GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

CONSUMER SAFETY

Better Information 

and Planning Would 

Strengthen CPSC’s 

Oversight of Imported 

Products 

August 2009 

GAO-09-803 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

August 2009

CONSUMER SAFETY

Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen 

CPSC’s Oversight of Imported Products

Highlights of GAO-09-803, a report to 

congressional committees 

The growing volume of consumer 

products imported into the United 

States has strained the resources of 

the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), challenging 

the agency to find new ways to 

ensure the safety of these products. 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act (CPSIA) 

mandated that GAO assess the 

effectiveness of CPSC’s authorities 

over imported products. GAO’s 

objectives were to (1) determine 

what is known about CPSC’s 

effectiveness in using these 

authorities, (2) compare CPSC’s 

authorities with those of selected 

U.S. agencies and international 

entities, and (3) evaluate CPSC’s 

plans to prevent the entry of unsafe 

consumer products. To address 

these objectives, GAO analyzed 

CPSC and other agencies’ and 

entities’ authorities, reviewed 

literature on consumer product 

safety, and compared CPSC’s 

planning efforts with criteria for 

effective planning practices. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CPSC (1) 

ensure expeditious implementation 

of key CPSIA provisions; (2) take 

several actions to strengthen its 

ability to target shipments of 

unsafe consumer products, such as 

resolving issues with CBP for 

obtaining more data on incoming 

shipments; and (3) develop a longterm plan for ensuring the safety of 

consumer products entering the 

United States, including long-term 

plans for international engagement. 

CPSC agreed with these 

recommendations. 

GAO found broad consensus that CPSC’s authorities over imported consumer 

products have the potential to be effective. However, CPSC has made limited 

progress in measuring the effectiveness of its authorities, and CPSC’s ability 

to implement these authorities has been constrained by competing priorities 

and limited resources, as well as by delays in implementing key provisions of 

CPSIA. CPSC’s presence at U.S. ports is limited and, in order to identify 

potentially unsafe products, it must work closely with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), which faces pressure to quickly move shipments 

into commerce. CPSC does not have access to key CBP import data it could 

use to target incoming shipments for inspection, and it has not updated its 

agreements with CBP to clarify each agency’s roles and responsibilities. 

CPSC’s activities at U.S. ports could be strengthened by better targeting 

incoming shipments for inspection and by improving CPSC’s coordination 

with CBP. Otherwise, CPSC may not be able to carry out key inspection 

activities efficiently or to effectively leverage its enforcement priorities with 

CBP. 

Select federal agencies and foreign governments provide lessons for 

strengthening CPSC’s implementation of its authorities, particularly with 

respect to border surveillance and information sharing among countries. Both 

USDA and FDA have more robust border surveillance activities than CPSC 

because they obtain more data on incoming shipments, have more staff 

working at U.S. ports, use more developed programs to target risks, and use 

information technology systems that are integrated with other agency-based 

and CBP systems to effectively leverage their enforcement priorities with 

CBP. Other agencies have found that timely CBP import data integrated with 

other agency surveillance data is useful in screening incoming shipments for 

potential safety violations. In addition, officials at FDA and USDA have found 

that efforts to educate overseas industries and governments on U.S. safety 

standards could reduce the number of unsafe products that reach U.S. 

consumers. GAO also found broad consensus that continued coordination and 

information sharing among governments and multilateral organizations can 

improve the effectiveness of product safety frameworks. CPSC has increased 

its efforts to coordinate with these other entities, particularly China, but lacks 

a comprehensive plan for international engagement. 

CPSC has established annual plans, but lacks a long-term plan with key goals 

to prevent the entry of unsafe products. CPSC has not yet updated its 

agencywide Strategic Plan to reflect new authorities granted in CPSIA. This 

may inhibit CPSC’s ability to appropriately allocate any potential increases in 

agency resources or to address the safety of imported products through 

international means. An updated Strategic Plan may also help to ensure that 

CPSC has the requisite compliance and analytical staff to support the full 

range of CPSC’s international efforts. View GAO-09-803 or key components. 

For more information, contact Alicia Cackley 

at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-803 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

CPSC’s Authorities Have the Potential to Be Effective, but 

Implementation Is Limited by Incomplete Information on 

Imported Products and Resource and Practical Constraints 13 

Authorities of Select Agencies Are Comparable to CPSC’s, but FDA 

and USDA’s Border Surveillance Activities and Overseas 

Presence Provide Useful Information for Strengthening CPSC’s 

Implementation of Its Authorities 26 

Information Sharing and Cooperation among Countries Provide 

Way to Bridge Differences and Strengthen CPSC ‘s 

Implementation of Its Authorities, but CPSC Lacks a 

Comprehensive Plan to Guide Its Work 36 

CPSC Has Established Annual Goals and Short-term Plans to 

Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Products, but Lacks a Long-term 

Plan for the Future 43 

Conclusions 47 

Recommendations for Executive Action 49 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 50 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 52 

Appendix II Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers 

for CPSC Enforcement Purposes 55 

Appendix III Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies 57 

Appendix IV Key Authorities of Selected International Entities 69 

Australia 72 

Canada 75 

European Union 79 

Japan 83 

China 86 

 Consumer Safety 
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 90 

Table 

Table 1: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies for Preventing 

the Entry of Unsafe Imports 58 

Figures 

Figure 1: Overview of CBP and CPSC’s Current Process for 

Inspections of Consumer Goods at U.S. Ports of Entry 11 

Figure 2: CPSC Surveillance Activity at Ports of Entry Compared to 

Imports of Consumer Goods, 1998-2008 12 

Figure 3: Comparison of Selected International Entities’ Authorities 

with CPSC’s Authorities to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe 

Consumer Products 70 

Abbreviations 

ACCC Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 

AIIS Automated Import Information System 

APEC Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

AQSIQ General Administration for Quality Supervision, 

 Inspection, and Quarantine 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CCC China Compulsory Certification 

CEN European Committee for Standardization 

CENELEC European Committee for Electrotechnical 

 Standardization 

CIQ Customs, Inspection and Quarantine 

CNCA Certification and Accreditation Administration of China 

Page ii GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission 

CPSIA Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act 

DG SANCO Directorate General for Health and Consumers 

ETSI European Telecommunications Standards Institute 

EC European Commission 

EU European Union 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service 

GPSD General Product Safety Directive 

ICPHSO International Consumer Product Health and Safety 

 Organization 

ITDS International Trade Data System 

METI Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (Japan) 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

OASIS Operational and Administrative System for Import 

 Support 

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and 

 Development 

PHIS Public Health Information System 

PREDICT Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import 

 Compliance Targeting 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USTR Office of the United States Trade Representative 

WTO World Trade Organization 

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 iii GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Page 1 GAO-09-803 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

August 14, 2009 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

House of Representatives 

The growing volume of consumer products—such as toys, household 

appliances, and children’s apparel—imported into the United States has 

strained the resources of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) and is challenging the agency to find new ways to ensure the 

safety of these products. From 1998 to 2007, the value of consumer 

products imported into the United States increased about 101 percent, 

with products from China (which includes Hong Kong) nearly quadrupling 

over that same period to constitute about 42 percent of all imported 

consumer goods. In addition to the growing value of imports, the number 

and variety of consumer products have been increasing. Consumer 

products are becoming more technically complex and sophisticated, and 

they increasingly are not “from” any one place but rather consist of parts 

and components from any number of countries. 

