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).

10Existing 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

 

11Pub. 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 

12CPSA 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).

13Our 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.

14Pub. 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.

 

15For 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).

 

16In addition, the remaining agencies (13 of the 33) were characterized as not having a 

role in consumer product safety oversight.

17We 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 standardsetting 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

 

18Safety 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 

19Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. at 3028 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 

2056a).

20CPSC 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

 

21Under 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.

2246 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

 

23For 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).

 

24In 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

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 EPA PHMSA NIST ATF

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.

 

25Articles 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). 

26CPSC 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

 

27Both 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 

28Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 108, 122 Stat. at 3036 (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. § 

2057c).

2921 U.S.C. §§ 360hh-360ss. 

30See 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 

 

31CPSC 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.

32Laser 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. 

33In 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 restraintrelated 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.

 

34Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 571.213).

3578 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.

 

36Section 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

 

37FDA 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 

38In 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).

39Triclosan 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 

 

40EPA 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 radiationemitting 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 

 

41According 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.

42We 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).

43GAO-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.

 

44GAO, 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

 

45Requirements 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.

 

46The 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). 

47Executive 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.

4875 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 bodycleansing 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-thecounter 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-thecounter drugs.

 

49Pub. L. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (1970) (codified as amended at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1477). 

507 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. 

51According 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 

 

52According 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.

53GAO, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the 

Environment, and Human Health, GAO-14-181SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2014).

54GAO, 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

 

55A 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 

56Respiratory Protective Devices Used in Healthcare, Notice of request for information 

and comment, 79 Fed. Reg. 14,515 (Mar. 14, 2014).

57An 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 

 

58GAO, 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 governmentwide 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

 

59We 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. 

60In 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

 

61We 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). 

62Specifically, 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, lookalike, 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.

63Pub. 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 nanotechnologybased 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.

 

64Coast 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.

65For 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.

 

66Specifically, 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).

6746 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. 

 

68GAO, 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

 

69In 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 

 

70As 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).

71In 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

 

72According 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.

73In 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, childresistant 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 

 

74Memorandum 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 longterm 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).

76GAO, 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.

77These 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.

78GAO-12-1022. 

79Pub. 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. 

81GAO-12-1022. 

82In 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 cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix 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 ensure 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 cackleya@gao.gov. 

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: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (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.