CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY
OVERSIGHT
Opportunities Exist to
Strengthen
Coordination and
Increase Efficiencies
and Effectiveness
Report to Congressional Committees
November 2014
GAO-15-52
United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO-15-52, a report to
congressional committees
November 2014
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY OVERSIGHT
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Coordination and
Increase Efficiencies and Effectiveness
Why GAO Did This Study
The oversight of consumer product
safety is a complex system involving
many federal agencies. As part of a
mandate that requires GAO to identify
federal programs, agencies, offices,
and initiatives with duplicative goals or
activities, GAO reviewed federal
oversight of consumer product safety.
This review examines (1) which federal
agencies oversee consumer product
safety and their roles and
responsibilities; (2) the extent and
effects of any fragmentation or overlap
in the oversight of consumer products;
and (3) collaboration among agencies
to address any negative effects of
fragmentation or overlap.
To assess the involvement of multiple
agencies in the oversight of consumer
product safety, GAO conducted a
multiagency survey and reviewed laws
and regulations, and past GAO work.
GAO also interviewed federal agency
officials and consumer and industry
groups.
What GAO Recommends
Congress should consider (1)
transferring oversight of the markings
of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms
from NIST to CPSC, and (2)
establishing a formal collaboration
mechanism to address comprehensive
oversight and inefficiencies related to
fragmentation and overlap. Also, GAO
recommends that the Coast Guard and
CPSC establish a formal coordination
mechanism. CPSC, the Department of
Homeland Security, and NIST agreed
with GAO’s matters and
recommendation; other agencies
neither agreed nor disagreed.
What GAO Found
GAO identified eight agencies that have direct oversight responsibilities for
consumer product safety: the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC),
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection
Agency, Food and Drug Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard (within the
Department of Homeland Security). All eight agencies conduct regulatory
activities to promote consumer product safety, such as rulemaking, standard
setting, risk assessment, enforcement, and product recalls. In addition, at least
12 other agencies play a support role in consumer product safety in various
areas, such as public health and law enforcement.
Oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented across agencies, and
jurisdiction overlaps or is unclear for certain products. In some cases, agencies
regulate different components of or carry out different regulatory activities for the
same product, or jurisdiction for a product can change depending on where or
how it is used. For example, NHTSA regulates hand-held infant carriers when
used as car seats, but CPSC regulates the carriers when used outside of motor
vehicles. Agencies reported that the involvement of multiple agencies with
various expertise can help ensure more comprehensive oversight by addressing
a range of safety concerns. However, agencies also noted some inefficiencies,
including the challenges of sharing information across agencies and challenges
related to jurisdiction. For example, GAO found that the jurisdiction for some
recreational boating products can be unclear and the potential exists for
confusion regarding agency responsibility for addressing product safety hazards.
Coast Guard officials said they work informally with CPSC when the need arises
but that these interactions are infrequent. Without a more formal coordination
mechanism to address jurisdictional uncertainties some potential safety hazards
may go unregulated. In addition, the Department of Commerce’s National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) oversees the markings of toy and
imitation firearms to distinguish them from real firearms, which may be an
inefficient use of resources because it does not leverage NIST’s primary
expertise related to scientific measurement. According to NIST, this function
may be better administered by CPSC, which oversees the safety and
performance of toys. However, this would require a statutory change.
Agencies reported that they collaborate to address specific consumer product
safety topics, but GAO did not identify a formal mechanism for addressing such
issues more comprehensively. Independent agencies, such as CPSC, are not
subject to the Office of Management and Budget’s planning and review process
for executive agencies. Additionally, no single entity or mechanism exists to help
the agencies that collectively oversee consumer product safety. GAO has
identified issues for agencies to consider in collaborating, such as clarifying roles
and including all relevant participants. Because no mechanism exists to help
agencies collectively address crosscutting issues, agencies may miss
opportunities to leverage resources and address challenges, including those
related to fragmentation and overlap identified in this report.
View GAO-15-52. For more information,
contact Alicia Puente Cackley, 202-512-8678,
cackleya@gao.gov
Page i GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Letter 1
Background 2
Multiple Agencies Oversee Various Aspects of Consumer Product
Safety 8
Fragmented and Overlapping Oversight Can Help Agencies
Leverage Expertise but Also Creates Inefficiencies 15
Agencies Report Coordinating on Specific Activities but Lack a
Mechanism to Facilitate Comprehensive Oversight 38
Conclusions 46
Matters for Congressional Consideration 47
Recommendation 47
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 52
Appendix II Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire 57
Appendix III Agencies That Indirectly Support Consumer Product Safety
Oversight 81
Appendix IV Full Text for Figure 2 Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency 84
Appendix V Comments from the Consumer Product Safety Commission 94
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 96
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 98
Contents
Page ii GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Related GAO Products 99
Tables
Table 1: Eight Agencies with a Direct Oversight Role for
Consumer Product Safety 9
Table 2: Select Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and
Their Definitions 40
Table 3: Twelve Agencies with an Indirect Oversight Role for
Consumer Product Safety 81
Figures
Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication 7
Figure 2: Examples of Consumer Products Regulated by More
Than One Agency 16
Figure 3: Coordination between Eight Regulatory Agencies on
Consumer Product Safety Activities 39
Figure 4: Drugs and Other Products with Child-Resistant
Packaging 84
Figure 5: Soaps and Detergents 85
Figure 6: Toy Laser Guns 86
Figure 7: Consumer Fireworks 87
Figure 8: Mobile Phones and Other Wireless Devices 88
Figure 9: Adult Portable Bed Rails 89
Figure 10: Food Contact Articles 90
Figure 11: Lithium Batteries 91
Figure 12: Infant Car Seats/Hand-held Infant Carriers 92
Figure 13: Respirators 93
Page iii GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Abbreviations
ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
CBP Customs and Border Protection
CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CPSA Consumer Product Safety Act
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission
CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTC Federal Trade Commission
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
MOA memorandum of agreement
MOU memorandum of understanding
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIH National Institutes of Health
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
441 G St. N.W.
Washington, DC 20548
November 19, 2014
Congressional Committees
The oversight of consumer product safety is a complex system that
evolved over time and involves a number of federal agencies. Further, as
globalization and technological advances expand the range of products
available in U.S. markets, the challenge of regulating the thousands of
product types has become increasingly complex. The Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) is charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with the use of thousands
of types of consumer products. However, many other federal agencies
also have various roles and responsibilities related to consumer product
safety oversight. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
among others, have jurisdiction over products such as automobiles and
other on-road vehicles and their equipment, including tires; boats; drugs;
cosmetics; medical devices; and pesticides. These agencies conduct a
wide range of regulatory activities to oversee these products, such as risk
assessment, rulemaking, and enforcement.
As the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does the need
for federal agencies and Congress to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of government programs and activities.
1
1
GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-14-343SP (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 8, 2014).
As part of a
mandate that requires GAO to identify federal programs, agencies,
offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within
departments and government-wide, GAO reviewed federal oversight of
consumer product safety. Specifically, this review examines (1) which
federal agencies oversee consumer product safety and their roles and
responsibilities, (2) the extent and effects of fragmentation, overlap, or
duplication, if any, in the oversight of consumer products, and (3) how do
consumer product safety oversight agencies coordinate their activities
and to what extent does that address any identified negative effects of
fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.
Page 2 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations,
as well as literature and our past reports on consumer product safety;
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; and mechanisms for interagency
collaboration (see a list of related GAO products at the end of this report).
To identify agencies that conduct consumer product safety oversight and
to delineate their roles and responsibilities, we reviewed the following
sources: (1) laws related to consumer product safety, as well as Federal
Register notices for proposed and final rulemaking from August 2008 to
October 2013; (2) the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s web link
to federal agencies with jurisdiction over consumer products; (3) our past
reports; and (4) agency members of CPSC-identified interagency working
groups. We then disseminated a questionnaire to the agencies we
identified to (1) confirm their roles and responsibilities and (2) identify any
other relevant agencies with whom they coordinate. We also asked
questions about what types of statutory authority the agency has, its
mission, other agencies with which it coordinates, barriers to coordination,
and knowledge of any potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in
oversight. We disseminated 33 questionnaires in total and obtained and
analyzed at least one response from each of the 33 entities. We also
interviewed federal agency officials and industry groups to gather
information on the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, their
benefits and challenges, and how coordination may help to address any
negative effects. Appendix I contains a detailed description of our scope
and methodology and appendix II is a reprint of the questionnaire we sent
to the agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to November 2014
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.
The existing system for consumer product safety, like many other federal
programs and policies, has evolved in a piecemeal fashion. New laws and
agencies have been established over time, resulting in a patchwork
system with different agencies having different regulatory and
enforcement authorities for different consumer products. Consumer
product safety activities can include setting standards and conducting
enforcement, product recalls, rulemaking, and risk assessment. Below is
Background
Page 3 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
a brief overview of some of the key laws that provide agencies with the
authority to conduct consumer product safety oversight.
Pre-Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) laws:
• Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, first enacted in 1938 to
replace the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, provides FDA with
various public health responsibilities, including to ensure the safety
and effectiveness of medical products—drugs, biologics, and medical
devices—and safety of cosmetics marketed in the United States.
2
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act provides for the
federal regulation of pesticides. While various versions of a federal
pesticide statute have been in place since 1910, Congress enacted
substantial amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1972.
The
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, mandates FDA
to, among other things, conduct pre-market reviews of the safety of all
new drugs, as well as pre-market approval of some medical devices.
3
Under the current version of
FIFRA, pesticides must generally be registered (licensed) by EPA
before they may be sold or distributed in the United States. EPA may
register a pesticide if it finds, among other things, that use of the
pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment. When EPA registers a pesticide, it approves directions
for use of the pesticide, which must appear on the product label and
be followed by users of the pesticide.
• The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 established
an agency which, under the Highway Safety Act of 1970, later
became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
4
2
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938); Pure Food and
Drugs Act, ch. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 (1906). The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has
been amended and expanded multiple times since 1938.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA
3
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Pub. L. No. 92-516, 86 Stat. 998
(1972). The general definition of pesticide in the statute includes “any substance or
mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any
pest.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(u).
4
Highway Safety Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713 (1970); National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 89-563, 80 Stat. 718 (1966).
Page 4 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
to, among other things, promulgate federal safety standards for motor
vehicles and equipment.
• The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 authorizes the Coast Guard
(within the Department of Homeland Security) to, among other things,
establish minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and
associated equipment and to require the installation or use of such
equipment.
5
CPSA and post-CPSA laws:
The act was created to improve boating safety, to
authorize the establishment of national construction and performance
standards for boats and associated equipment, and to encourage
greater uniformity of boating laws and regulations among states and
the federal government.
The CPSA, first enacted in 1972, establishes CPSC and consolidates
federal safety regulatory activity relating to consumer products within
the agency.
6
5
Federal Boat Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 92-75, 85 Stat. 213 (1971).
CPSC is authorized to protect the public against
unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products in
general, and also to administer other laws such as those governing
fabric flammability, hazardous substances, child-resistant packaging,
6
Consumer Product Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 (1972). CPSA explicitly
excludes from CPSC’s jurisdiction various products that are covered by other agencies
under other laws. See footnote 12 for more detail.
Page 5 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
refrigerators, pool and spa safety, and toy safety.
7
Congress enacted
the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in 2008 to
strengthen CPSC’s authority to enforce safety standards and provide
greater public access to product safety information.
8
• The Toxic Substances Control Act, first enacted in 1976, authorizes
EPA to obtain more information on chemicals and to regulate those
chemicals that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks to human
health or the environment.
9
The act authorizes EPA to review
chemicals already in commerce as well as chemicals yet to enter
commerce.
10
In addition, under the Toxic Substances Control Act,
EPA can regulate the manufacture (including import), processing,
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of “chemical substances”
and “mixtures,” including for use as or as part of a consumer product.
7
These additional laws include: (1) the Flammable Fabrics Act, which among other things,
authorizes CPSC to prescribe flammability standards for clothing, upholstery, and other
fabrics (Act of June 30, 1953, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 111 (1953)); (2) the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act, which establishes the framework for the regulation of substances that are
toxic, corrosive, combustible, or otherwise hazardous (Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372
(1960)); (3) 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 (Pub. L. No.
91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (1970)); (4) 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 (Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 70 Stat. 953); (5) 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 (Pub. L. No. 110-
140, Tit. XIV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1794 (2007)); (6) the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention
Act of 2008, which establishes safety standards for child-resistant closures on all portable
gasoline containers (Pub. L. No. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602 (2008)); and (7) 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 CPSC (Pub. L. No.
103-267, 108 Stat. 722 (1994)).
8
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (2008).
CPSA was further amended in 2011 to provide CPSC with greater authority and discretion
in enforcing current consumer product safety laws. Pub. L. No. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273
(2011).
9
Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. No. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 (1976).
10
Existing chemicals are composed of those that were in commerce in 1979 when EPA
began reviewing chemicals, as well as those listed for commercial use after that time.
Page 6 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
CPSA defines a consumer product, for purposes of CPSC’s jurisdiction,
as “any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for
sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary
household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the
personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a
permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation,
or otherwise,” subject to a number of exclusions.
11
By statute, certain
categories of products that are regulated by other agencies are excluded
from the definition of “consumer product,” and therefore CPSC does not
have jurisdiction over them.
12
For purposes of our report, because we are
looking at consumer products broadly rather than solely those in CPSC’s
jurisdiction, we use the broader definition of “consumer product,” without
the statutory exclusions. We include in our purview motor vehicles,
pesticides, cosmetics, and some other products that CPSA excludes from
its definition of a consumer product.
13
In 2010, Congress directed us to identify programs, agencies, offices, and
initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and
government-wide and report to Congress annually.
14
11
Pub. L. No. 92-573, § 3(a)(1), 86 Stat. at 1208 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §
2052(a)(5)).