Increasing imports of consumer products gained national attention in 

2007. During that year, CPSC announced 473 recalls, the most in 10 years, 

and 389 of the recalls (or about 82 percent) involved products imported 

into the country. As a result, 2007 became known to some as “the year of 

the recall.” The number of product recalls in fiscal year 2008 was even 

higher. These record numbers of recalls have raised the issue of whether 

CPSC can ensure the safety of products that are increasingly 

manufactured overseas. 

While the number of consumer products imported into the United States 

has been increasing, CPSC has become progressively smaller in terms of 

staff and resources. The commission has not had a full slate of five 

 Consumer Safety 
 

commissioners since 1986 and has not been authorized to fund more than 

three commissioner positions since 1993. In fiscal year 2008, CPSC had 396 

full-time employees, compared with 480 full-time employees in fiscal year 

1997. CPSC’s fiscal year 2008 appropriation totaled about $80 million, and 

CPSC’s fiscal year 2009 appropriation was not passed until March 2009—

about 6 months into the fiscal year 2008—due to a congressional 

continuing budget resolution. 

In response to the high-profile recalls of imported products in 2007, as well 

as concerns that CPSC was inadequately staffed and funded to enforce 

existing product safety laws, Congress passed the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which became law on August 14, 2008.1

CPSIA was intended to update and strengthen CPSC by authorizing 

expanded funding, mandating increased staffing subject to available 

appropriations, and enhancing existing CPSC authorities, including those 

regarding product safety standards, recalls, reporting, and administrative 

penalties. In addition, CPSIA introduced several new statutory tools to 

address the safety of imported products. Because Congress was concerned 

that there may be remaining gaps in U.S. product safety law or unforeseen 

consequences of CPSIA with respect to imported products, CPSIA 

mandated GAO to review a range of issues regarding CPSC’s authorities to 

prevent the entry of unsafe products into the United States.2

 Because 

CPSIA was recently passed, and CPSC has not had time to implement it 

fully, we responded to the mandate by (1) determining how CPSC assesses 

the effectiveness of its authorities in preventing the entry of unsafe 

consumer products and determining what is known about CPSC’s 

effectiveness in using these authorities, (2) comparing certain aspects of 

CPSC’s authorities with those of selected U.S. agencies, (3) comparing 

CPSC’s authorities with those of selected international entities, and 

(4) evaluating CPSC’s plans to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 

products in the future. 

To determine the effectiveness of CPSC’s import safety authorities, we 

examined CPSC data and interviewed CPSC officials to learn how the 

agency measures and assesses its own effectiveness. We conducted 

extensive document reviews on consumer product safety generally and 

import safety specifically. We interviewed legal professionals and 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (Aug. 14, 2008). 

2

See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 225, Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 

Stat. at 3070. 

Page 2 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

consumer and industry representatives to obtain their perspectives on the 

effectiveness of CPSC’s authorities. We also interviewed officials from 

other federal agencies involved in product safety at the international level, 

including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative (USTR), and the Departments of State 

and Commerce. We visited a U.S. port of entry to observe CPSC import 

surveillance activities and CPSC’s interaction with CBP staff at the port. 

We also visited CPSC’s Product Testing Laboratory in Gaithersburg, 

Maryland, to observe laboratory testing that supports import safety 

activities. Furthermore, we conducted a comparative analysis of CPSC’s 

authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products to similar 

authorities of selected U.S. federal agencies and selected countries. For 

our comparative analysis of U.S. federal agencies, we selected agencies 

that regulate the safety of products used by consumers and that possess 

recent, relevant experience with import safety. Specifically, we selected 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health and 

Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the 

Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). We conducted interviews with agency officials 

and reviewed agency statutes, regulations, and other documents. For our 

comparative analysis of other countries’ product safety authorities, we 

selected Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), and Japan 

for review.3

 We developed a set of questions concerning consumer product 

safety authorities, practices, and procedures and worked through the U.S. 

Department of State to distribute the questions to appropriate contacts at 

U.S. embassies overseas and, in some cases, to foreign embassies in 

Washington, D.C. We conducted interviews with product safety officials 

from Canada, the EU, and Japan, and with U.S. officials at the embassies in 

Australia, Canada, and China. We received written responses to our 

questions from the U.S. embassies in Australia, Canada, and China; from 

officials with the Embassy of Japan in Washington, D.C.; and from 

consumer product safety officials in the EU. We also reviewed documents 

regarding product safety in the selected countries and reports on 

consumer product safety prepared by the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD). To evaluate CPSC’s plans to 

prevent the entry of unsafe products in the future, we reviewed CPSC’s 

2010 Performance Budget Request and compared CPSC’s planning efforts 

with guidance GAO has developed to assess implementation of the 

 

3

The EU is a customs territory, but we refer to it as a country in this report for ease of 

reference. 

Page 3 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Government Performance and Results Act. Appendix I provides a more 

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2008 to August 2009, 

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. 

CPSC was created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to 

regulate consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury; to 

assist consumers in using products safely; and to promote research and 

investigation into product-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses.4

 The 

Consumer Product Safety Act consolidated existing federal safety 

regulatory activity related to consumer products within CPSC. As a result, 

in addition to general responsibilities for protecting consumers against 

product hazards, the duties and functions under the following four statutes 

were transferred to CPSC:5

 

Background 

• the Flammable Fabrics Act, which among other things, authorizes CPSC to 

prescribe flammability standards for clothing, upholstery, and other 

fabrics;6

• the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which establishes the framework 

for the regulation of substances that are toxic, corrosive, combustible, or 

otherwise hazardous;7

 

4

Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 (Oct. 27, 1972) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 

2051 et seq.). 

5

See Consumer Product Safety Act § 30, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207, 1231 (classified, as 

amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2079). 

6

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

seq.). 

7

Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372 (July 12, 1960) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261 

et seq.). Under the act, CPSC is authorized to declare a substance to be a hazardous, and to 

regulate the labeling of substances which are declared to be hazardous. 15 U.S.C. § 

1261(f)(1)(B) and § 1262. 

Page 4 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

• 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;8

 and 

• the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956, which mandates CPSC to prescribe 

safety standards for household refrigerators to ensure that the doors 

thereof can be opened easily from the inside.9

CSPC has also subsequently been charged with administering the Virginia 

Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, 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.10 In addition, CPSC has been charged with administering 

the Children’s Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, which establishes safety 

standards for child-resistant closures on all portable gasoline containers.11

Thus, CPSC’s jurisdiction is extremely broad, covering thousands of types 

of products. According to CPSC, this jurisdiction covers over 100,000 

different manufacturers and generally includes all consumer products 

except food, drugs, and cosmetics, which are regulated by FDA; 

pesticides, which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency; 

automobiles and other on-road vehicles, which are regulated by the 

Department of Transportation; flotation devices, which are regulated by 

the Coast Guard; and firearms, tobacco, and alcohol, which are regulated 

by the Department of Justice. 

