a report contains materially inaccurate information. To do this work, GAO analyzed agency data, regulations, and CPSC program documentation and interviewed CPSC staff and various industry and consumer representatives.

What GAO Found

To be eligible for publication on SaferProducts.gov, reports of harm involving a consumer product must contain several types of information, such as descriptions of the product and the associated harm. Reports may be submitted by consumers, government agencies, and health care professionals, among others. GAO's analysis of CPSC data as of July 7, 2011, showed that 38 percent of the 5,464 reports submitted to CPSC contained information that CPSIA requires for publication. Of these reports, 1,847 were published on SaferProducts.gov. Although not required, many submitters appear to have firsthand knowledge of the product--37 percent of published reports stated that the submitter was also the victim, and 24 percent stated that the victim was the child, spouse, parent, or other relative of the submitter. Also, most submitters provided their optional consent for CPSC to release their contact information to the manufacturer. Numeric information, such as a model number or serial number, can be helpful in identifying potentially unsafe products. However, this information is optional rather than required in a report of harm. Instead, submitters must only include a word or phrase sufficient to distinguish the product as one within CPSC's jurisdiction. All manufacturers we spoke with considered the required information insufficient for identifying products in a report of harm. On August 12, 2011, a new law was signed containing a requirement for CPSC to attempt to obtain the model number or serial number, or a photograph of the product, from submitters who did not provide this information in a report of harm. To meet this requirement, CPSC must identify all reports of harm that do not contain either a model number or a serial number. However, CPSC does not currently analyze its data to identify reports of harm that contain this numeric information. Instead, its method of analysis combines numeric identifiers--model numbers or serial numbers--and less precise text entries, such as product descriptions or names. Furthermore, some submitters include model numbers and serial numbers in other database fields that CPSC does not include in its analysis. Unless CPSC strengthens its analytic methods to identify model numbers or serial numbers in a report of harm, it will likely not be able to identify all reports that require the agency to contact the submitter for more product information because it does not track all reports of harm missing such information. Prior to recent amendments to CPSIA, CPSC had 10 business days from its transmission of a report to the manufacturer in which to publish a report of harm (after the amendments, CPSC has up to 5 additional business days to publish a report when a claim of materially inaccurate information is made or when a report does not contain a model number or serial number). Most reports to which manufacturers responded that were published met the 10-day time frame. Of the 1,085 published reports of harm to which companies responded, 1,020 (94 percent) were published within 10 business days after CPSC notified the company that the report had been submitted. CPSC published 160 reports with claims of materially inaccurate information, and, of these reports, most were resolved and published within 10 business days. CPSC plans to conduct outreach to increase the number of manufacturers registered to receive electronic notifications to yield a more rapid response to its notifications.

What GAO Recommends

To effectively implement the recent amendments to CPSIA, GAO recommends that CPSC strengthen the analytic methods used to identify product information in a report of harm. CPSC agreed with GAO's recommendation. The minority commissioners also raised a number of concerns about the accuracy and usefulness of the new database.