Since March 2011,
we have issued annual reports to Congress in response to this
12
CPSA excludes from the definition of “consumer product” certain items, including any
article which is not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption
by, or enjoyment of, a consumer; tobacco and tobacco products; motor vehicles or motor
vehicle equipment; pesticides as defined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act; any article which if sold would be subject to the firearm tax imposed by
26 U.S.C. § 4181, or any component of such article; aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers,
or appliances; boats and certain related equipment subject to Coast Guard regulation;
drugs, devices, or cosmetics under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and food
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5).
13
Our broad definition of “consumer product” does not include financial products, alcohol,
tobacco, and food. We have conducted prior work on fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication in federal food safety oversight. See, for example, GAO, Federal Food Safety
Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive First Step but Governmentwide
Planning Is Needed to Address Fragmentation, GAO-11-289 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18,
2011). We have a forthcoming report on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the
financial regulatory system. We excluded tobacco and alcohol because of the unique
regulatory structure for these products.
14
Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29 (2010) (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 712 note).
Definition of a Consumer
Product
Overview of GAO’s
Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication Work
Page 7 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
requirement.
15
Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
The annual reports describe areas in which we found
evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal
programs. The annual reports define fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication as shown in figure 1.
15
For more information on GAO’s work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in the
federal government, see GAO-14-343SP; GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to
Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits,
GAO-12-279SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance
Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to
Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).
Page 8 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
We identified 8 agencies that have direct oversight responsibility for
various aspects of consumer product safety, based on our analyses of
data collected from our questionnaire and interviews with agency officials.
In addition, we identified at least 12 other agencies that have an indirect
role in consumer product safety oversight.
16
We distinguished agencies
with direct versus indirect responsibility by whether they perform certain
regulatory activities, as well as by how the agencies self-identified in their
interviews.
Eight agencies reported that they have direct oversight responsibilities for
consumer product safety: the Coast Guard; CPSC; Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD); EPA; FDA; NHTSA; Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC); and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA). We considered an agency to have a
direct oversight role if it met two criteria: (1) in its response to our
questionnaire, the agency noted having statutory authority over consumer
product safety through one or more of five regulatory activities—
rulemaking, standard setting, enforcement, risk assessment, and product
recalls; and (2) in subsequent interviews and follow-up discussions, the
agency confirmed that it views itself as having a role in overseeing the
safety of consumer products.
17
We describe the oversight roles of these
agencies in table 1. Some of these agencies oversee products, whereas
others oversee components that might be found within a product (e.g.,
chemical substances or radioactive materials).
16
In addition, the remaining agencies (13 of the 33) were characterized as not having a
role in consumer product safety oversight.
17
We used the information from the interviews, in addition to the questionnaires, as criteria
for categorizing an agency as having a direct role because several agencies told us in
interviews that they are not consumer product safety oversight agencies, even though
they initially noted having regulatory authority for consumer product safety in their
questionnaire responses.
Multiple Agencies
Oversee Various
Aspects of Consumer
Product Safety
Eight Agencies Have
Direct Oversight
Responsibility for
Consumer Product Safety
Page 9 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Table 1: Eight Agencies with a Direct Oversight Role for Consumer Product Safety
Agency
Role of the agency as it relates to
consumer product safety
Examples of consumer products that the
agency regulates
Coast Guard The Coast Guard regulates safety
standards for recreational boats.
All original equipment installed on boats; limited
equipment installed after purchase (inboard
engines, outboard engines, stern drive units, and
inflatable life jackets)
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC)
CPSC oversees consumer products
produced or distributed in the United
States for sale to, or use by, consumers
in or around a residence or school or in
recreation or otherwise.
Toys, cribs, power tools that are used by
consumers, lighters, and household products
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
HUD mitigates lead-based paint hazards
in federally assisted housing. It also
establishes federal standards for the
design and construction of
manufactured homes.
Structural materials in manufactured homes such
as particle board, plywood, drywall, steel frames,
and windows
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA conducts risk assessments of
pesticides and registers them for use in
the United States. It also evaluates and
manages risks of chemicals.
Insect repellents, toilet bowl
sanitizers/disinfectants, ant traps, and flea
powder
Some household products such as window
cleaners; flame retardants used in furniture and
electronics ; and formaldehyde emissions from
composite wood products (e.g., kitchen cabinets)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) FDA is responsible for ensuring the
safety, efficacy, and security of human
and veterinary drugs, biological
products, medical devices, and
electronic products that emit radiation.
FDA also ensures the safety of
cosmetics. Additionally, FDA regulates
food and tobacco products, but are
outside the scope of this study.
Prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs,
contact lenses, breast pumps, cosmetics such as
lipstick and eye liner, cell phones, and toy laser
products
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
NHTSA sets and enforces safety
performance standards for motor
vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
Motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment such as
tires and motorcycle helmets, and child restraint
systems (when sold for use in vehicles)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) NRC licenses and regulates civilian use
of certain radioactive materials.
Consumer products that contain NRC-regulated
materials such as tritium watches, smoke
detectors, and electron tubes.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA)
PHMSA ensures that hazardous
materials are packaged and handled
safely during transportation.
Hazardous materials (such as consumer
fireworks, lithium batteries, and compressed gas)
in transport
Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO 15-52
Note: Some agencies have broader responsibilities than those listed in the table, which focuses on
aspects of each agency’s work that relate to consumer product safety.
These eight agencies conduct a range of regulatory activities related to
consumer product safety, including rulemaking, standard setting,
enforcement, risk assessment, and product recalls.
Page 10 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
• Rulemaking, standard setting, and enforcement. All eight agencies
reported conducting rulemaking, standard-setting, and enforcement
activities. As an example of rulemaking, CPSC recently issued a final
rule establishing a safety standard for strollers and infant carriages.
18
CPSC issued the rule in response to a provision of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act, which required CPSC to promulgate
consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler
products.
19
• Risk assessment. Six of the eight agencies reported conducting risk
assessments, whereas PHMSA did not and the Coast Guard reported
that its authority in this area is unclear.
The rule incorporates by reference the most recent
voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, a standard-
setting organization. The standard includes requirements for improved
test methods of various parts (e.g., brakes, wheels) and warning label
clarifications. In an example of enforcement, PHMSA inspects
consumer commodity shipments. PHMSA staff stated that they
coordinate with other agencies to identify where hazardous
substances are coming from and where they are going. In another
enforcement example, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA
can initiate civil actions to seize an imminently hazardous substance,
mixture, or any article containing such a substance or mixture.
20
18
Safety Standard for Carriages and Strollers, 79 Fed. Reg. 13,208 (Mar. 10, 2014).
As an example of risk
assessment, EPA recently conducted an assessment for a flea and
tick pet collar using the insecticide propoxur. EPA’s risk assessment
found, in some but not all use scenarios, unacceptable risks to
children from exposure to propoxur pet collars. EPA noted that small
children may ingest pesticide residues when they touch a treated cat
19
Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. at 3028 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §
2056a).
20
CPSC provided additional information on its risk assessment authorities, which it
approaches in two ways. First, the agency noted that it is inferred that it would assess the
risks associated with consumer products in order to implement the CPSA. For CPSC to
issue a consumer product safety rule under section 7 of CPSA, CPSC must determine
that the rule is reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of
injury. 15 U.S.C. § 2056(a). CPSC also conducts traditional chemical risk assessments
under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to determine whether a substance meets
the definition of a “hazardous substance.” See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261, 1262. We have done
prior work on CPSC’s ability to stay generally informed about new risks associated with
consumer products and use available information to identify product hazards. See GAO,
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in Responding to New
Product Risks, GAO 13-150 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 20, 2012).
Page 11 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
or dog and subsequently put their hands in their mouths. EPA and the
manufacturers agreed to do a voluntary cancellation of the product
based on concerns that the residue on animals can be dangerous for
children.
21
• Product recalls. Six of the eight agencies reported having regulatory
authority to recall certain products under their jurisdiction, whereas
NRC and PHMSA did not. As an example of a product recall, an
official from the Coast Guard noted that the agency works with
manufacturers and conducts between 10 and 20 recall campaigns
annually of recreational boats, equipment originally installed on boats,
and limited equipment installed after purchase. The Coast Guard
officials recently worked with Honda, which has stopped
manufacturing personal watercraft, when the company found it had a
problem with boats it manufactured from 2002 through 2008. The
manufacturer is now recalling these boats for possible fuel tank
failure. The Coast Guard stated that it does not actually conduct the
recalls but records the recalls and monitors the progress that the
manufacturer completes in the performance of the recalls. According
to the agency, once regulatory noncompliance or a substantial risk
defect is discovered, the manufacturer normally voluntarily registers
the recall campaign with the Coast Guard and performs the recall in
accordance with statutory requirements and the Coast Guard
regulations regarding recall notification.
The Coast Guard noted that its authority to conduct risk
assessments is unclear. A Coast Guard official explained that
statutory authority allows the Coast Guard to establish whether,
according to their reasonable and prudent judgment, a defect creates
a substantial risk of personal injury.
22
21
Under the cancellation agreement, manufacturers are allowed to produce the pet collars
until April 1, 2015, and will not be allowed to distribute the products after April 1, 2016.
The agency determined that this agreement, which phases out use of the product, would
be the best way to remove the product from the market expeditiously.
By statute, the manufacturer
is required to notify the first purchaser, subsequent purchasers if
known to the manufacturer, and the dealers and distributors. Based
on the progress reports submitted to the Coast Guard by the
manufacturer, the Coast Guard decides when it is practical to close
the recall campaign. According to the agency, the Coast Guard has
the authority to require a manufacturer to perform a recall, but this
authority has rarely been used.
22
46 U.S.C. § 4310; 33 C.F.R. pt. 179.
Page 12 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
In addition to the regulatory activities listed earlier, agencies reported
other oversight activities they undertake. Specifically, CPSC noted that it
can also collect data and conduct informational campaigns. NHTSA also
stated that it can conduct consumer informational programs. For example,
NHTSA noted the New Car Assessment Program, under which it
conducts vehicle crash and rollover tests to encourage manufacturers to
make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide the public with
information on the relative safety of vehicles (e.g., through a safety rating
using a five-star scale). Additionally, EPA noted its statutory authority to
conduct licensing of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
Based on our analyses of information obtained through the
questionnaires and interviews with agency officials, we identified at least
12 agencies that play an indirect role in the oversight of consumer
product safety. We categorized an agency as having an indirect role if it
met one of two criteria: (1) it did not conduct any of the five regulatory
activities described in the previous section, but described other activities
that supported consumer product safety oversight; or (2) it initially
described a role in regulating consumer products, but in subsequent
interviews, did not self-identify as a consumer product safety oversight
agency.
23
23
For example, although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention initially noted regulatory authorities in their
questionnaire responses, the agencies specified in interviews that they regulate the safety
of products used in the workplace, and as such did not see their role as pertaining to
consumer products but rather employee safety. The Federal Communications
Commission noted a role regulating maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions from
radio devices, but considered its role to be one of measurement expertise, not product
safety. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and Technology noted a regulatory
role over one item, toy guns, but primarily considered itself a nonregulatory agency. Thus
we categorized these agencies as having an indirect rather than direct role.
An indirect role can include such activities as conducting
underlying research to support regulatory activities and providing public
health expertise, among others. We describe the overall work of these
agencies and the specific roles that they play in relation to consumer
product safety in detail in appendix III. The 12 agencies are the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Federal Communications
Commission (FCC); Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);
National Institutes of Health (NIH); Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
At Least 12 Agencies Play
an Indirect Role in
Consumer Product Safety
Oversight
Page 13 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
(CDC); Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB); Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and Federal Trade
Commission (FTC).
These 12 agencies supported product safety in at least one of the
following areas: (1) public health expertise; (2) law enforcement; (3)
workplace safety; (4) transportation safety; and (5) other activities.
• Public health expertise. NIH, HRSA, and CDC reported providing
public health expertise. For example, the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), within NIH, manages the
National Toxicology Program, which studies substances in the
environment, including substances used in personal care products,
household products, foods, and dietary supplements, to identify any
potential harm they might cause to human health. One example of a
substance over which NIH and CPSC have coordinated is diisononyl
phthalate (DINP). Phthalates are a group of chemicals used to make
plastics more flexible and more difficult to break. The National
Toxicology Program has provided CPSC with access to its scientific
expertise and research on DINP. It also served on and provided
DINP-related analysis to the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on DINP.
This panel advised CPSC on whether DINP in consumer products
poses a chronic hazard.
• Law enforcement. CBP, ATF, and FTC reported involvement in law
enforcement. For example, FTC investigates and can take action
against companies that engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in or affecting commerce, which can include making deceptive safety
claims. One example where FTC has played a role in consumer
product safety is through an administrative action it took against a
manufacturer that falsely claimed that football mouth guards prevent
concussions. FTC’s settlement order with the manufacturer prohibits
the company and its owner from, among other things, misrepresenting
the health benefits of any mouth guard or other athletic equipment
designed to protect the brain from injury. FTC has also taken other
actions related to the safety of consumer products. For example, it
has challenged several after-market braking devices that called
themselves antilock brake systems (ABS) but that did not, in fact,
function as well as factory-installed antilock brakes.
• Workplace Safety. CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA reported responsibilities for workplace
Page 14 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
safety. For example, NIOSH conducts and publishes research on the
occupational hazards associated with the use of tools (such as nail
guns) and materials (such as spray foam insulation and methylene
chloride). NIOSH’s research focuses on worker safety, but consumers
may benefit because they may purchase the same products for use in
and around the home. In the case of nail guns, NIOSH stated that it
had identified causes of worker injuries, developed recommendations
to improve worker safety, and published the information in a variety of
media and formats, including a joint publication with OSHA, to make it
widely available. Sometimes, a manufacturer may end up making
improvements to a product as a result of NIOSH’s research, which
may enhance consumer safety. NIOSH also conducts rulemaking,
standard setting, and product recalls of respirators for use by workers,
which also may be purchased by consumers.