The Consumer Product Safety Act established CPSC as an independent 

regulatory commission. The rationale for establishing independent 

commissions such as CPSC includes these assumptions: (1) long-term 

 

8

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

1471 et seq.). 

9

Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 70 Stat. 953 (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1211 et 

seq.). Under the act, it is unlawful for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction 

into interstate commerce any household refrigerator, unless it is equipped with a device 

enabling the door to be opened from the inside and which conforms with the standards 

prescribed by CPSC. 15 U.S.C. § 1214. 

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

§§ 8001 et seq.). 

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

Page 5 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

appointment of commissioners would promote stability and develop 

expertise, (2) independent status would insulate the commissioners from 

undue economic and political pressures, and (3) commissioners with 

different political persuasions and interests would provide diverse 

viewpoints. The act provides for the appointment by the President of five 

commissioners for staggered 7-year terms. However, no more than three 

commissioners have served at one time since 1986, and the commission 

has been led by two commissioners since 2006.12 One of these 

commissioners is designated the Chairman, who directs all the executive 

and administrative functions of the agency. 

CPSC was designed as a complement to tort law, under which one may 

seek compensation for harm caused by another’s wrongdoing. The threat 

of legal action under tort law plays an important role in assuring that 

companies produce safe products. However, tort law is primarily a 

postinjury mechanism, and foreign manufacturers are usually outside of 

the U.S. tort law system. Therefore, CPSC has certain authorities intended 

to prevent unsafe consumer products from entering the market in the first 

place. 

CPSC Protects Consumers 

Primarily through Product 

Safety Standards 

Under several of the acts that it administers, CPSC primarily protects 

consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death by issuing 

regulations that establish performance or labeling standards for consumer 

products. These standards are often referred to as “mandatory 

standards.”13 CPSC issued 38 mandatory standards between 1990 and 2007. 

If CPSC determines that there is no feasible standard that would 

 

12CPSC has not been authorized to receive appropriations for more than three 

commissioners since fiscal year 1993. See Pub. L. No. 102-389, Title III, 106 Stat. 1571, 1596 

(Oct. 6, 1992). Section 202(b) of CPSIA repealed this provision, effective August 14, 2009. 

We have previously found that CPSC could benefit by changing to a single administrator 

because some of the basic assumptions about the need to have commissioners had not 

been realized. See GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Administrative 

Structure Could Benefit from Change, GAO/HRD-87-47 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 1987). 

13Products subject to such mandatory standards are often referred to as “regulated 

products.” Regulated products that do not comply with mandatory standards are often 

referred to as “violative products.” 

Page 6 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

adequately protect the public from danger, CPSC may issue regulations to 

ban the manufacture and distribution of the product.14

Many consumer products are subject to voluntary standards. These 

voluntary standards, which are often established by private standardsetting groups, do not have the force of law.15 However, many voluntary 

standards are established with input from consumer groups and industry 

and, as a result, are often referred to as “consensus standards.” In addition, 

the 1981 amendments to the Consumer Product Safety Act require CPSC 

to defer to a voluntary standard—rather than issuing a mandatory 

regulation—if CPSC determines that the voluntary standard adequately 

addresses the hazard and that there is likely to be substantial compliance 

with the voluntary standard.16 Between 1990 and 2007, CPSC worked with 

industry and others to develop 390 voluntary standards related to 

consumer products. 

Import Safety 

Responsibility within 

CPSC 

CPSC’s policy on imported products states that the commission will seek 

to ensure that importers and foreign manufacturers, as well as domestic 

manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, carry out their obligations and 

responsibilities under the five acts. The commission will also seek to 

establish, to the maximum extent possible, uniform import procedures for 

products subject to the acts the commission administers.17

Two CPSC staff offices have primary responsibility for carrying out this 

policy: the Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs 

 

14See 15 U.S.C. § 2057; 15 U.S.C. § 1262; 15 U.S.C. § 1193; and 15 U.S.C. § 1472. Banned 

products include unstable refuse bins, extremely flammable contact adhesives, leadcontaining paint, consumer patching compounds containing asbestos, artificial emberizing 

materials containing asbestos, and lawn darts. See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1301-1306. 

15Although voluntary standards do not have the force of law, every manufacturer of a 

consumer product must inform the commission if they obtain information that reasonably 

supports the conclusion that the product is defective such that it presents a substantial 

product hazard, as defined below. 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b). Such a report may include 

information the manufacturer obtained about a product outside the United States if it is 

relevant to products sold or distributed in the United States. 16 C.F.R. § 1115.12(f). 

1615 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(1). 

1716 C.F.R. § 1009.3(a). When it appears that application of this policy is unduly burdening 

the free flow of goods, the commission states that it may consider modifications that 

alleviate such burdens, but not those that do not assure the consumer the same protection 

from unsafe foreign goods as from unsafe domestic goods. 16 C.F.R. § 1009.3(i). 

Page 7 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

and the Office of Compliance and Field Operations. The Office of 

International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs was created in 2004 

to provide CPSC with a more comprehensive and coordinated effort at the 

international, federal, state, and local levels in developing and 

implementing consumer product safety standards. The office conducts 

activities and creates strategies aimed at ensuring greater import 

compliance with recognized American safety standards. A major emphasis 

of this program is encouraging foreign manufacturers to establish product 

safety systems as an integral part of the manufacturing process. The office 

is also involved in coordinating international consumer product safety 

efforts with such U.S. federal agencies as the Departments of Commerce 

and State. It also ensures that CPSC regulatory efforts are consistent with 

U.S. international trade obligations by coordinating with the United States 

Trade Representative. As of July 2009, the office was staffed by four fulltime employees. 

The Import Surveillance Division within the Office of Compliance and 

Field Operations was created in March 2008 and has primary responsibility 

for CPSC’s product surveillance program at ports of entry. CPSC, in 

cooperation with other appropriate federal agencies, is required to 

maintain a permanent product surveillance program for preventing the 

entry of unsafe consumer products into the commerce of the United 

States.18 Previously, CPSC operated the import surveillance program 

through product safety investigators staffed in multiple regions throughout 

the country who included among their investigative responsibilities ports 

of entry in their particular regions. Over the years, the numbers of CPSC 

regional offices and product safety investigators have been reduced. CPSC 

states that these product safety investigators continue to support the 

import surveillance program, operating in 48 locations throughout the 

country. The Import Surveillance Division marks the first permanent, fulltime presence of CPSC investigators at key ports of entry, according to 

CPSC. As of July 2009, the division was staffed by 11 full-time employees—

9 compliance investigators located at seven ports of entry and a Director 

and Supervisory Compliance Investigator located at CPSC headquarters in 

Bethesda, Maryland. The compliance investigators are supported by 

compliance officers, technical staff, attorneys, and other staff at CPSC 

headquarters. There are over 300 ports of entry in the United States. 

 

1815 U.S.C. § 2066(h). 

Page 8 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CBP notifies CPSC and other regulatory agencies with import safety 

responsibilities of the arrival of imported products and provides 

information about those products. Under several of the acts that CPSC 

administers, CPSC identifies potentially unsafe products and requests that 

CBP set them aside for CPSC examination. CPSC has implemented 

programs at some ports for CBP to target certain categories of products 

based on their Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes.19 CBP has import 

specialists at major ports who specialize in certain commodities, including 

consumer products. They analyze manifest, entry, and other import data to 

identify shipments for CPSC review.20 In some instances, CBP will 

independently identify shipments for CPSC examination. Once samples 

are delivered to or taken by CPSC for examination, CPSC may detain the 

shipment pending further examination and testing, conditionally release 

the shipment to the importer’s premises pending examination and testing, 

or release the shipment to the importer outright. Compliance investigators 

examine the sample to determine whether it 

CPSC Works Closely with 

CBP at Ports of Entry 

• complies with the relevant mandatory standard(s); 

• is accompanied by a certification of compliance with the relevant 

product safety standard that is supported by testing, in some instances 

by a third party; 

• is or has been determined to be an imminently hazardous product;21

 

19Harmonized Tariff Schedule is an extension of the six-digit Harmonized Commodity and 

Coding System, the internationally recognized classification system for commodities. The 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule is a statutory authority codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1202. 

20A manifest is a document or compilation of documents required by law for most 

conveyances arriving in United States territory. A manifest provides information describing 

the cargo on board the arriving conveyance. See 19 U.S.C. § 1431; 19 C.F.R. § 4.7; 19 C.F.R. § 

122.48; and 19 C.F.R. § 123.4. 

21An imminently hazardous consumer product is a consumer product that presents 

imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, or severe personal injury. 15 

U.S.C § 2061(a). CPSC states that it has not used its authority to refuse admission of an 

imminently hazardous consumer product because it requires filing an action in U.S. District 

Court, which is a resource-intensive process. Instead, CPSC states that it works 

cooperatively with the manufacturer to remove the product from the market, which can 

include seizure and detention of products at the port by CBP, if necessary. 

Page 9 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

• has a product defect that presents a substantial product hazard;22 or 

• is produced by a manufacturer who failed to comply with CPSC 

inspection and recordkeeping requirements. 

If compliance investigators decide that further testing of a sample is 

necessary, they will send the sample to the CPSC Product Testing 

Laboratory or to a CBP laboratory.23 If the sample is found to violate any 

of the above criteria, CPSC is authorized to refuse admission of the 

shipment. Consumer products that are refused admission will be 

destroyed unless the Secretary of the Treasury allows the product to be 

exported.24 CPSC may instead instruct CBP to seize shipments upon 

finding a prohibited act, which according to CPSC is the most common 

outcome when a violation is discovered. The importer may be subject to 

civil or criminal penalties.25 See figure 1 for an overview of CBP and

CPSC’s current process for conducting inspections at ports of entry. 

 

22A product may present a substantial product hazard if it fails to comply with a mandatory 

standard or is otherwise found to have a defect, and if the product creates a substantial risk 

of injury to the public. 

23CPSC officials told us that there is statutory authority under the Tariff Act of 1930, 

revised, that places certain obligations and time constraints on CBP for issuing detention 

notices and making decisions regarding detained products, but that authority expressly 

exempts from those requirements detentions made where the decision as to admissibility 

resides with an agency other than CBP. See 19 U.S.C § 1499. Accordingly, CPSC officials 

stated, neither CBP nor CPSC is bound by those procedural constraints when merchandise 

is detained under CPSC authority. 

2415 U.S.C. § 2066(e). CBP has the authority to supervise the exportation of refused 

consumer merchandise. See 19 C.F.R. § 158.45. 

25Effective August 14, 2009, the civil penalty maximum amounts are $100,000 for each 

individual violation and $15 million for a related series of violations. 15 U.S.C. § 2069(a)(1). 

The criminal penalties for a knowing and willful violation of the Acts that CPSC enforces 

could result in up to 5 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for individuals and 

$500,000 for corporations for each offense. 15 U.S.C. § 2070(a). 

Page 10 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Figure 1: Overview of CBP and CPSC’s Current Process for Inspections of Consumer Goods at U.S. Ports of Entry 

Sources: GAO analysis of CBP and CPSC information; Art Explosion (clip art).

Shipments arrive

at U.S. ports.

CBP notifies CPSC

of potential violations.

Merchandise set aside

for examination.

Tests sample

at CPSC lab and

recommends

CBP detention

of cargo.

CPSC recommends

CBP seizure of

noncompliant

products.

CPSC allows

importer to

recondition

merchandise.

Liquidated

damages

for failure

to recondition.

Destruction,

exportation,

or liquidated

damages for

failure to export

or destroy.

Administrative

process.

(Treasury

Forfeiture

Fund used for

storage and

destruction of

forfeited

noncompliant

products.)

CPSC refuses

admission of

merchandise;

no immediate

designated funding

available for product

destruction.

Tests

sample at

CPSC lab

and 

recommends

conditional

release of 

cargo into

importer’s

care.

CPSC 

examines

merchandise.

Arrival Targeting Examination

Computer-based

targeting of manifest

and/or entry data.

Violation or potential

violation found

Use of CBP officers’

and/or import specialists’

knowledge of goods

under CPSC regulations.

CPSC programs

focus on certain products.

National targeting priorities

through joint CBP-CPSC

operations

(e.g., Operation

Guardian).

Cargo Cargo

Cargo

Release of cargo into commerce

No

violation

Cargo

Cargo

No

violation

Cargo

Cargo

No

violation

CPSC

recommends

Testing Disposition of shipments

Cargo

CPSC relies on CBP to carry out key import surveillance activities at ports 

of entry. In addition to its numerous antiterrorism and trade 

responsibilities, CBP faces pressure from the international trade 

community to quickly move compliant shipments into commerce. Factors 

such as the high volume of containers, financial incentives for 

longshoremen to unload ships quickly, and the limited amount of time 

CBP has to identify and examine cargo contribute to the challenges CBP 

faces in facilitating commerce.26 In addition, CBP enforces regulations for 

45 other federal agencies. Importers place pressure on CBP to correctly 

 

26For example, according to CBP’s 2009-2013 Trade Strategy, on a typical day CBP 

processes over 85,000 shipments of goods worth $5.2 billion. However, CBP indicated that 

after steady growth in imports the past few years, the overall value of imports entering the 

United States has decreased to $900 billion as of mid-fiscal year 2009, a decrease of $200 

billion from fiscal year 2008. CBP also projects that the value of imports for fiscal year 2009 

will decline to as low as $1.7 trillion, which was the level in 2004-2005. 