• Transportation safety. FAA and NTSB reported responsibilities for
transportation safety. For example, NTSB investigates every civil
aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in
other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine, and
pipeline. As part of its investigations, NTSB makes safety
recommendations to other federal agencies on a variety of topics,
including their oversight of any specific consumer products involved in
the accidents. In the past, NTSB has made recommendations to
NHTSA to improve the visibility of brake and turn lights and to modify
performance and testing requirements for passenger-side air bags.
More recently, NTSB has made recommendations to FAA to improve
the safety of amateur-built aircraft.
• Other activities. NIST, FCC, and FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration
reported involvement in other activities that support consumer product
safety oversight. For example, with the increasing use of
nanomaterials, NIST stated that it has collaborated with CPSC to
measure and better understand the release of nanotechnology-based
products and exposure pathways. According to NIST, in these
collaborations, it has provided unique measurement expertise, for
example, for determining the quantities and properties of
nanoparticles released from flooring finishes and interior paints and
their subsequent airborne concentrations.
Page 15 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
We found that oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented across
multiple agencies with some overlap occurring—for example, when
agencies regulate different uses of the same product. We did not find
specific cases of duplication in oversight. Fragmentation and overlap can
help provide more comprehensive oversight by allowing agencies to
leverage one another’s expertise, resources, and authorities, but they can
also create inefficiencies. In particular, NIST’s role as regulator for the
markings of toy and imitation firearms may be an inefficient use of
resources because it may not leverage the agency’s primary mission and
expertise, which are related to scientific measurement. In addition,
because of potential jurisdictional uncertainty regarding whether some
recreational boating equipment should be regulated by the Coast Guard
or CPSC, the potential exists for some hazards to not be adequately
addressed.
Federal regulatory oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented
across multiple agencies, and some overlap occurs among these
agencies based on their statutory authorities for certain products. The
agencies we surveyed and interviewed provided several examples of
regulatory oversight involving multiple agencies, including scenarios in
which agencies regulate different components of the same product,
regulate different uses of a product, or administer different regulatory
oversight activities for the same product.
24
We did not find specific cases
of duplication in oversight. Figure 2 contains examples of consumer
products regulated by more than one agency. (See app. IV for a full-text
presentation of the examples in fig. 2).
24
In addition to the examples included in this section of the report, agencies provided
other examples of potential fragmentation or overlap in the oversight of consumer product
safety in their questionnaire responses. For example, HUD noted in its questionnaire
response that while it oversees manufactured—or factory-built—homes, FEMA orders
large quantities of manufactured homes. In an interview, HUD said that FEMA orders
these homes for use in areas affected by disasters and that FEMA may set additional
requirements for their use. CPSC officials noted overlap in their questionnaire response in
the area of chemical regulation and that this regulation in general involves several
different agencies because chemicals, such as flame retardants, are used in a wide range
of products and in different settings.
Fragmented and
Overlapping
Oversight Can Help
Agencies Leverage
Expertise but Also
Creates Inefficiencies
Oversight Is Fragmented,
and Jurisdictions Overlap
When Multiple Agencies
Regulate the Same
Product, Its Components,
or Its Uses
Page 16 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 2: Examples of Consumer Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). | GAO-15-52
ABC
ABC
ATF - Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
CDC-NIOSH - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
CPSC - Consumer Product Safety Commission
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FCC - Federal Communications Commission
FDA - Food and Drug Administration
NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology
PHMSA - Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RESPIRATORS
Quantity:
5
Product
Drugs and other products with child-resistant packaging
Soaps and detergents
Toy laser guns
Consumer fireworks
Mobile phones/wireless devices
Adult portable bed rails
Food contact articles
Lithium batteries
Infant car seats/hand-held carriers
Respirators
CPSC FDA PHMSA NIST ATFEPA
Regulatory or oversight agency
FCC NHTSA
CDC-
NIOSH
Interactive
Directions: Hover over consumer products (in blue) or table text for additional information.
Page 17 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
In the following examples, agencies regulate different components of a
product, which can result in fragmentation and overlap.
• Articles or equipment that come into contact with food (CPSC,
FDA): FDA regulates substances making up the surfaces of products,
such as spoons, drinking glasses, and lunch boxes, that come into
contact with and can potentially leach into food.
25
In contrast, CPSC
regulates the parts of food containers or preparation articles that do
not come into contact with food, as well as certain chemical
substances.
26
In 1976, CPSC and FDA signed a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) that outlines each agency’s jurisdiction over food contact
articles and equipment. According to FDA, the agency began working
with CPSC in 2012 to update the MOU to reflect the agency’s current
An example of a product with overlapping regulation is
spoons intended for use by infants. The substances making up the
portion of the spoon that comes into contact with the food would
generally be regulated by FDA to ensure the safety of substances in
the spoon that may migrate into the food. However, if the spoon had a
plastic coating, it could also be subject to CPSC’s limits on the use of
certain phthalates in children’s products. In another example, in 2010,
CPSC issued a voluntary recall of about 12 million drinking glasses
because the designs on the outside of the glasses contained
cadmium, a substance that can cause adverse health effects.
25
Articles classified as “food” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act are
excluded from the definition of “consumer products” under CPSA and are therefore
excluded from CPSC’s jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)(I) (CPSA definition of
“consumer product,” excluding “food”); 21 U.S.C. § 321(f) (the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act definition of “food”). According to FDA, articles having food contact surfaces,
such as food containers, and products used for eating, cooking, and preparing food, from
which there is migration of a substance from the contact surface to the food, are
considered food “components” and thus “food” within the meaning of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act and subject to regulation by FDA. See 21 U.S.C. § 321(f).
26
CPSC also regulates mechanical hazards (e.g., a broken pan handle) and the proper
functioning of a product to prevent contaminated or spoiled food (e.g., slow cookers or
refrigerators that fail to perform at proper temperatures).
Page 18 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
authorities but did not continue with this effort due to other priorities.
27
However, according to FDA, the lack of an updated MOU does not
indicate any coverage gap in the regulatory oversight of food contact
articles. CPSC staff also noted that while their overall authorities for
consumer product safety have changed since the MOU was first
signed—for example, CPSC received the authority in 2008 to limit the
use of phthalates in children’s products—the MOU still reflects
CPSC’s current jurisdiction over food contact articles.
28
• Toy laser products (CPSC, FDA): FDA has jurisdiction over
radiation-emitting products, including oversight responsibilities for
ensuring manufacturers’ compliance with applicable safety
performance standards and certification requirements.
29
For example,
FDA can require that manufacturers incorporate safety features,
warnings, and instructions for safe use. FDA’s jurisdiction potentially
overlaps with CPSC’s for toy laser products, as CPSC regulates
safety standards and testing requirements for children’s products,
including toys.
30
27
Both CPSA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act have been amended since
1976, when the MOU was signed, resulting in changes and additional authority. For
example, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 provided FDA with
the authority to establish a food contact notification process, which according to FDA, is
the primary means by which FDA regulates food additives that are also food contact
substances. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-
115, § 309, 111 Stat. 2296, 2354 (1997) (amending 21 U.S.C. § 348).
For example, CPSC regulates toys to ensure that
they do not contain small parts children could swallow and that the
28
Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 108, 122 Stat. at 3036 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §
2057c).
29
21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh-360ss.
30
See 15 U.S.C. § 2056b. However, CPSC does not have the authority to regulate a risk
of injury associated with electronic product radiation emitted from an electronic product. 15
U.S.C. § 2080(a). Thus, FDA has authority over a toy laser product that presents a
radiation hazard. According to FDA, LASER stands for Light Amplification by the
Stimulated Emission of Radiation. One type of laser consists of a sealed tube, containing
a pair of mirrors, and a laser medium that is excited by some form of energy to produce
visible light or invisible ultraviolet or infrared radiation. Other examples of products that
incorporate lasers are compact disc and DVD players, fax machines, laser pointers, bar
code scanners, cutting and welding tools, and laser speed detectors.
Page 19 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
lead content of the paint is below the required threshold.
31
Examples
of toy laser products include “light sabers,” toy guns with mounted
lasers for taking aim, and tops that project laser beams while they
spin. In June 2013, FDA proposed laser safety regulations specific to
toy laser products marketed to children that would restrict the amount
of radiation emitted by toy lasers to the lowest laser class limits.
32
FDA and CPSC indicated that they did not coordinate on the
proposed rule for toy laser products, but according to FDA officials,
the agencies collaborated on a draft guidance document concerning
this rule that was issued in August 2013.
33
Regulatory jurisdiction for some products changes depending on where or
how the product is used, which can result in overlapping oversight, as in
the following examples.
FDA also noted that the
agency has organized a multiagency Laser Communications Working
Group to educate consumers about laser safety.
• Infant car seats/hand-held infant carriers (CPSC, NHTSA): Infant
car seats can be used to protect a child inside a moving vehicle, but
some (which are also called hand-held infant carriers) can also be
31
CPSC regulations ban any toy or other article intended for use by children under 3 years
of age that presents a choking, aspiration, or ingestion hazard because of small parts. 16
C.F.R. § 1500.18(a)(9). Additionally, all children’s products, including toys, must not
contain a concentration of lead greater than 0.009 percent (90 parts per million) in paint or
any similar surface coatings. CPSIA mandated CPSC to modify its regulations to lower the
concentration of lead in paint that is permissible from 0.06 percent (600 ppm) to 0.009
percent (90 ppm), effective August 14, 2009, and this limit is subject to periodic ongoing
review by CPSC. Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 101(f), 122 Stat. at 3020 (codified at 15 U.S.C. §
1278a(f)); 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1.
32
Laser Products; Proposed Amendment to Performance Standard, 78 Fed. Reg. 37,723
(June 24, 2013). FDA is proposing to amend 21 C.F.R. § 1040.11 by adding a new
paragraph which would restrict to Class 1 under any conditions of operation, maintenance,
service, or failure, any laser products that are made or promoted as children’s toys for use
by children under 14 years of age. FDA is proposing this amendment to ensure children
will not be harmed by laser radiation under any conditions including disassembly or
breakage. Because the class of the laser within the toy could be higher than the class of
the toy product itself, the amendment aims to protect children from unanticipated harmful
exposure.
33
In this guidance issued to the industry in August 2013, FDA indicated that the whole toy
needs to be certified as a laser product, unless the part of the toy that can emit laser light
is removable and can emit laser light independently when separated from the other parts
of the toy, in which case only that laser-emitting part would need to be certified. Minimizing
Risk for Children’s Toy Laser Products; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; Availability, 78 Fed. Reg. 48,172 (Aug. 7, 2013).
Page 20 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
used to carry an infant outside of a vehicle and can attach to strollers.
CPSC regulates hazards associated with the use of infant carriers
outside of a motor vehicle, including soft infant carriers, framed
carriers worn on caregivers’ backs, and hand-held infant carriers, as
part of their jurisdiction over durable infant and toddler products.
Overlap with NHTSA occurs with hand-held infant carriers that are
also used as car seats and are therefore considered “motor vehicle
equipment” for the purpose of NHTSA’s jurisdiction. For example,
infant car seats sold for purposes that include motor vehicle use are
considered child-restraint systems and must be certified as meeting
federal motor vehicle safety standards.
34
In December 2013, CPSC
issued a final rule, which incorporated an existing voluntary standard
for hand-held infant carriers.
35
• Adult portable bed rails (CPSC, FDA): CPSC and FDA regulate
portable bed rails for adult use. These are rails that are not part of a
bed’s original design, but can be installed against or adjacent to adult
beds to protect people from falling and to assist them as they get in
and out of bed. Jurisdiction depends on whether the adult portable
For example, this standard includes
warning label requirements to address suffocation and restraint-
related hazards, as well as testing procedures to ensure that the
carrier handle automatically locks. NHTSA and CPSC indicated that
they had coordinated on the rulemaking. For example, CPSC said that
the agency had worked with NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of
existing standards for hand-held infant carriers and to ensure that the
warning label to address strangulation hazards does not interfere with
NHTSA’s label for air bags.
34
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.213).
35
78 Fed. Reg. 73,415 (Dec. 6, 2013) (codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 1225). Under Section 104
of CPSIA, CPSC is required to issue mandatory standards based on voluntary standards
for certain durable infant and toddler products, including infant carriers. 15 U.S.C. §
2056a. Voluntary standards are generally determined by standard-setting organizations,
with input from government representatives and industry groups, and are also referred to
as “consensus standards.” Under CPSIA, CPSC is required to work with various
stakeholders and experts to examine and assess the effectiveness of existing voluntary
standards for durable infant or toddler products and establish mandatory standards that
are substantially the same as or more stringent than the voluntary standards for such
products. In 2012, GAO reported on manufacturers’ compliance with voluntary industry
standards, including CPSC’s ability to encourage compliance with voluntary standards and
other authorities in this regard. See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More
Active Role in Voluntary Standards Development Should Be Considered, GAO-12-582
(Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012).
Page 21 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
bed rails constitute medical devices.
36
• Soaps, cleaners, and other household products (CPSC, EPA,
FDA): Jurisdiction over soaps, cleaners, and other household
products depends on whether the product is formulated and marketed
as a soap, cosmetic, drug, or pesticide, resulting in jurisdictional
fragmentation and overlap. FDA regulates cosmetics and drugs;
CPSC regulates household products, such as household cleaners,
(including soap but excluding certain items, such as drugs, cosmetics,
FDA has jurisdiction over adult
portable bed rails considered to be medical devices, and CPSC
regulates adult portable bed rails that do not meet the definition of
such devices. FDA noted that for consumers, there is little difference
between the adult portable bed rails regulated by FDA or CPSC in
terms of the physical product. FDA and CPSC have been working with
manufacturers, health care practitioners, and consumer
representatives since 2013, to develop a voluntary consensus
standard for adult portable bed rails through an organization that
develops standards (ASTM International). This voluntary standard
would apply to all portable adult bed rails whether they are regulated
by FDA or CPSC and should help ensure that there are no gaps in
oversight of the safety of portable bed rails for adult use. The effort to
establish a voluntary standard for bed rails was ongoing as of
September 2014. CPSC and FDA also noted that they maintain an
interagency working group that addresses the issues associated with
adult portable bed rails. While this working group’s primary focus is
the development of the voluntary standard, CPSC and FDA said the
group also exchanges technical information and compliance
challenges to improve regulatory oversight.
36
Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines a device, in part, as
an instrument intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the
cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or intended to affect the structure or
function of the body. 21 U.S.C. § 321(h).
Page 22 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
and pesticides);
37
and EPA regulates pesticides and certain chemicals
that may also be contained in soaps, cleaners, and other household
products.
38
Body-cleansing products that do not meet FDA’s definition
of “soap” but contain detergents and are used for cosmetic purposes
are typically considered cosmetics under FDA’s jurisdiction. FDA
considers antibacterial or antimicrobial cleansing products to be drugs
under its jurisdiction, even though they contain the chemical Triclosan,
which is also regulated by EPA when used as a pesticide in other
products.
39
37
FDA defines “soap” to mean articles that meet the following conditions: (1) the bulk of
the nonvolatile matter in the product consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the
product’s detergent properties are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds, and (2) the
product is labeled, sold, and represented only as soap. 21 C.F.R. § 701.20. Products that
meet this definition of soap are excluded from the definition of “cosmetic” in the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and are regulated by CPSC. 21 U.S.C. § 321(i) (excluding
soap from the definition of “cosmetic” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).
The CPSA excludes “cosmetics,” as that term is defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, from the definition of a “consumer product” under CPSC’s jurisdiction. 15
U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)(H). However, according to CPSC officials, the agency could use its
authorities under the CPSA and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to address any
hazards associated with soaps that do not meet the definition of a cosmetic.
CPSC has authority over products that are labeled and
sold only as soap and that have specified chemical properties that
exclude them from FDA’s jurisdiction. With respect to other household
cleaners, while FDA regulates the detergents used in cosmetics,
CPSC has authority over cleansers that are not cosmetics or
38
In addition to regulating pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, EPA, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, regulates “chemical
substances” and “mixtures” of chemical substances. Certain items are excluded from the
Toxic Substances Control Act’s definition of “chemical substance,” including but not limited
to pesticides, foods, drugs, and cosmetics. 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B). According to EPA,
soaps, cleaners, and other household products may consist of or contain chemical
substances and mixtures that are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Additionally, as noted above, EPA said that under the Toxic Substances Control Act, it can
regulate the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce, use, or
disposal of chemical substances and mixtures, including for use as or as part of a
consumer product. Such consumer products could include the items described in this
section (toy laser products, infant car seats, bed rails, fireworks, and wireless devices),
except food contact articles, which are excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act’s
definition of chemical substance. See 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(vi).
39
Triclosan is an antimicrobial active ingredient contained in a variety of products where it
acts to slow or stop the growth of bacteria, fungi, and mildew. There are currently 20
antimicrobial registrations, which EPA regulates under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act. Triclosan is also an active ingredient in antibacterial hand soaps,
and toothpastes and as such, is considered by FDA to be an over-the-counter drug under
regulation by FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Page 23 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
pesticides, such as laundry or dishwashing detergents. In addition,
EPA staff noted that its jurisdiction overlaps with CPSC’s with respect
to some household cleaners, such as window cleaners. Even if the
cleaners are not marketed as pesticides, EPA may still regulate
certain chemicals contained in them. EPA also noted that they work
with CPSC and other agencies when their jurisdictions overlap to
share information and determine how to address a particular product
hazard.
40
In addition, agencies can conduct different regulatory oversight activities
for the same product, but requirements can overlap.
• Fireworks (ATF, CPSC, PHMSA): CPSC oversees fireworks that are
used by consumers, which includes examining the length of the fuse
to determine how quickly and how long it will ignite, among other
things. PHMSA regulates the approval, importation, and transport of
fireworks based on its authority to regulate the transportation of
hazardous materials. PHMSA staff noted that some overlap exists
between CPSC’s and PHMSA’s manufacturing requirements for
fireworks. They explained that both sets of requirements have been
incorporated into industry standards (standard 87-1 of the American
Pyrotechnic Association), which PHMSA in turn has incorporated into
its regulations governing the approval and transport of fireworks.
Additionally, ATF enforces explosives laws and licenses
manufacturers to use explosives, including in consumer fireworks.
• Mobile phones and other wireless devices (FCC, FDA): FCC and
FDA share regulatory responsibilities for mobile phones and other
wireless devices. Although FCC does not directly regulate the safety
of mobile phones and wireless devices, it sets limits on the amount of
radiofrequency energy these devices can emit and certifies that
40
EPA officials noted that the agency receives notification under the Toxic Substances
Control Act from potential manufacturers when they plan to begin manufacture of a new
chemical substance (i.e., those substances that are not already on the list of chemicals
included in the Toxic Substances Control Act), including when such chemical substance
may be used in consumer products. EPA can take action to prevent any unreasonable
risks from consumer uses. Additionally, the Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes EPA
to work with a federal agency with overlapping jurisdiction to determine whether an
unreasonable risk “may be prevented or reduced to a sufficient extent” by action taken
under the other agency’s laws. 15 U.S.C. § 2608(a).
Page 24 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
devices sold in the United States comply with FCC requirements.
41
According to FDA, the agency, as part of its oversight of radiation-
emitting products, ensures that mobile phones and other wireless
devices do not emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is hazardous
to the user. FDA also stated that as a health expert agency, its
expertise was significant in developing the radiofrequency exposure
limits from which the FCC radiofrequency emission limits are derived,
and it is FDA that would have the jurisdiction to determine whether a
product is unsafe.
42
For example, while FDA does not review the
safety of mobile phone devices before they are marketed, it can
require manufacturers to replace or recall mobile phones that are
shown to emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is hazardous. As
we previously reported, FCC said it relies heavily on the guidance and
recommendations of federal health and safety agencies when
determining the appropriate exposure limit for radiofrequency
energy.
43
As we discuss in the next section of this report, FDA, FCC,
and other agencies are part of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work
Group, which works to share information and research on
radiofrequency energy-related issues.
Agency officials, as well as a consumer group and industry expert, told us
that the involvement of multiple agencies with various areas of expertise
can help ensure more comprehensive oversight of a product. Consumer
product safety encompasses complex topics and often requires a range
of expertise to address the breadth of products and potential safety
hazards (e.g., manufacturing, transport, effects on the environment, or
use in different settings). As a result, it may be impractical for any single
agency to oversee consumer product safety alone. For example, CPSC
staff noted that in the area of nanomaterials, no single agency has the
41
According to FCC, the agency specifically certifies that devices sold in the United States
comply with FCC requirements regarding maximum Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) to
which humans can be exposed by devices that emit radiofrequency energy.
42
We previously noted that at high power levels, radiofrequency energy can heat
biological tissue and cause damage. Though mobile phones operate at power levels well
below the level at which this thermal effect occurs, the question of whether long-term
exposure to radiofrequency energy emitted from mobile phones can cause other types of
adverse health effects, such as cancer, has been the subject of research and debate.
GAO, Telecommunications: Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones
Should Be Reassessed, GAO-12-771 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2012).
43
GAO-12-771.
Current Structure Helps
Provide More
Comprehensive Oversight
but Also Creates Some
Inefficiencies
Page 25 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
resources to tackle the potential human health and environmental risks.
Moreover, some agencies noted that each agency brings a different
mission or focus to addressing consumer product safety problems. For
example, CPSC staff noted that while CPSC and EPA both conduct risk
assessments as part of their oversight of generators, EPA’s focus is on
how much pollution a generator emits into the environment, while CPSC
focuses on the safety implications of how consumers use generators
around their homes. CPSC staff noted that risk assessments from other
agencies can serve as an additional check on their own safety
assessments.
As part of providing more comprehensive oversight of consumer product
safety within a fragmented and overlapping regulatory structure, agencies
noted that they leverage one another’s expertise, resources, and statutory
authorities. For example, we previously reported that in 2009, CPSC led a
task force to address hazards associated with high hydrogen sulfide
emissions from imported defective drywall (i.e., sheetrock used in
construction), which crossed the jurisdiction of several federal agencies.
44
Because agencies have different missions and areas of expertise, they
also have access to different data and information sources, and some
agencies noted that sharing this information can increase their knowledge
of product safety issues. For example, NHTSA noted that they share
complaint and injury data associated with the use of hand-held infant
carriers in motor vehicles with CPSC during joint investigations to inform
CPSC’s oversight of these products when used outside of motor vehicles.
Some agencies stated that given their current regulatory authorities, they
may need to rely on other agencies’ authorities to address certain
Members of this task force brought their areas of expertise to this effort.
For example, CPSC coordinated with EPA to conduct an elemental
analysis of the drywall components; HUD’s role was to develop guidance
for the identification and remediation of problem drywall in homes; CDC’s
role was to assess the health effects and develop a public awareness
campaign; and CBP’s role was to help identify imports of defective
drywall.
44
GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in Responding
to New Product Risks, GAO-13-150 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2012). Additionally, in
2013, we reported on federal and other efforts to assist home owners who have
experienced damage associated with defective drywall. See GAO, Information on
Defective Drywall, GAO-13-735R (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2013).
Page 26 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
problems with unsafe products. For example, PHMSA noted that they do
not have the authority to recall a product once it is in the possession of
consumers, so they would rely on an agency such as CPSC or FDA to
remove products from commerce that are under their respective
jurisdictions.
While agencies noted some benefits to the current regulatory structure for
consumer product safety, fragmentation also creates some inefficiencies,
including challenges related to communication among federal agencies
and with industry and consumers and to the ability to identify and respond
to new and emerging product hazards.
Some agencies indicated that it can be difficult to find the right people
with whom to coordinate if agencies or their staff have no pre-existing
working relationships, if relationships change (such as through staff
turnover), or if the agencies are large. For instance, program staff in
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs stated that it can be difficult to find
the right people with whom to coordinate if they are not familiar with an
agency’s organization.
Moreover, agencies might not be aware of the regulatory activities of
other agencies that relate to their oversight. For example, CPSC had
issued a rule on child-resistant packaging for over-the-counter and
prescription drug products containing specified levels of the drug
imidazoline in 2012.
45
45
Requirements for Child-Resistant Packaging: Products Containing Imidazolines
Equivalent to 0.08 Milligrams or More, 77 Fed. Reg. 73,294 (Dec. 10, 2012).
FDA officials said that the agency had not received
adequate notification of the content of the rulemaking as it progressed,
although CPSC initially made requests to FDA for data related to the
issues covered by the rulemaking. FDA had concerns about certain
provisions in the imidazoline packaging rule and felt that the final rule
could have benefited from direct input from FDA. FDA staff noted that one
way in which agencies learn about other agencies’ rulemaking activities is
through a planning and review process for draft rules led by the Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory
Communication and
Coordination Can Be Difficult
When Oversight Involves
Multiple Agencies
Page 27 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Affairs (OIRA).
46
This planning and review process can also be a way to
resolve disputes among agencies. However, independent agencies, such
as CPSC, are not subject to OIRA’s interagency planning and review
process.
47
In another example, FDA expressed concern that CPSC’s 2010 rule
establishing requirements for cribs might eliminate cribs with drop-side
rails that are necessary for medical purposes outside of hospital
settings.
As a result, entities other than independent agencies, such as
FDA would not see rules proposed by CPSC as part of this process.
However, CPSC noted that while it does receive draft rules from some
agencies (mostly from EPA) during the OIRA planning and review
process, the timing of the review would probably be too late to address
major issues. FDA stated that agencies may consult with one another
outside of the OIRA planning and review process.
48
When consumer products fall under more than one agency’s jurisdiction,
it may be unclear which agencies have primary oversight responsibility for
them. As we previously discussed, products such as body-cleansing
products may be regulated by different agencies depending on how they
are used or marketed. Additionally, multiple agencies have regulatory
jurisdiction for the packaging of certain household substances to ensure
In response to CPSC’s crib requirements, FDA is developing a
proposed rule to regulate the safety and effectiveness of pediatric cribs,
while allowing for the use of drop-side rails. FDA said they expect to issue
the proposed rule in fall 2014. According to FDA staff, the agency has
been coordinating with CPSC on how to publicly communicate their crib
requirements. CPSC also noted in subsequent guidance that medical
cribs are regulated by FDA and are not subject to CPSC’s crib standards.
46
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 established OIRA to provide central agency
leadership and oversight of government-wide efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork
burden and manage information resources. Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (1980)
(codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521). In 1981, Executive Order 12291
authorized OIRA to review all proposed and final regulations from entities other than
independent regulatory agencies (i.e., cabinet departments, as well as agencies that
report directly to the President).
47
Executive Order 12866 establishes the process for centralized regulatory review and
planning. Further, Executive Order 13579 states that independent regulatory agencies
should follow the regulatory planning and review process but that these agencies are not
required to comply.
48
75 Fed. Reg. 81,766 (Dec. 28, 2010).
Fragmentation and Overlap
Can Create Challenges
Related to Jurisdiction
Page 28 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
that children cannot easily open them. Under the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act, CPSC oversees child-resistant packaging for household
substances, including cosmetics and drugs, except for substances that
are defined as pesticides by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (e.g., antimicrobial or antibacterial products).
49
EPA
regulates the child-resistant packaging of pesticides used in residential
settings. EPA’s standards for child-resistant packaging are required by
law to be consistent with CPSC’s requirements under the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act and according to EPA’s website, EPA and
CPSC worked together to develop reference guides for the public on their
respective child-resistant packaging requirements.