Page 11 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

identify violations because the cost of storing CBP-detained products at 

privately run container examination stations is high. CPSC surveillanc

activity with CBP at ports of entry has fluctuated in recent years. For 

example, as shown in figure 2, the number of samples that CPSC collecte

for examination dropped from 1,348 in fiscal year 1999 to 710 and 514 in 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and has still not reached the 1999 level, despite

an increa

SC surveillanc

activity with CBP at ports of entry has fluctuated in recent years. For 

example, as shown in figure 2, the number of samples that CPSC collecte

for examination dropped from 1,348 in fiscal year 1999 to 710 and 514 in 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and has still not reached the 1999 level, despite

an increa

e 

d 

se in imports of products under CPSC jurisdiction of about 101 

percent. 

ctivity at Ports of Entry Compared to Imports of 

e 

d 

se in imports of products under CPSC jurisdiction of about 101 

percent. 

Figure 2: CPSC Surveillance Activity at Ports of Entry Compared to Imports of 

Consumer Goods, 1998-2008 

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

1,222

1,348

870

880

710

514

888

685

616

748

1,171

Import samples collected by CPSC

Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction

and percentage from China and Hong Kong

$318.3

356.1

413.1

390.8

410.8

442.3

510.1

564.3

603.9

638.9

$638.7

22.0%

22.5%

23.1%

24.8%

28.4%

31.8%

34.7%

38.0%

40.3%

42.1%

42.8%

Total imports under CPSC jurisdiction

Portion of imports from China (which includes Hong Kong)

Sources: GAO analysis of CPSC and U.S. International Trade Commission data.

Note: Data on import samples are reported on a fiscal-year basis. Data on imports under CPSC 

jurisdiction are reported on a calendar-year basis. 

Page 12 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Consensus exists that CPSC’s authorities have the potential to be effective 

in preventing the entry of unsafe products into the United States. Although 

CPSC has made limited progress in measuring the effectiveness of its 

authorities over imported products, the agency believes that new 

authorities granted in CPSIA should increase compliance with mandatory 

standards and enhance its ability to monitor compliance with voluntary 

standards at ports of entry. Private industry sources and others we 

interviewed generally said that CPSC’s authorities are potentially effective 

but that implementation is limited by competing priorities and resource 

and practical constraints. 

CPSC’s Authorities 

Have the Potential to 

Be Effective, but 

Implementation Is 

Limited by 

Incomplete 

Information on 

Imported Products 

and Resource and 

Practical Constraints 

Consensus Exists That 

CPSC Has Broad Authority 

over Imported Products, 

but CPSC’s Assessment of 

Effectiveness Has Been 

Limited 

There is consensus among those we interviewed that CPSC has broad 

authority to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products into the United 

States, particularly in light of new authorities that strengthen its ability to 

enforce mandatory standards and protect consumers from unsafe 

products subject to voluntary standards at ports of entry. As described 

above, CPSC primarily protects consumers from unreasonable risk of 

injury by promulgating mandatory standards and working with private 

standard-setting organizations to promulgate voluntary standards, and 

CPSC has broad authority to enforce those standards at ports of entry. In 

particular, CPSC and other product safety experts believe CPSC’s 

enforcement of mandatory standards at ports of entry will be strengthened 

because now all products subject to a mandatory standard under any law 

administered by CPSC must be accompanied by a certification of 

compliance that is supported by product testing.27 In addition, every 

 

2715 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(1). Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (classified, as 

amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2063) has always required that manufacturers and private labelers 

of consumer products subject to a product safety standard issue a certificate that certifies 

that such product complies with the applicable mandatory standard. The certificate must 

be based on a test of each product or upon a reasonable testing program. However, CPSC 

told us that they did not enforce the certification requirement at the ports of entry, but 

rather focused on the compliance of the product with the underlying mandatory standard. 

Furthermore, the previous certification requirement in the Consumer Product Safety Act 

applied only to products subject to mandatory standards promulgated under the act rather 

than each of the laws administered by the CPSC. 

Page 13 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

manufacturer or private labeler of a product subject to a children’s 

product safety rule must have samples of the product tested by an 

accredited third-party laboratory for conformance with the applicable 

mandatory standard.28 For many years, CPSC focused import surveillance 

activities on enforcement of certain mandatory standards for consumer 

products, primarily toys, fireworks, and lighters.29 The new testing 

requirement puts greater burden on industry to ensure that products 

comply with mandatory standards. If implemented properly, CPSC should 

be able to use the testing and certification requirements to strengthen 

surveillance of regulated products at ports of entry. 

Furthermore, CPSC believes its ability to monitor compliance with 

voluntary standards at ports of entry will be strengthened by new 

authority to create a “substantial product hazard list.” 30 As described 

above, many consumer products are produced according to voluntary 

standards. In addition, many products are subject to no standards. CPSC 

primarily protects consumers from unsafe products subject to voluntary or 

no standards by declaring them “substantial product hazards” when the 

products have a defect that creates a substantial risk of injury. However, 

 

2815 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(2). A children’s product is defined as a product primarily intended for 

children age 12 and under. 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(2). CPSC is in the process of defining rules 

by which accredited third party laboratories are eligible to conduct testing for 

conformance with certain mandatory standards; that is, the laboratories do not receive a 

blanket accreditation from CPSC. CPSC is required to establish requirements for periodic 

audits of accredited third party laboratories and may withdraw accreditation under certain 

circumstances. 15 U.S.C. § 2063(d)(1) and (e). 

29CPSC provided three reasons why surveillance is focused on these products. First, the 

HTS may not be specific enough to accurately identify specific products subject to CPSC 

mandatory standards. Generally speaking, the HTS is used to describe all goods in trade. 

Importers use a code from the HTS to identify goods in shipments. If the code is not 

specific enough, then CPSC states that it has difficulty targeting specific products. Second, 

CPSC states that the mandatory standards for these consumer products are written in a 

manner that allows for easy identification of violative products at the port. Third, CPSC 

states that fireworks and lighters, as well as toys, are among the most common consumer 

products imported into the United States, so it conducts increased port surveillance to 

prevent unsafe products from entering the market. 

30CPSC may by rule determine that certain characteristics of a product or class of products, 

by their absence or presence, shall be deemed a substantial product hazard if (1) the 

characteristics are readily observable and addressed by voluntary standards, (2) the 

voluntary standards have been effective in reducing the risk of injury, and (3) there is 

substantial compliance with such standards. 15 U.S.C. § 2064(j). Characteristics of 

products often used as examples for the substantial product hazard list include the 

presence of drawstrings in hooded sweatshirts intended for children and the absence of a 

ground fault circuit interrupter in electric hairdryers. 

Page 14 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CPSC faces difficulty at ports of entry identifying defects in products 

subject to voluntary or no standards because defects are not always 

apparent until the product has been used by the public.31 With 

implementation of the substantial product hazard list, CPSC will be able to 

target new shipments and refuse admission of products subject to 

voluntary standards that it has already determined have a defect 

constituting a substantial risk of injury.32

Despite this broad authority, CPSC has made limited progress in 

measuring the effectiveness of its authorities to prevent the entry of 

unsafe consumer products. CPSC measures the performance of its import 

surveillance program by the number of product samples collected and by 

the number of samples ultimately found to be unsafe and therefore seized. 

CPSC is now considering altering this metric so that it will track all 

shipments that CPSC investigators examine, rather than just those samples 

collected and tested. Furthermore, CPSC measures the performance of its 

Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs by the 

number of outreach events conducted. These metrics provide measures of 

the output of program staff but do not necessarily provide accurate 

measures of the effectiveness of the programs. In the 1990s, CPSC used 

industry compliance with mandatory standards as an alternative basis for 

measuring the agency’s effectiveness, what it termed the Comprehensive 

Plan. The plan was designed to examine the compliance of these products 

with mandatory standards on a periodic basis and then identify problem 

areas for focusing limited agency resources. CPSC did not continue the 

Comprehensive Plan after the mid-1990s because the data indicated that 

compliance was high, and CPSC believed that the plan did not help it 

address problems with noncompliant products. CPSC sought information 

from the public in 2008 to develop a new methodology that would replace 

the Comprehensive Plan. CPSC reported receiving two responses, but 

 

31Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2066(b), an importer may demand a full administrative hearing to 

contest a refusal of admission made on the basis of a CPSC staff-level substantial hazard 

determination. CPSC states that this is a resource-intensive process. See 16 C.F.R. § 1025. 

With the substantial product hazard list, CPSC states that if its determination to refuse 

admission is challenged by the importer, the only issue at the administrative hearing would 

be whether the product is on the substantial product hazard list. 

32Products subject to no standards cannot, by law, be included on the list. CPSC staff told 

us that it is very difficult to judge whether a product is defective when there is no standard 

with which to compare the product. CPSC staff stated that this is particularly true at ports 

of entry where there is pressure to move products quickly into commerce. Moreover, 

manufacturing or design defects in products are not always readily apparent and can take 

some time to surface, sometimes only after consumers have used the product. 

Page 15 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

commission staff stated that they did not pursue further work because the 

responses did not address their needs for developing new performance 

measures. While CPSC recognizes the need for outcome-oriented 

performance measures and has taken steps to develop new measures, 

without these measures, CPSC may not be able to determine how effective 

its authorities are for preventing the entry of unsafe products. 

Implementation of CPSC’s 

New Authorities to Prevent 

Entry of Unsafe Products 

into the United States Has 

Been Delayed 

While CPSC has broad authority to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 

products into the United States, there have been delays in implementing 

new authorities CPSC received in CPSIA. According to CPSC, the agency 

has more than 40 rulemakings to conduct under CPSIA, including 

approximately 20 rulemakings to initiate or complete by August 2010, 

which has contributed to the delay in implementing the act. In particular, 

the two new authorities discussed above—certain testing and certification 

requirements and the substantial product hazard list—have not been 

implemented. CPSC issued a stay of enforcement of certain testing and 

certification requirements until February 10, 2010, delaying 

implementation of these standards and raising questions among 

manufacturers subject to this requirement.33 CPSC stated that it did not 

complete the rulemaking process because it was unable to respond to 

innumerable inquiries from industry seeking relief from the testing 

requirement at a time when the agency faced severe resource limitations 

because it was operating under the prior year’s budget. In addition, to date 

CPSC has not conducted rulemaking to implement the substantial product 

hazard list. The effectiveness of CPSC’s new authorities will not be clear 

until CPSC completes its rulemaking and demonstrates the ability to 

enforce these regulations. 

Another factor contributing to delays in implementation of new authorities 

is the need for CPSC to balance its mission to protect consumers with 

industry interests. CPSC’s mission is to protect the public from 

unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products, and CPSC 

is also required to work with industry to develop product safety standards, 

collect information about unsafe products, and conduct recalls. Private 

companies have expressed concerns about CPSC’s implementation of 

CPSIA, particularly the expanded testing and certification requirements, 

which, as noted earlier, helped contribute to CPSC’s decision to delay 

 

33See “Notice of Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification,” 74 Fed. Reg. 6396 (Feb. 

9, 2009). 

Page 16 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

enforcement of these provisions. In public comments on CPSIA, several 

industry representatives commented that the certification requirements 

are duplicative and could cause them to incur tremendous costs due to the 

complexity of their business operations. For example, industry 

representatives stated that large manufacturers produce hundreds of 

thousands of variations of their products that may require testing and 

certification, while small manufacturers may have limited product lines 

across which to spread costs. 

In addition to industry concerns, CPSC has also faced concerns from 

consumers that CPSC’s implementation of CPSIA has not, at times, 

fulfilled the consumer protection goals of the act. In one recent example, 

consumer groups challenged CPSC’s advisory opinion that CPSIA’s 

provisions prohibiting the sale of children’s products that contain certain 

chemicals called phthalates did not apply retroactively to inventories 

existing prior to the effective date of the prohibitions. These groups were 

concerned that if the phthalate prohibitions were not applied retroactively, 

consumers would continue to be exposed to unsafe products in the 

marketplace. The consumer groups filed suit in a federal district court 

seeking a declaratory judgment that CPSC’s advisory opinion, which was 

issued at the request of certain wholesale and retail entities, was contrary 

to CPSIA, and thus violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The district 

court held that the phthalate prohibitions in CSPIA unambiguously applied 

to existing inventory and set aside CPSC’s opinion.34

According to some industry representatives we interviewed, retailers are 

taking the lead in product testing and certification in response to 

industry’s uncertainty over how CPSC will enforce CPSIA provisions. 

These representatives believed that retailers are ahead of CPSC in this 

regard. For example, one industry group said that although CPSC has 

stayed enforcement of many of its certification requirements, retailers still 

require suppliers to provide certifications, and some retailers had more 

stringent lead standards than CPSIA. According to industry groups, U.S. 

companies, particularly retailers, have an incentive to institute and enforce 

stringent product safety standards because selling products that cause 

injury or death can have negative impacts on their brands. The U.S. tort 

system that exposes companies selling unsafe products to lawsuits also 

helps to ensure that companies comply with product safety standards. To 

 

34See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, Inc., vs. U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 597 F.Supp 2d. 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). 

Page 17 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

respond to industry concerns about how to comply with safety standards 

under current and prior consumer product safety laws, some industry 

groups have also developed or are developing their own testing and 

certification programs.35 CPSC indicated that while these types of 

programs can help improve compliance with safety standards, there are 

limits to how well this type of industry self-regulation can be used to 

protect consumers. They indicated that there is a trade-off between 

consumer protection and industry cooperation; if the requirements are too 

onerous, companies might not participate in these voluntary programs. 

Balancing the interests of both consumer and industry participants adds 

complexity in completing CPSC’s implementation of CPSIA. 