50
However, oversight
over child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body-
cleansing products is unclear. EPA indicated that they do not regulate
child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body-cleansing
products that contain the chemical Triclosan, which is also found in
pesticides, because these products are regulated by FDA as over-the-
counter drugs and not as pesticides by EPA.
51
Moreover, as new products enter the consumer marketplace or when new
uses or users arise for existing products, agencies face questions of
jurisdiction. For example, CPSC staff noted that there are potential
jurisdictional questions about products that could be used in both
workplace and home settings, particularly as consumers have greater
access to products that were previously limited to industrial settings, such
According to CPSC
officials, the agency has not had occasion to consider whether it has
jurisdiction over child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial
body-cleansing products containing Triclosan even though CPSC’s
authorities under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act include over-the-
counter drugs.
49
Pub. L. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (1970) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1477).
50
7 U.S.C. § 136w(c)(3). EPA is authorized to establish standards, which shall be
consistent with those established under the authority of the Poison Prevention Packaging
Act, with respect to the package, container, or wrapping in which a pesticide or device is
enclosed for use or consumption in order to protect children and adults from serious injury
or illness resulting from accidental ingestion or contact with pesticides.
51
According to FDA, while the agency does not review child-resistant packaging for
cosmetics, drugs, and other household substances, it does review the packaging of drugs
and cosmetics for other purposes, such as to ensure the packaging of certain cosmetics is
tamper resistant and to ensure the packaging of drugs is sterile and meets FDA’s quality
standards.
Page 29 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
as certain lawnmowers and power tools. According to CPSC, if an
industrial product is used by consumers on more than an occasional
basis, the agency may have the authority to regulate it as a consumer
product. To make this determination, CPSC said it would have to
consider—on a case-by-case basis—a variety of factors, including the
use of the product by consumers and the associated hazards, as well as
how the product is marketed, priced, and distributed. While OSHA
typically regulates the use of products in workplace settings, CPSC can
recall consumer products if OSHA standards do not adequately address a
product’s hazards.
52
We also previously reported on nanotechnology as
an emerging field and found that nanomaterials can be used in a wide
range of consumer products that involve multiple agencies’ jurisdictions.
53
For example, we reported that consumer products that incorporate
nanotechnology are as diverse as clothing, cosmetics, household
appliances, and sporting goods.
54
Some agencies noted that when oversight responsibilities are shared by
multiple agencies, manufacturers may have to meet multiple regulatory
requirements, which can increase time and costs for manufacturers. For
example, senior program officials in CDC’s National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) told us that NIOSH and FDA
both regulate a certain type of respiratory protective device and that this
overlap increases time and costs for manufacturers in having to meet
different requirements. NIOSH certifies respirators as meeting certain
requirements for use in workplace settings, such as construction sites, to
protect workers from dust and small particles; these respirators can also
be sold to consumers. FDA regulates respirators for use in health care
52
According to OSHA, while the agency has standards with requirements for some
products, such as safety glasses, the standards are intended to ensure workers are using
the proper equipment to protect them against hazards in the workplace, not hazards from
the product itself.
53
GAO, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the
Environment, and Human Health, GAO-14-181SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2014).
54
GAO, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information Needed for Environmental,
Health, and Safety Research, GAO-12-427 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012).
Multiple Standards May Create
Inefficiencies for Industry and
Confusion for Consumers
Page 30 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
settings as medical devices (i.e., surgical N95 respirators).
55
FDA
regulation of surgical N95 respirators includes premarket clearance
requirements. FDA indicated that its clearance involves two steps: (1)
First, FDA recommends that respirators be certified by NIOSH for use in
occupational settings. (2) Second, once NIOSH has certified the
respirators, FDA then begins its process for clearing them to be marketed
in the United States as surgical N95 respirators. According to NIOSH, the
impact on manufacturers includes the delay for the introduction of new
products intended to provide respiratory protection, as well as barrier
protection for health care workers, due to the time involved to apply to
NIOSH for certification and then to FDA for clearance. According to
NIOSH, manufacturers also incur costs for each application submitted to
FDA and NIOSH, which includes processing fees imposed by the
agencies as well as the commitment of personnel and other resources to
assemble and monitor the applications and interface with the agency
reviewers. In a request for information, NIOSH stated that it is considering
incorporating requirements from FDA’s clearance process for respirators,
such as those pertaining to fluid resistance and flammability, into the
NIOSH certification process.
56
In another example, program officials from EPA’s Office of Pesticide
Programs told us that a manufacturer approached the agency with
concerns over having to sell two separate antimicrobial fruit and
vegetable treatment products that met either EPA or FDA use
requirements even though the product formula was the same.
57
55
A surgical N95 respirator is a NIOSH-approved respirator that has also been cleared by
FDA as a medical “device.” According to FDA’s website, the “N95” designation means that
when subjected to careful testing, the respirator blocks at least 95 percent of very small
test particles. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act generally defines a “device” as
an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or
other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is (1)
recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any
supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions,
or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease; or (3) intended to affect the
structure or any function of the body. 21 U.S.C. § 321(h).
EPA has
jurisdiction if the product is used to rinse whole fruits or vegetables, while
56
Respiratory Protective Devices Used in Healthcare, Notice of request for information
and comment, 79 Fed. Reg. 14,515 (Mar. 14, 2014).
57
An antimicrobial fruit and vegetable treatment product is a chemical solution that is
added to water used for washing fruits and vegetables to reduce the presence of bacterial
pathogens.
Page 31 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
FDA has jurisdiction if the product is used to rinse processed (e.g., cut)
fruits or vegetables. EPA noted that the manufacturer wanted a single
product that could be used for either whole or processed fruits or
vegetables. To address this concern, EPA said it coordinated with FDA to
incorporate FDA’s approval of the product for use on processed fruit and
vegetables onto EPA’s pesticide label for the product. As a result, the
manufacturer was able to sell this product under a single label.
Additionally, consumer groups and some agencies and industry experts
with whom we spoke said consumers could be confused about which
agency to contact to report problems. FDA officials said that even
informed consumers may not know which agency to contact to report
product-related incidents. With fragmented and overlapping oversight,
consumers may have to visit multiple websites to report or search for
safety information on consumer products. For example, CPSC and
NHTSA have websites for consumers to report and search for safety
concerns related to the use of hand-held infant carriers and car seats,
respectively. FDA also posts phone numbers on its website for
consumers to report safety concerns with FDA-regulated products in each
state. However, FDA said that their staff are trained to refer consumers to
the appropriate agencies for concerns about products that are not under
FDA’s jurisdiction. In other cases, consumers may not be familiar with the
agencies involved in the oversight of consumer products or their
websites. For example, we previously examined consumers’ awareness
of CPSC’s public consumer product safety information database
SaferProducts.gov and found that none of the participants in consumer
focus groups we conducted had heard of the website, and few had heard
of CPSC.
58
Some agencies purchase the same data, resulting in multiple contracts
for the same information, but are considering options that would help
them better share these data. Deaths in the United States are reported to
the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) Division of Vital
Statistics through contracts between NCHS and the various state and
local jurisdictions that are responsible for maintaining death certificates
and other vital records. NCHS publicly releases limited information from
the death certificate data they receive, but the public file does not contain
58
GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Awareness, Use, and Usefulness of
SaferProducts.gov, GAO-13-306 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 2013).
Multiple Agencies Purchase
the Same Data but Are
Considering Options to
Improve Efficiency through
Data Sharing
Page 32 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
any written narratives, which would provide greater detail on the
circumstances of the deaths. NCHS staff told us that these narratives can
contain personally identifiable information and their contracts limit their
ability to share data involving such information, including with other
federal agencies. Additionally, CPSC told us they purchase death
certificate information from states for select narrative information on
cause of death, which is used to help identify consumer product-related
deaths.
59
NCHS staff told us that they have been working with CPSC to identify
ways to share information that do not compromise their contractual
agreements. For example, NCHS told us that other agencies that
examine cause-of-death narratives, such as NHTSA and FDA, have had
staff work on-site at NCHS to review these data and develop
programming that would allow NCHS to extract the information the
agencies need. NCHS indicated they are considering development of a
computer program that would automatically remove personally identifiable
information from the death certificate records. CPSC suggested that it
would be more efficient and cost-effective to have either a government-
wide contract for purchasing these data or to have interagency
agreements signed by other federal agencies with NCHS giving limited
access to the full death certificate data. Additionally, they said that these
agreements would have to contain strict data user clauses detailing
restrictions on the use of the data containing personally identifiable
information.
60
59
We previously reported that CPSC collects, reviews, and analyzes mortality data
through contracts with each state as part of its hazard identification efforts. For example,
in fiscal year 2011, CPSC received about 8,000 death certificates covering unintentional
product-related deaths.
For example, CPSC noted that for the National Electronic
GAO-13-150.
60
In 2011, we reported on the need for agencies to apply strategic sourcing best practices
throughout the federal procurement system. We suggested that acquisition leaders
across the government more fully embrace the strategic sourcing initiative, beginning with
collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data on current procurement spending. We also
suggested that agencies conduct assessments of acquisition and supply chain functions
to initiate enterprise-wide transformation. GAO, 2011 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance
Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). In addition, we reported in
2013 that selected agencies could better leverage their buying power and achieve
additional savings by directing more procurement spending to existing strategically
sourced contracts and further expanding strategic sourcing practices to their highest
spending procurement categories. GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits,
GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013).
Page 33 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Injury Surveillance System, which CPSC administers, CPSC pays
individual hospitals to code injury information specific to other federal
agencies’ missions through interagency agreements. However, NCHS
staff noted that under their contractual agreements with states and
localities, the data they maintain can only be used for statistical or
research purposes and not for administrative or enforcement purposes.
61
According to NCHS staff, its current contracts for death certificate data
will expire in 2017; however, access to these data in any renegotiated
agreements would still be determined by states and localities.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) currently
regulates the markings of toy and imitation firearms to distinguish them
from real firearms.
62
However, during the course of our review, we found
that NIST’s oversight of toy and imitation firearm markings may not be
efficient as it does not align with the agency’s primary mission and area of
expertise. According to NIST, this authority was delegated to NIST
following the deauthorization of the Technology Administration of the
Commerce Department under the America COMPETES Act of 2007.
63
61
We previously reported that federal agencies can face statutory restrictions on sharing
administrative data. See GAO, Federal Statistical System: Agencies Can Make Greater
Use of Existing Data, but Continued Progress is Needed on Access and Quality Issues,
However, NIST stated that the agency is a nonregulatory federal research
GAO-12-54 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2012).
62
Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 5001 makes it unlawful to manufacture, enter into commerce,
ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, or imitation firearm unless it has a marking
approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The section further provides that each toy, look-
alike, or imitation firearm shall have permanently affixed a blaze orange plug inserted into
its barrel which shall be recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end of the
barrel, and gives the Secretary of Commerce the authority to provide for alternate
markings or make adjustments to the marking system in certain situations. Under this
authority, which was delegated to NIST, NIST regulations specify that approved markings
include: (i) a permanent orange solid plug permanently affixed to the muzzle end and
recessed no more than 6 millimeters from the muzzle end, (ii) an orange marking
permanently affixed to the exterior of the barrel, covering the circumference of the barrel
from the muzzle end for a depth of at least 6 millimeters, (iii) construction of the device
entirely of transparent or translucent materials, (iv) coloration of the entire exterior surface
of the device in white or certain bright colors. 15 C.F.R. § 272.3.
63
Pub. L. No. 110-69, 121 Stat. 572 (2007). The responsibility for the promulgation of
regulations for the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms was provided to the
Secretary of Commerce in 1988. Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988,
Pub. L. No. 100-615, § 4, 102 Stat. 3185, 3190 (1988). That authority was then transferred
to NIST in 2007.
NIST’s Role as Regulator
for the Markings of Toy
and Imitation Firearms
May Be an Inefficient Use
of Resources
Page 34 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
laboratory and its mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and
technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
quality of life. For example, as noted earlier, NIST has collaborated with
CPSC to measure and better understand the release of nanotechnology-
based products and exposure pathways. In another example related to
measurement and protocol development, NIST stated it designed an
apparatus to measure the visible power of laser pointers, which was
consistent with NIST’s experience in providing industry, research, and
military agencies with laser power measurements traceable to
international standards. As these examples indicate, the regulation of the
markings of toy and imitation firearms does not align with NIST’s mission
nor its activities and expertise related to scientific measurement.
NIST staff stated that for imported imitation firearms, the review and
compliance determination process for toy and imitation firearms can be
cumbersome and time-consuming. NIST staff also noted that because
there are few, if any, domestic manufacturers of toy and imitation firearms
and because most are imported, Commerce regulations on the markings
for toy and imitation firearms are enforced almost entirely by CBP. NIST
explained that upon request from law enforcement (usually CBP), NIST
issues informal or formal opinions on whether a toy or imitation firearm
complies with markings regulations. However, NIST stated it can issue
formal opinions only after physically inspecting the items in question at its
headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. According to NIST, because
NIST has no presence at any ports of entry, CBP has to ship samples to
NIST to be analyzed and then NIST has to return the samples. NIST also
stated that a formal opinion may result in the toy or imitation firearm and
corresponding shipment being subject to CBP seizure.
Because the regulation of toy and imitation firearms falls outside the
scope of NIST’s primary mission and functions and because NIST has no
physical presence at ports of entry, NIST staff stated that the regulation
and oversight of toy and imitation firearm markings may better be
administered by another federal agency, such as CPSC, which also
oversees other consumer products and toys and has a presence at ports
of entry. NIST also explained that over the years, NIST has had
discussions with CPSC on transferring the oversight responsibility for
imitation firearms but it would require a statutory change. Although CPSC
collaborates with CBP on enforcement activities such as import
surveillance at ports of entry, CPSC staff agreed that it would be
reasonable for CPSC to assume oversight for toy guns because the
agency already regulates the safety and performance of toys. Although
Page 35 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
neither NIST nor CPSC has conducted formal cost estimates for carrying
out the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation firearms, continued
regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than
CPSC does not leverage each agency’s expertise and therefore may not
be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.