CPSC Needs Better 

Targeting Information to 

Strengthen Enforcement 

with CBP at Ports of Entry 

CPSC needs better targeting information to strengthen its ability to 

identify risks from imported products and communicate inspection 

priorities to CBP. CPSC and CBP have a cooperative relationship at ports 

of entry. That is, while CPSC relies on CBP to carry out key import 

surveillance and targeting activities at ports, CBP relies on CPSC to 

communicate the greatest risks and its inspection priorities among 

consumer products. However, CPSC has not developed formal systems for 

assessing risks and focusing inspection activities with CBP. Furthermore, 

CPSC does not have access to information that would enable the agency to 

effectively target potentially unsafe imported products for inspection. 

In the past, CPSC has generally used informal systems to target risks from 

imported products and to conduct operations with CBP at ports of entry 

with some positive results. CPSC has generally been effective using its 

informal systems to target certain products for inspection, according to 

several product safety experts we interviewed. For instance, CPSC has 

targeted imported fireworks for increased inspections during the summer 

months. CPSC has also had positive results from its participation in 

Operation Guardian, a multiagency effort to combat the increasing 

importation of substandard, tainted, and counterfeit products that pose a 

Updated MOU with CBP Would 

Be Useful as CPSC Develops Its 

Risk Assessment Methodology 

 

35For example, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a U.S. trade group, has recently 

partnered with the United Kingdom’s retailers association, the British Retail Consortium, to 

develop global manufacturing standards and risk management practices. In addition, two 

trade groups that specialize in children’s products—the Toy Industry Association and the 

Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association—have developed their own certification 

programs. The American Fireworks Standards Laboratory has, for several years, had a 

testing and certification program for the fireworks industry in response to the failure of 

over half of all imported fireworks to meet federal safety standards and to CPSC’s seizure 

of these products in the 1980s. 

Page 18 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

health and safety risk to consumers.36 Another program that CPSC stated 

has produced positive results is an expansion of the CBP Importer SelfAssessment Program that was initiated in October 2008. The expansion, 

known as the Importer Self-Assessment Product Safety Pilot, aims to 

prevent unsafe imports from entering the United States by requiring 

volunteer companies to meet specified internal monitoring criteria in 

exchange for priority in testing, reductions in the testing conducted, and 

access to CPSC training programs.37 However, as discussed above, CPSC 

targeted relatively few imported consumer products for inspection under 

its informal system. 

CPSIA requires CPSC to establish a formal risk assessment methodology 

that will require updating the terms of the relationship between the 

agencies. CPSC and the former U.S. Customs Service (now CBP) 

established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 1990 that serves as 

the foundation for the working relationship of the agencies for 

enforcement of CPSC’s authorities over imported products. For example, 

the MOU provides for “the joint conduct of a mutually agreed number of 

high-visibility, intensive inspection operations annually.” This provision is 

consistent with CPSC’s informal system for targeting risks. The MOU is 

now out of date and does not reflect anticipated changes to CPSC’s 

relationship with CBP required under CPSIA. CPSIA requires CPSC, by 

August 2010, to develop a methodology for identifying shipments of 

imported consumer products that are likely to violate import provisions 

enforced by CPSC.38 A CPSC official told us that, as part of the agency’s 

work to develop this risk assessment methodology, CPSC plans to create a 

flowchart of the current product-entry process to identify gaps in any 

current CPSC authorities to stop unsafe products at the ports. The official 

noted that CPSC anticipates completing the flowchart later this year. 

Updating the 1990 MOU between CPSC and CBP and thereby revisiting the 

 

36Through this program, CPSC has worked with CBP and U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that enforces U.S. 

customs and immigration laws, to implement national programs targeting (1) lighters that 

do not comply with CPSC’s mandatory regulations, (2) holiday lights that pose a fire or 

electrocution hazard, and (3) toys that do not comply with CPSC requirements. According 

to CPSC, the agency’s involvement in Operation Guardian dates back to December 2007. 

37So far, two consumer product companies have joined the program—J.C. Penney and 

Hasbro—and, according to CBP and a trade group, both have had positive experiences thus 

far. 

38See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(a), Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 

Stat. at 3066. 

Page 19 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

roles and responsibilities of each agency would be a useful way for CPSC 

to identify gaps in the current product entry process and speed completion 

of its risk assessment methodology.39

During interviews with CPSC staff and our visit to a U.S. port of entry to 

determine how CPSC prevents the entry of unsafe products into the 

United States, we found that CPSC does not have access to CBP data that 

would provide CPSC with information about products in a shipment 

before it arrives in the United States. CPSC has access to entry summary 

data, which CBP generally receives shortly before a shipment enters the 

United States or, in some cases, as many as 10 days after the shipment has 

been released into commerce. However, CPSC does not have access to 

manifest data, which is provided to CBP 24 hours before a shipping vessel 

bound for the United States is loaded at a foreign port.40 CPSC and CBP 

established a second MOU in 2002, which superseded the 1990 MOU, 

specifying procedures and guidelines for information sharing between the 

agencies with a particular focus on CPSC access to CBP data systems. The 

2002 MOU was intended to allow CPSC access to both entry summary and 

manifest data. According to a CPSC official, CBP has not provided CPSC 

with access to manifest data because it believed the data were not specific 

enough for CPSC purposes. For instance, the manifest data generally do 

not include the name of the importer and may not have specific 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes to help CPSC identify the merchandise 

in the shipment. However, CPSC still believes that manifest data will help 

the agency improve its targeting, as it will give CPSC more timely 

information on shipments and potentially more specific information as 

CPSC seeks to revise the Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes to better align 

them with the categories of products they regulate. CBP also 

acknowledged that, while CPSC can use the entry summary data to target 

future shipments for inspection, CPSC cannot place inspection holds on 

shipments that are about to depart for or are in transit to the United States 

without the manifest data. In comparing CPSC border surveillance 

activities with those of other federal agencies that regulate the safety of 

products used by consumers, we found that FDA has a stronger capability 

Better Advance Shipment Data 

Would Strengthen CPSC’s 

Targeting Efforts 

 

39Upon completion of its risk assessment methodology, CPSIA requires CPSC to submit a 

report to Congress within 180 days regarding changes made or necessary to be made to its 

MOU with CBP. See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(d)(2), Pub. 

L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. at 3068. 

40The time frames for receiving manifest data for goods entering the United States through 

other modes of transportation—air, train, or truck—vary. 

Page 20 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

to target imports using CBP data (discussed further below). FDA receives 

advance shipment data from CBP of all entries containing food under FDA 

jurisdiction that arrive at ports, which FDA then screens electronically 

against criteria it developed to detect potential violations. 

CPSC and CBP state that they have been working together to resolve 

information-sharing issues. Specifically, in February 2007, CPSC applied 

for access to the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which CBP 

intends to be a single source for import and export documentation that is 

to provide participating agencies quicker access to data and improved 

ability to identify potentially unsafe shipments of consumer products.41 As 

part of the application process, CPSC has submitted to CBP for review an 

operations plan (a “Concept of Operations” or “ConOps”) and an update to 

the 2002 MOU with guidelines for the exchange of information.42 The 

agencies have had follow-up discussions on these plans; however, CBP has 

reported that implementation of ITDS has been delayed. As a result, 

CPSC’s efforts to access more complete import data to help it better target 

incoming shipments have also been delayed.CPSC staff said that they 

anticipate this work will not be completed until at least 2011. 