Oversight of products that can be used on recreational boats is
fragmented between the Coast Guard and CPSC, and the jurisdiction for
some products can be unclear. As a result, we found that the potential
exists for confusion regarding which agency has responsibility for
addressing product safety hazards. Coast Guard staff told us that they
regulate recreational boats and all originally installed associated
equipment (i.e., equipment that was installed on boats by the original
manufacturer).
64
Coast Guard staff also stated that because of limited
staff resources, the Coast Guard through regulation has chosen to limit
the scope of its recall activities related to equipment not originally
installed on boats (i.e., after-market equipment, or equipment not installed
by the original equipment manufacturer) to four items: inboard engines,
outboard engines, stern drive units, and inflatable life jackets.
65
While by law CPSC does not have jurisdiction over recreational boats and
associated equipment, CPSC officials stated that they have authority over
some products that can be used either on or off of a boat—such as
boating gloves, a camping stove, or a refrigerator. However, CPSA
excludes from CPSC’s jurisdiction recreational boats and associated
As a
result, the Coast Guard relies on voluntary recalls from the manufacturer
for all other associated equipment items other than the four types of items
for which the Coast Guard has issued regulations.
64
Coast Guard staff told us it oversees recreational boats that are up to 20 feet in length.
Larger recreational boats are generally subject to international standards and those set by
the American Bureau of Shipping, such as licensing and insurance requirements. The
Coast Guard also enforces standards for larger boats that enter U.S. ports, as well as
commercial boats.
65
For the purposes of defect notification, by statute, the term “associated equipment”
includes only items or classes of associated equipment that the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall prescribe by regulation. 46 U.S.C. § 4310(a). Coast Guard regulations
define “associated equipment” for defect notification as “the following equipment as
shipped, transferred, or sold from the place of manufacture and includes all attached parts
and accessories: (1) an inboard engine, (2) an outboard engine, (3) a stern drive unit, and
(4) an approved personal flotation device.” 33 C.F.R. § 179.03.
Jurisdiction for the
Regulation of Some
Recreational Boating
Equipment May Be
Unclear
Page 36 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
equipment which could be subject to regulation under the Coast Guard’s
statutory authority.
66
As excluded from CPSC’s jurisdiction, associated
equipment is defined by statute as a system, accessory, component, or
appurtenance of a recreational vessel or a marine safety article intended
for use on board a recreational vessel.
67
Questions of jurisdiction were raised in an accident involving the use of a
recreational vehicle. Specifically, Coast Guard staff told us that CPSC
and the Coast Guard held meetings to determine jurisdiction when a
fatality occurred involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV)—which would
typically be regulated by CPSC—that was used as a water vessel (some
ATVs can be used for flotation due to very large tires along with the
addition of an outboard motor). According to Coast Guard officials, the
agencies ultimately determined that CPSC had jurisdiction in this case. In
another case, questions arose about the Coast Guard’s and CPSC’s
jurisdiction in addressing accidents involving kite tubes (inflatable rafts
that are towed behind power boats and become airborne). Coast Guard
staff noted that because this product was intended for use off the vessel
instead of installed on the vessel, it did not fall under the Coast Guard’s
jurisdiction. However, according to Coast Guard staff, CPSC was not sure
whether this product fell under its jurisdiction. Ultimately, CPSC
However, the Coast Guard’s
definition of associated equipment for defect notification purposes
includes only inboard engines, outboard engines, stern drive units, and
inflatable life jackets. The different definitions of associated equipment for
different purposes could create jurisdictional uncertainty for many items of
associated equipment aboard recreational boats. Coast Guard and CPSC
both acknowledged a potential regulatory gap for certain boating
equipment based on the Coast Guard’s limited scope of oversight over
after-market associated equipment and CPSC’s lack of authority to
regulate associated equipment.
66
Specifically, CPSA excludes from the definition of a “consumer product,” and therefore
excludes from CPSC’s jurisdiction, “boats which could be subjected to safety regulation
under chapter 43 of Title 46; vessels, and appurtenances to vessels (other than such
boats), which could be subjected to safety regulation under title 52 of the Revised Statutes
or other marine safety statutes administered by the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating; and equipment (including associated equipment, as defined in section
2101(1) of Title 46) to the extent that a risk of injury associated with the use of such
equipment on boats or vessels could be eliminated or reduced by actions taken under any
statute [mentioned above].” 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)(G).
67
46 U.S.C. § 2101(1). The definition of “associated equipment” excludes most radio
equipment.
Page 37 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
concluded that it had jurisdiction and conducted a recall of the product.
Although CPSC does not have jurisdiction over recreational boats and
associated equipment, consumer products used in recreation do fall
within its jurisdiction.
Although no formal mechanism, such as an MOU, exists between the
Coast Guard and CPSC, Coast Guard staff told us the informal and
periodic coordination between the two agencies works well. However, our
work on collaboration, which we discuss in greater detail in the next
section, suggests that collaborating agencies should clarify roles and
responsibilities and, if appropriate, document their agreement on how
they will be collaborating.
68
In the example of kite tubes, the Coast Guard said that it received the
initial accident reports from state boating administrators, who are required
to report boating accidents to the Coast Guard. In this instance, the Coast
Guard stated that it shared the accident reports with CPSC after it
decided this product was outside the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction. As stated
previously, Coast Guard told us that through regulation it has chosen to
limit the scope of its recall activities for associated equipment. However,
because no formal mechanism exists between the Coast Guard and
CPSC, there is a potential risk that hazards related to products for which
jurisdiction is unclear may not be regulated. In addition, because of the
potential gap in jurisdiction, it may at times be unclear which agency has
regulatory responsibility for some products that may present safety risks,
which underscores the need for strong communication between the two
agencies.
Moreover, given the potential for lack of clarity
regarding jurisdiction, ensuring strong communication channels is
important. Coast Guard staff said that their ad hoc, informal coordination
with CPSC works well but this coordination has been infrequent—one or
two times a year at most—and at times Coast Guard goes for years
without coordinating with CPSC.
68
GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Page 38 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
In responses to our questionnaires, all eight agencies that have direct
oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety identified a number
of mechanisms they use to coordinate with at least two other agencies on
specific issues. However, no coordinating mechanism exists to address
federal consumer product safety efforts comprehensively. Consumer
product safety agencies have different areas of expertise and functions,
and no single agency can address oversight alone. Moreover, some
oversight agencies are independent and not subject to OMB’s planning
and review process for executive agencies. As a result, there is no single
entity or mechanism to help the agencies that collectively oversee
consumer product safety address the challenges raised in this report,
such as staying informed of the regulatory activities of other agencies,
jurisdictional issues related to multiple agencies overseeing the same
product, or data sharing issues. In addition, agencies may be missing
opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges,
including those related to fragmentation and overlap identified in this
report.
In their questionnaire responses, interviews and other documents,
agencies reported collaborating on specific topics using various
mechanisms. Collaboration mechanisms identified include (1)
memorandums of understanding (MOU) or memorandums of agreement
(MOA); (2) interagency agreements; and (3) working groups. Several
agencies stated that coordination with other agencies was positive and
generally working well. For instance, EPA stated that their relationships
with FDA and USDA were particularly positive because they have so
much commonality in their work. CPSC stated that they have strong
collaboration and cooperation with a number of agencies related to
enforcement (CBP and the Department of Justice) and science and
technical issues (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
CDC, NIH, NIOSH, and the National Toxicology Program). Additionally,
agencies coordinate informally on a variety of topics.
69
69
In the questionnaire, we asked respondents to specify which formal mechanisms they
use to coordinate such as an MOU or MOA, interagency agreements, working groups or
other types of coordination. Some agencies responded that they had other interactions
and indicated that they were informal arrangements.
For instance,
NHTSA reported that it has an informal working relationship with EPA on
the importation of motor vehicles that are subject to both the federal
motor vehicle safety standards and to emission standards administered
Agencies Report
Coordinating on
Specific Activities but
Lack a Mechanism to
Facilitate
Comprehensive
Oversight
Agencies Report
Coordinating through
Various Mechanisms to
Address Specific Activities
Page 39 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
by EPA under the Clean Air Act. PHMSA officials stated that they have an
informal working group with CPSC and ATF that meets annually to
discuss issues related to fireworks. They added that these meetings often
include industry groups, such as the National Fireworks Association. All
eight agencies with direct oversight responsibilities reported having
coordinated with at least two or more other regulatory agencies.
Moreover, agencies most frequently reported coordinating with CPSC and
EPA (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Coordination between Eight Regulatory Agencies on Consumer Product Safety Activities
Note: CPSC noted that that size of each circle is not proportional to the size of each agency’s budget.
CPSC also stated that they interact with multiple centers within FDA and multiple offices and
programs within EPA.
Page 40 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Additionally, the 12 federal agencies that we identified as providing
indirect consumer product safety support also reported collaborating with
at least 1 or more of the 8 agencies with direct regulatory responsibilities.
For example, CDC reported collaborating with HUD to identify and
remedy repeat properties involving multiple cases of children identified
with elevated blood levels, and OSHA reported that it meets with FDA as
needed to discuss medical equipment used in the workplace. As
previously discussed, these 12 agencies support product safety through
activities such as public health expertise; law enforcement; workplace
safety; transportation safety; and other activities.
We discuss some examples of interagency collaborative mechanisms that
we identified in previous work on collaboration across federal agencies.
70
Table 2 shows four mechanisms identified in our prior work.
71
Table 2: Select Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Their Definitions
Collaboration mechanism Definitions
Collaboration structures within the Executive Office of the
President
Permanent or temporary groups that are sometimes referred to as
task forces, councils, commissions, committees, or working groups
National strategies and initiatives
A document or initiative that is national in scope and provides a broad
framework for addressing issues that cut across federal agencies and
often across other levels of government and sectors
Interagency groups led by agency and department heads or by
component and program-level staff
Groups led by agencies that are sometimes referred to as task
forces, working groups, councils, or committees
Interagency agreements and memorandum of understanding A written agreement between more than one federal agency or
department
Source: GAO. |GAO-15-52
More specifically, agencies reported participating in collaborative groups
on specific topics. These collaborative groups are listed by the type of
mechanisms for interagency collaboration:
• Presidential Task Force on Environmental Health and Safety Risks to
Children. According to EPA, the purpose of this task force is to identify
environmental health and safety risks to children that can be best
70
As we noted in a September 2012 report, experts defined an interagency mechanism for
collaboration as any arrangement or application that can facilitate collaboration between
agencies. GAO, Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
71
In GAO-12-1022, we identify 12 mechanisms for interagency collaboration.
Collaborative Structure within
the Executive Office of the
President
Page 41 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
addressed through interagency efforts; recommend and implement
interagency actions; and communicate to federal, state, and local
decision makers information to protect children from risks. EPA stated
that both EPA and HHS are the chairs of the task force. EPA also
stated it has members on the asthma disparities, healthy settings, and
climate change subcommittees who provide expertise and technical
assistance for the subcommittees’ activities. The task force is
comprised of 17 federal departments and White House offices.
72
• National Nanotechnology Initiative/Nanotechnology Environmental &
Health Implications Working Group. CPSC and EPA reported
coordinating on nanotechnology. For instance, EPA commented that
EPA researchers participate in the U.S. National Nanotechnology
Initiative/Nanotechnology Environmental Health Implications Working
Group to share information on nanomaterials research. EPA is
investigating how nanomaterials behave in the environment and how
nanomaterial properties may be modified or exposure controls
implemented to minimize and manage potential risks from products
containing nanomaterials. According to a December 2012 news
release, EPA and CPSC are collaborating in a worldwide research
effort to assess any potential impacts of nanomaterials on people’s
health and the environment. The news release also states that this
research is part of the U.S. government’s efforts to assess the
potential risks of nanomaterials and is coordinated by the National
Nanotechnology Initiative.
CPSC also told us that their staff participates in the senior steering
committee of the task force, such as the chemical exposures working
group and the asthma working group.
73
72
According to EPA’s website, task force members include: CPSC; Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security, Justice,
Labor, Education, and Transportation; EPA, OMB, Council on Environmental Quality,
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Assistant to the President on Domestic
Policy, and the Council of Economic Advisors.
The nano.gov website states that the
National Nanotechnology Initiative consists of the individual and
cooperative nanotechnology-related activities of federal agencies with
a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities.
73
In January 2014, we reported on the results of a forum we convened on the future of
nanomanufacturing and the environmental and health implications of nanomanufacturing.
See GAO-14-181SP.
National Strategies and
Initiatives
Page 42 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
• Healthy Homes Initiative/Federal Healthy Homes Work Group. HUD
and EPA reported that they participate in healthy homes activities.
According to a 2013 healthy homes report, the Federal Interagency
Healthy Homes Work Group (HHWG) consists of the Departments of
Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Labor, and Agriculture;
organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services,
including CDC and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); EPA; and NIST. The work
group was established to strengthen coordination among federal
agencies to advance and implement the healthy homes model,
including to (1) establish a comprehensive federal strategy to promote
healthy homes, (2) identify and eliminate barriers that impede
collaboration and complicate assisting those in need of federal
technical assistance or funding, and (3) collaborate with key federal
and nonfederal stakeholders to implement a healthy homes agenda at
the community level.
• Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group. FDA commented that they
exchange information with FCC on the current state of research,
standards activity, and health effects of cell phone radiation and that
most interactions are facilitated by FDA and FCC participation in the
Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group. For example, FDA
worked on the interference between consumer products and active
medical implants, such as the interference between MP3 players and
pacemakers. FDA responded that they have worked collaboratively
(with FCC) to develop communications on wireless devices.
According to FDA’s website, the federal agencies in the working group
include NIOSH, EPA, FCC, OSHA, and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. The website also
states that the federal agencies in this workgroup have responsibility
for different aspects of radiofrequency safety and work to coordinate
efforts at the federal level. Additionally, FCC staff told us that the
working group meets every 2 months to share information. For
instance, one topic discussed has been the development and
eventual adoption of the FCC notice of inquiry regarding the propriety
of its current radiofrequency emissions limits.
• Federal Interagency Lead-Based Paint Task Force. According to
HUD, the federal Lead-Based Paint Task Force is co-chaired by HUD
and EPA and meets several times a year to exchange information on
issues related to lead-based paint; lead poisoning (both childhood and
Interagency Group Led by
Agency and Department
Heads
Page 43 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
adult); lead exposures from paint, dust, soil, and, at times, additional
media; hazard and risk control methods; and other topics. HUD and
EPA have an MOU in place that was established in 1989.
74
The task
force is composed of about a dozen agencies, including CPSC.
According to the MOU, the work of the task force is complex and
requires familiarity with health effects and exposure to lead and
practical considerations including costs, implementation issues, and
technical feasibility of abatement methodologies. The MOU states that
in addition to HUD and EPA, necessary expertise resides in other
federal agencies such as CDC, CPSC, OSHA, and NIEHS, as well as
state and local governments and private organizations. According to
the MOU, HUD and EPA will consult with these groups to ensure the
broadest possible input into the lead hazard research process.
Although agencies collaborate on a variety of issues, they also reported
that they face challenges when they work collaboratively. In our
discussions and follow-up with agencies, agency staff cited challenges
such as resource constraints, training port personnel on regulatory
standards related to imported products, and using different terminology.
For instance, EPA noted that working with other agencies to gain
agreement required time and energy. NHTSA explained that because it
has no personnel assigned to the various ports of entry, the agency is
dependent on CBP personnel to ensure that imported motor vehicle
equipment complies with applicable standards. NHTSA stated that it has
a close working relationship with CBP and provides periodic training to
CBP personnel both in-person at the ports and electronically. However,
NHTSA noted that due to the variety of automotive products offered for
importation and the turnover of CBP port personnel, NHTSA repeats
training at ports that handle the highest volume of products it regulates.
FDA staff stated that agencies may use different terminology, making
communication difficult. In addition, earlier we discussed challenges
related to fragmentation and overlap that also relate to coordination and
collaboration. These challenges include staying informed about the
regulatory activities of other agencies related to, for example, child-
resistant packaging for over-the-counter and prescription drug products;
coordinating on jurisdictional issues, for example, those related to
packaging for certain household substances, including cosmetics and
74
Memorandum of Understanding on Lead-Based Paint between the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 3,
1989.
Agencies Cite Challenges
in Coordinating and Lack a
Comprehensive
Coordinating Mechanism
for Product Safety Issues
Page 44 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
drugs; and considering options to share data rather than purchasing the
same data under multiple contracts.
In past work, we have noted that interagency mechanisms or strategies to
coordinate programs that address crosscutting issues may reduce
potentially duplicative, overlapping, and fragmented efforts.
75
In October
2005, we identified practices that can help enhance and sustain
collaboration among federal agencies, and in September 2012, we
identified key considerations for implementing collaborative
mechanisms.
76
More specifically, we concluded that while collaborative
mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain
key features such as having clear roles and responsibilities and involving
all relevant participants.
77
Additionally, our prior work found that agencies
that articulate their agreements in formal documents can strengthen their
commitment to working collaboratively and that written agreements are
most effective when they are regularly updated and monitored.
78
Additionally, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) establishes a framework aimed at
taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on long-
term outcome-oriented goals and improving government performance.
We
noted that not all collaborative arrangements need to be documented
through written guidance and agreements, particularly those that are
informal. However, we have found that at times it can be helpful to
document key agreements related to the collaboration.
79
75
While agencies are required to work with OMB to develop such goals
GAO-12-1022 and GAO, Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act
Implementation Provides Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges,
GAO-11-617T (Washington D.C.: May 10, 2011).
76
GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain
Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005)
and GAO-12-1022. We broadly defined collaboration as any joint activity that is intended
to produce more public value than could be produced when the agencies act alone.
77
These key features include (1) outcomes and accountability; (2) bridging organizational
cultures; (3) leadership; (4) clarity of roles and responsibilities; (5) participants; (6)
resources; and (7) written guidance and agreements.
78
GAO-12-1022.
79
Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
Page 45 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
every 4 years, elements of this framework could be useful for oversight
agencies in collaborating more comprehensively.
80
For instance, federal
agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans as tools to
drive collaboration with other agencies and other partners and establish
complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. Moreover,
there are requirements that agencies discuss collaborative efforts in their
strategic and performance plans. In both documents, agencies must
describe how they are working with other agencies to achieve their own
goals as well as cross-agency priority goals. Additionally, in the
performance plan, agencies are to identify the various organizations,
program activities, regulations, policies, and other activities that contribute
to each of their goals, both within and external to the agencies. Agencies’
priority goals and agency involvement in federal government priority goals
provide additional opportunities to articulate the goals of collaborative
efforts.
81
While we identified a number of collaborative efforts among agencies
aimed at addressing specific issues, we did not identify a collaborative
effort aimed at facilitating comprehensive coordination among the many
agencies with responsibility for consumer product safety oversight. A
number of agencies have an oversight role, but no single entity has the
expertise or authority to address the full scope of product safety activities.
Although we previously noted that OMB’s Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has an interagency process for planning and
reviewing draft rules within the executive branch, this process does not
include independent regulatory agencies such as CPSC. Moreover, some
independent regulatory agencies have stated their opposition to greater
involvement by the President in setting their rulemaking requirements,
such as the preparation of cost-benefit analyses and submission of
rulemakings to OIRA for prior review.
82
80
Without a collaborative
GAO-11-617T.
81
GAO-12-1022.
82
In an October 2012 letter, the heads of six independent regulatory agencies wrote to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs expressing their concerns about pending legislation (at that time)
that would authorize the President to require the agencies to prepare cost-benefit
analyses for their economically significant rules. The six independent regulatory agencies
were the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the
Currency, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union
Administration.
Page 46 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and
to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, the
agencies responsible for consumer product safety oversight may continue
to be challenged by inefficiencies associated with fragmentation and
overlap, including those we identified in this report.
Consumer product safety oversight is a broad area involving the expertise
of many agencies with diverse missions. Fragmented and overlapping
oversight among various agencies results in a number of challenges for
the oversight of consumer product safety, including communication
difficulties, inefficient use of resources, and unclear roles resulting in
potential regulatory gaps. In particular, the role of NIST as regulator for
the markings of toy and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the
U.S. Code (15 U.S.C. § 5001) is inefficient because such a role may not
leverage the agency’s primary mission and expertise in the area of
scientific measurement. Transferring this authority to another agency
would require a statutory change. In another example of a challenge
associated with fragmented oversight, it is unclear whether some boating
products fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard or CPSC. In the
absence of a formal mechanism to facilitate coordination and clarify roles
and responsibilities, as indicated in our work on collaboration, some
products that may present a safety risk may go unregulated.
In addition, while agencies reported collaborating using a variety of
mechanisms to address specific topics, we did not identify a mechanism
to facilitate more comprehensive collaboration. The inefficiencies we
identified in this report suggest the need for greater collaboration, which
in turn could help reduce some negative effects of fragmentation and
overlap. Also, there may be instances where more formal arrangements
would be beneficial. Due to the range of oversight areas and activities, no
single agency is able to address a problem alone. Additionally,
independent agencies such as CPSC are not subject to the executive
branch planning and review process under OMB. Our body of work on
collaborative practices and GPRAMA suggests that agencies need to
consider taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to
addressing consumer product safety oversight. A broad interagency
collaborative mechanism could help the agencies that are collectively
responsible for the oversight of consumer product safety to address some
of the key issues identified in our work on collaborative practices, such as
clarifying agency roles and responsibilities, ensuring that all relevant
participants have been included, and appropriately documenting key
agreements on collaboration. Formal collaboration—both between two
Conclusions
Page 47 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
agencies to address a specific issue and across multiple agencies to
provide comprehensive oversight—can be useful in strengthening agency
commitments in working together. Without taking these actions, agencies
may not be able to fully leverage government resources and may not be
able to regulate consumer products in the most efficient and effective
manner.
• To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, Congress should
consider transferring the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation
firearms in 15 U.S.C. § 5001 from the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (within the Department of Commerce) to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product
safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal
comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety
agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies
related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and
coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between
agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for
example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize
relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or
interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to
obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal
coordination.
To clarify roles and facilitate greater communication and strengthen
oversight of associated equipment related to recreational boats, we
recommend that the U.S. Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety
Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a
memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing and
better leveraging of resources.
We provided a draft of this report to the 20 agencies for their review and
comment. CPSC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and NIST
agreed with GAO’s matters and recommendation; other agencies neither
agreed nor disagreed. We received comment letters from CPSC and the
Department of Homeland Security that are reproduced in appendixes V
and VI. We received technical comments from CPSC; Department of
Commerce (NIST); Department of Health and Human Services (CDC,
FDA, HRSA, NIH); DHS (CBP); HUD; Department of Justice (ATF);
Matters for
Congressional
Consideration
Recommendation
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
Page 48 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Department of Labor (OSHA); EPA, FCC and NRC that we incorporated,
as appropriate.
In commenting on the draft report, CPSC and NIST made the following
comments related to the report’s matters to Congress. Specifically,
concerning the matter that Congress consider transferring certain
oversight responsibilities from NIST to CPSC, CPSC suggested that we
clarify that we are referring to requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 5001 and
stated that it would be willing to accept responsibility for oversight of the
markings of toy and imitation firearms provided that the transfer of
authority from NIST includes a corresponding increase in appropriations.
To clarify the matter, we added a reference to 15 U.S.C. § 5001 to the
conclusions and matter. NIST stated in its technical comments that it
supports the transfer of the oversight of the markings of toy, look-alike,
and imitation firearms from NIST to CPSC and that the report was
consistent with NIST’s position regarding oversight of toy guns and
imitation firearms. CPSC also stated that it would be comfortable with the
establishment of a formal collaboration mechanism to address oversight
in areas of shared or fragmented jurisdiction provided that such an
approach does not compromise the agency’s independence. With regard
to the recommendation that the U.S. Coast Guard and CPSC establish a
formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of
understanding) to strengthen the oversight of associated equipment
related to recreational boats, CPSC indicated that they support, and plan
to pursue, this recommendation. The Department of Homeland Security
also agreed with our recommendation and stated that the U.S. Coast
Guard will work with CPSC to develop a formal memorandum of
understanding to facilitate communication between agencies on oversight
of items of associated equipment installed on recreational boats with an
estimated completion date of April 30, 2015.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
committees, the Chairman and Commissioners of CPSC, and the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The report also is
available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you
or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at
Page 49 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
(202) 512-8678 or cackley[email protected]. 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 VII.
Alicia Puente Cackley
Director, Financial Markets
and Community Investment
Page 50 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
List of Congressional Addressees
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski
Chairwoman
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Vice Chairman
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Patty Murray
Chairman
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
Chairman
The Honorable Tom Coburn
Ranking Member
Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Claire McCaskill
Chairman
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Mark R. Warner
Chairman
Task Force on Government Performance
Senate Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
The Honorable Harold Rogers
Chairman
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey
Ranking Member
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Page 51 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
The Honorable Fred Upton
Chairman
The Honorable Henry Waxman
Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
The Honorable Elijah Cummings
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform
House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 52 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
The objectives of this review were to examine (1) which federal agencies
oversee consumer product safety and their roles and responsibilities; (2)
the extent and effects of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, if any, in
the oversight of consumer products; and (3) how consumer product safety
oversight agencies coordinate their activities and to what extent does that
address any identified negative effects of fragmentation, overlap, or
duplication.
For all three objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations, as
well as literature and our past reports on consumer product safety;
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; and mechanisms for interagency
collaboration (see list of related products at the end of this report). We
developed an inventory of agencies involved in consumer product safety
oversight activities, the methodology for which is described in greater
detail below. We also interviewed federal agency officials and industry
groups to gather information on the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication, their benefits and advantages, and options to address them.
We analyzed agency and other documentation as available.
To initially identify agencies that conduct consumer product safety
oversight and to delineate their roles and responsibilities, we reviewed the
following sources: (1) laws and regulations related to consumer product
safety, as well as Federal Register notices for proposed and final
rulemaking from August 2008 to October 2013; (2) the Consumer Product
Safety Commission’s (CPSC) web link to other federal agencies with
jurisdiction over consumer products; (3) our past reports; and (4) agency
members of CPSC-identified interagency working groups. We
disseminated a questionnaire to the 33 agencies we identified to (1)
confirm their roles and responsibilities and (2) identify any other agencies
with whom they coordinate.
To verify agency roles and responsibilities, we developed a questionnaire
that included a request for each agency to verify its oversight areas and
relevant authorities.
1
1
Please see appendix II for the questionnaire.
We also asked questions about the types of
statutory authority the agency has; its mission; other agencies with which
it coordinates; barriers to coordination; and knowledge of potential
fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. To minimize errors arising from
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Inventory of Agencies That
Conduct Consumer
Product Safety Oversight
Activities
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 53 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
differences in how the questions might be interpreted and to ensure we
had provided sufficient background and clarity of our scope, we
conducted pretests with two different agencies in December 2013. We
obtained feedback during the pretests and revised the questionnaire to
improve organization and clarity.
We sent the questionnaire to the relevant agency contacts in February
2014 as attachments to an e-mail message, in which we provided an
introduction, contact information for GAO staff, and the time frame for
completion. Many of the questions were open-ended, allowing officials to
provide more in-depth information on oversight areas; interagency
initiatives; and examples of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. We
disseminated 33 questionnaires in total and received at least one
response from each of the 33 entities for a 100 percent response rate.
We received multiple responses from some agencies, which we
aggregated for reporting purposes at the agency or subagency level, as
laid out in the U.S. Government Manual.
2
Respondents returned completed questionnaires by e-mail, and we
reviewed each program’s questionnaire to ensure agency staff had
provided complete and consistent responses. From March 2014 through
April 2014, we made telephone calls to agency staff and sent e-mails to
follow up as necessary to clarify responses. We edited the questionnaire
responses as necessary.
For example, we received
multiple responses from various centers within FDA, which we
aggregated to report out for FDA as a whole.
We used an independent contractor to keypunch the questionnaire data
and provide us with a comprehensive data file. We verified all of our
keypunched records with their corresponding questionnaires. We also
performed data checks to identify incorrectly skipped questions, and
followed up with agency staff as necessary.
Finally, we categorized the agencies to determine whether they have a
direct, an indirect, or no role in consumer product safety oversight. We
determined this categorization based on questionnaire responses and
2
We aggregated according to the U.S. Government Manual for all agencies except the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For DHS, we reported out for the separate
components because they have different levels of involvement. The Coast Guard has a
direct oversight role, whereas CBP and FEMA play indirect roles.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 54 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
subsequent interviews with agencies. We categorized agencies as having
a direct role if they answered in their questionnaire or in interviews that
they have regulatory authority for consumer product safety oversight—
specifically that they conduct rulemaking, standard setting, enforcement,
risk assessment, or product recalls. We then confirmed in interviews and
follow-up discussions that the agency views itself as having a role in
overseeing the safety of consumer products. We categorized an agency
as having an indirect role if it met one of two criteria: (1) it did not conduct
any of the five regulatory activities described in the previous section, but
described other activities that supported consumer product safety
oversight; or (2) it initially described a role in regulating consumer
products, but in subsequent interviews, did not self-identify as a
consumer product safety oversight agency. Of the 33 questionnaires we
received, we categorized 8 as having a direct oversight role, 12 as having
an indirect oversight role, and 13 as having no role.
To examine the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in
oversight for consumer product safety, we asked agencies in the
questionnaire to identify potential examples of consumer products,
product categories, or other areas where there may be fragmentation,
overlap, and duplication in oversight across federal agencies. We
summarized the responses and obtained additional details about
agencies’ oversight roles in these examples through interviews with and
requests for written information from federal agency officials, as well as
by reviewing relevant laws, regulations, agency websites, and other
documentation. We also interviewed consumer groups and industry
representatives about potential examples of fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication in oversight.
We used the following definitions to determine whether the examples
provided by the agencies constituted fragmentation, overlap, or
duplication:
3
• Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more
than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad
area of national interest.
3
GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-14-343SP (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 8, 2014).
Examining the Extent of
Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 55 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
• Overlap occurs when multiple programs have similar goals and
activities or offer similar services to similar target populations.
• Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs engage in
the same activities or provide the same services to the same
beneficiaries.
We determined whether the broad policy area of consumer product safety
is fragmented based on more than one agency being directly involved in
regulations related to consumer product safety. To determine the extent
of regulatory overlap among the product or issue area examples provided
by federal agencies and other groups, we examined whether multiple
agencies share regulatory responsibility over the same product, including
having regulatory requirements for the same product.
In addition to identifying the examples above, we interviewed several of
the agencies about the potential advantages and challenges of having
fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative oversight for consumer product
safety. We also interviewed consumer groups and industry
representatives about the effects of fragmentation, overlap, and
duplication on consumers and industry. Based on the discussions with
federal officials, consumer groups, and industry representatives, we
identified potential inefficiencies involving fragmented, overlapping, or
duplicative oversight.
We also used the questionnaire to address our third objective about how
consumer product safety agencies collaborate. For instance, in the
questionnaire, the agencies were asked whether they coordinate with
other agencies on consumer product safety oversight. The questionnaire
also asked agencies to identify what products or oversight areas they
coordinated on and which mechanisms their agencies used, including (1)
memorandums of understanding or agreement; (2) interagency
agreements; (3) working groups; and (4) other. Additionally, in the
questionnaire, we asked agencies to describe any specific interagency
initiatives their agency participates in related to consumer product safety
and what their agency’s roles are in these initiatives. We also obtained
additional agency information, where available, on examples of
interagency collaboration and reviewed documentation describing these
efforts and obtained input from agency staff.
To examine how consumer product safety oversight agencies collaborate
and the extent that addresses any negative effects of fragmentation,
Agency Collaboration and
Negative Effects of
Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Page 56 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
overlap, or duplication, we reviewed our prior reports on interagency
collaboration and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) (see
bibliography). For example, we reviewed GAO’s interagency collaboration
reports, which discuss key practices and considerations for implementing
interagency collaborative mechanisms and the GPRAMA, which
establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and
integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government
performance. Additionally, we obtained information on challenges and
barriers to coordination through the questionnaire and agency
discussions. For instance, the questionnaire asked agencies to what
extent, if at all, specific barriers affected their ability to coordinate with
other agencies on consumer product safety oversight. Examples of
barriers include (1) unclear roles and responsibilities of participating
agencies, (2) lack of leadership, (3) lack of resources, (4) lack of statutory
authority, and (5) lack of written guidance and agreements. We also
obtained input from agencies on barriers associated with coordination
identified in the questionnaire.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to November 2014,
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.
Appendix II: Consumer Product
Safety Oversight Questionnaire
Page 57 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Below is a reprint of the questionnaire that we sent to 33 federal agencies
to identify agencies that have an oversight role in consumer product
safety and to examine the extent to which fragmentation, overlap or
potential duplication exists among their activities.
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 58 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 59 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 60 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 61 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 62 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 63 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 64 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 65 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 66 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 67 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 68 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 69 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 70 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 71 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 72 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 73 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 74 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 75 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 76 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 77 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 78 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 79 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety
Oversight Questionnaire
Page 80 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support
Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Page 81 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
We identified 12 agencies that indirectly support consumer product safety
oversight. Table 3 provides an overview of each agency and its
responsibilities. These agencies support product safety in areas such as
public health expertise, law enforcement, and workplace safety.
Table 3: Twelve Agencies with an Indirect Oversight Role for Consumer Product Safety
Agency About the agency
Agency’s support role in consumer product
safety oversight
Department of Commerce
National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)
NIST is one of the nation's oldest physical
science laboratories. It supports U.S. industrial
competitiveness by advancing measurement
science and technology.
NIST conducts research for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on product
measurement in areas such as carbon
monoxide emissions from portable generators
and release of nanoparticles from flooring
finishes and interior paints. NIST also
coordinates federal, state, and local conformity
assessment activities with private sector
technical standards and conformity assessment
activities. Finally, NIST plays a regulatory role
in the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation
firearms.
Department of Health and Human
Services
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC)
CDC is the nation’s health protection agency.
It conducts critical science and provides health
information to fight disease.
CDC provides public health expertise to CPSC
and other agencies on issues such as drywall,
lead poisoning, and portable generators. It also
conducts research and makes
recommendations to prevent worker injury and
illness. For example, it has conducted research
on the occupational hazards associated with the
use of tools (such as nail guns and ladders) that
may be used by consumers. Finally, CDC
collects and maintains mortality statistics from
states, which can potentially be used to support
consumer product safety research.
Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA)
HRSA works to improve access to health care
by strengthening the health care workforce,
building healthy communities, and achieving
health equity.
HRSA administers the Poison Control Program,
which provides grants to the nation's poison
centers; maintains a nationwide, toll-free
number to ensure access to poison center
services; and implements media outreach.
Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly
Support Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support
Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Page 82 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Agency About the agency
Agency’s support role in consumer product
safety oversight
National Institutes of Health (NIH) NIH is the nation’s medical research agency
and funds medical research around the world.
The National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), within NIH, has a research
program that focuses on the health effects of
exposure to substances that may occur in
consumer products. Examples of such
substances include flame retardants, bisphenol
A (BPA), dioxins, lead, and other heavy metals.
Results from NIEHS research are published in
the Open literature and are used by regulatory
agencies as part of their decision making.
NIEHS also manages the National Toxicology
Program, which studies substances in the
environment, including substances used in
personal care products, household products,
foods, and dietary supplements, to identify any
potential harm they might cause to human
health.
Department of Homeland
Security
U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP)
CBP is a law enforcement organization that
facilitates lawful trade.
CBP promotes import safety among other
things. It seizes and forfeits merchandise in
conjunction with other agencies (such as
CPSC).
Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)
FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration works to
prevent fire-related deaths and losses.
FEMA gathers raw fire incident data that
provide information on products involved in
fires. It is also involved in regular coordination
of data collection and analysis and occasional
research initiatives.
Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
ATF is a law enforcement agency that protects
communities from violent crime through the
enforcement of laws regarding the criminal use
and trafficking of firearms and explosives, acts
of arson, and the illegal diversion of alcohol
and tobacco products. ATF also regulates the
firearms and explosives industries through the
enforcement of federal licensing laws relating
to the manufacture and distribution of firearms
and explosives, and the storage of explosive
materials.
ATF enforces explosives laws and regulates the
explosive materials used to manufacture
consumer fireworks.
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)
OSHA’s mission is to en
sure safe and healthful
working conditions for working men and
women by setting and enforcing standards and
by providing training, outreach, education, and
assistance.
OSHA sets standards for products such as
ladders, safety glasses, and electrical products
for use in the workplace. Consumers may
benefit from guidance OSHA publishes on
abating workplace hazards.
Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support
Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Page 83 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Agency About the agency
Agency’s support role in consumer product
safety oversight
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)
FAA’s primary mission is to ensure the safety,
security, and efficiency of the National
Airspace System.
FAA responsibilities include the certification,
production approval, and continued
airworthiness of aircraft as well as the
certification of pilots, mechanics, and others in
safety-related positions.
Federal Communications
Commission
Federal Communications
Commission (FCC)
FCC regulates interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire,
satellite, and cable in all 50 states,
Washington, D.C., and the U.S. territories.
FCC requires that all wireless communications
devices—such as cell phones, notebooks, and
wireless routers—
sold in the United States meet
its requirements regarding human exposure to
radiofrequency energy.
Federal Trade Commission
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
FTC works to protect consumers by preventing
fraud, deception, and unfair business practices
in the marketplace.
FTC investigates and takes legal or other
actions against companies that engage in
deceptive or unfair practices, including making
deceptive safety claims. FTC also educates
consumers about product safety through its
website and a consumer blog.
National Transportation Safety
Board
National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB)
NTSB’s mission is to independently advance
transportation safety. It investigates every civil
aviation accident in the United States and
significant accidents in other modes of
transportation, including railroad, highway,
marine, and pipeline.
As part of its investigations, NTSB makes safety
recommendations to other federal agencies on
a variety of topics, including their oversight of
any specific consumer products involved in the
accidents.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data. | GAO 15-52
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 84 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
This appendix provides the full text for the examples of consumer
products regulated by more than one agency that are depicted in figure 2
Figure 4: Drugs and Other Products with Child-Resistant Packaging
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One
Agency
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 85 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 5: Soaps and Detergents
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 86 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 6: Toy Laser Guns
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 87 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 7: Consumer Fireworks
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 88 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 8: Mobile Phones and Other Wireless Devices
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 89 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 9: Adult Portable Bed Rails
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 90 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 10: Food Contact Articles
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 91 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 11: Lithium Batteries
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 92 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 12: Infant Car Seats/Hand-held Infant Carriers
Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2
Presentation of Examples of Consumer
Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
Page 93 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Figure 13: Respirators
Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer
Product Safety Commission
Page 94 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer
Product Safety Commission
Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer
Product Safety Commission
Page 95 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security
Page 96 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix VI: Comments from the
Department of Homeland Security
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department
of Homeland Security
Page 97 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
Page 98 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or ca[email protected].
In addition to the contact name above, Debra Johnson (Assistant
Director), Janet Fong (Analyst-in-Charge), Meghana Acharya, JoAnna
Berry, William Chatlos, David Dornisch, Catherine Hurley, Jill Lacey, Marc
Molino, Patricia Moye, Jennifer Schwartz, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar made
key contributions to this report. Other contributors include Timothy Bober,
Christine Broderick, Benjamin Licht, Steven Putansu, and Michelle Sager.
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff
Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Staff
Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products
Page 99 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Challenges and Options for
Responding to New and Emerging Risks. GAO-15-17. Washington, D.C.:
October 14, 2014.
2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits.
GAO-14-343SP. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2014.
Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S.
Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. GAO-14-181SP.
Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.
Information on Defective Drywall. GAO-13-735R. Washington, D.C.: July
31, 2013.
2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-13-279SP.
Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Awareness, Use, and Usefulness
of SaferProducts.gov. GAO-13-306. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2013.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in
Responding to New Product Risks. GAO-13-150. Washington D.C.:
December 20, 2012.
Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency
Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: September
27, 2012.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role in Voluntary
Standards Development Should Be Considered. GAO-12-582.
Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012.
2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.
GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.
Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation
Provides Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges.
GAO-11-617T. Washington D.C.: May 10, 2011.
Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products
Page 100 GAO-15-52 Consumer Product Safety Oversight
Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive
First Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address
Fragmentation. GAO-11-289. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,
D.C.: March 1, 2011.
Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen
CPSC’s Oversight of Imported Products. GAO-09-803. Washington, D.C.:
August 14, 2009.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,
D.C.: October 21, 2005.
(250741)
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.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website (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 http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”
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,
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 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 www.gao.gov.
Contact:
Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: f[email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-
4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
7125, Washington, DC 20548
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548
GAO’s Mission
Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony
Order by Phone
Connect with GAO
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs
Congressional
Relations
Public Affairs
Please Print on Recycled Paper.