In addition to this effort, CPSIA requires CPSC and CBP to improve 

information sharing and coordination. Specifically, CPSIA requires CPSC 

to develop, by August 2009, a plan for sharing information and 

coordinating with CBP.43 According to CPSIA, the proposed plan is to 

consider, at a minimum, the number of CPSC staff that should be stationed 

at U.S. ports and the nature and extent of cooperation between CPSC and 

CBP at the ports. The plan is also to discuss the nature and extent of 

cooperation between CPSC and CBP at the National Targeting Center or 

 

41Section 405 of the SAFE Port Act requires all federal agencies with import regulatory 

responsibility, including CPSC, to participate in the International Trade Data System. Pub. 

L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat 1884, 1929 (Oct. 13, 2006) (classified at 19 U.S.C. § 1411). 

42According to CBP, the 2002 MOU will likely need to be updated to reflect changes to the 

relationship between CPSC and CBP that have resulted from enactment of CPSIA, and 

updating the 2002 MOU may also help CPSC prepare the risk assessment methodology 

described above. 

43See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(b) and (c), Pub. L. No. 110-

314, 122 Stat. at 3067. 

Page 21 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

its equivalent.44 CPSC has not completed this plan, and it is unlikely to do 

so until it updates information-sharing agreements with CBP. 

A CPSC official told us that as part of developing this plan for sharing 

information with CBP, CPSC is seeking to assign a staff member to a 

planned CBP targeting center that would focus on health and safety issues. 

This targeting center, which would be equivalent to the National Targeting 

Center, would seek to identify shipments of imported products that should 

be stopped at the ports for further screening and review. A CPSC official 

said that, in assigning a staff person to this targeting center, the agency 

would have access to CBP’s Automated Targeting System.45 However, 

creation of the health and safety planned targeting center has been 

delayed, so CPSC has not been able to place staff at the center or access 

CBP targeting information, delaying its ability to better target imported 

products. A CPSC official explained that the analytical approach that FDA 

took by creating its own system for analyzing data would require a 

considerable investment of both time and money. CPSC prefers the option 

of working with CBP through the planned targeting center to leverage this 

analytical capability. CPSC believes this option would be more efficient 

than developing its own system to analyze data. 

CPSC’s Enforcement of 

Import Safety Authorities 

Is Limited by Resource and 

Practical Constraints 

CPSC’s enforcement of its authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe 

products into the United States is limited by resource and practical 

constraints. Specifically, CPSC has few staff at ports of entry and limited 

analytical and laboratory support. Furthermore, although CPSC has 

authority to destroy products refused admission, it lacks a source of 

funding to immediately pay for the costs of destruction. In addition, while 

CPSC has authority to condition the importation of consumer products 

based on compliance with CPSC inspection requirements, there are 

practical constraints on the agency’s ability to conduct inspections of 

foreign manufacturing plants. 

CPSC’s ability to inspect shipments for potential violations at ports of 

entry is limited by resource constraints, such as few staff at ports and 

 

44The National Targeting Center is a centralized coordination point for all of CBP’s 

antiterrorism knowledge. 

45The Automated Targeting System is a system CBP uses to target shipments for further 

screening and review at U.S. ports of entry. The system contains manifest data on 

shipments of consumer products. 

Page 22 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

limited analytical and laboratory support. In passing CPSIA, Congress 

recognized the need to strengthen CPSC’s resources, including 

requirements that CPSC increase the number of full-time employees to at 

least 500 by fiscal year 2013 and that CPSC hire additional personnel to be 

assigned to U.S. ports of entry.46 As noted above, CPSC had 9 compliance 

investigators stationed at 7 ports as of July 2009, as well as 100 product 

safety investigators in 48 other locations across that country that may help 

to conduct periodic inspections at ports of entry. CBP staff indicated that 

having a CPSC compliance investigator collocated at ports has been 

useful, and during our visit to a U.S. port of entry we saw the cooperative 

relationship between agency officials. Furthermore, a CPSC official said 

that currently there is limited analytical support at CPSC headquarters to 

assist in import surveillance work. According to CPSC, the agency cannot 

establish a greater presence at U.S. ports without having the requisite 

analytical support. CPSC also has limited laboratory support for testing 

potentially unsafe products and has faced significant backlogs at various 

times. As of April 2009, CPSC had 28 engineers and scientists at its 

laboratory. CPSC’s laboratory facility is located across the country from 

where a large percentage of imported goods enter the United States. 

Moreover, fireworks, which are heavily targeted for inspection, must be 

tested at a separate facility under current procedures. As a result of these 

conditions, testing backlogs have inhibited import surveillance efforts. In 

May 2009, CPSC announced that it had secured and was in the process of 

outfitting a new laboratory with enhanced testing facilities. CPSC also 

announced that certain support staff from CPSC headquarters would be 

collocated at the lab to assist the laboratory staff. However, the new 

facilities still cannot accommodate fireworks testing. Moreover, the new 

facility does not provide CPSC with a presence on the West Coast, where 

many consumer products enter the United States. As discussed below, in 

comparing CPSC’s resources supporting border surveillance with those of 

other federal agencies that regulate the safety of products used by 

consumers, particularly FDA and USDA, we found that CPSC’s resources 

are much less than those of these other agencies. 

According to CPSC and CBP, CPSC can refuse entry for products that 

violate U.S. laws, but CPSC does not have immediate funding available to 

subsequently destroy these products if the importers do not destroy or 

export these products at their own expense. Instead, CPSC generally asks 

 

46See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 202(c)(1) and (2), Pub. L. No. 

110-314, 122 Stat. at 3040. 

Page 23 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CBP to seize unsafe products, and CBP is authorized to access the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury’s Forfeiture Fund to cover the cost of product 

destruction. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is also available to CBP for 

other enforcement purposes, so that any money CBP uses for destroying 

seized products reduces the amount of money available to CBP for other 

purposes. Moreover, CBP is concerned that the costs of product 

destruction are likely to increase as CPSC fully implements CPSIA. 

Although CBP requires that formal entries be covered by a bond, which is 

another funding source that may be used to cover the cost of product 

destruction, we found that CBP has not pursued bonds for that purpose 

because they may not cover the full cost of destruction. CPSC officials 

also noted that bonds are not immediately available for product 

destruction but may only be recovered to reimburse destruction costs. 

However, a new mandate in CPSIA requires CPSC to work with CBP to set 

bond amounts sufficient to cover these costs.47 CBP and CPSC’s efforts to 

implement this requirement are still in process. Given the limited 

resources immediately available for product destruction, CBP indicated 

that CPSC and other federal agencies might explore other funding sources 

for this purpose. However, we previously found that estimating the cost of 

destroying consumer products is difficult given the wide range of products 

CPSC oversees, making it challenging to determine the appropriate size of 

a dedicated fund. In addition to setting aside enough funds for product 

destruction, CPSC would have to consider establishing parameters on the 

use of any funding source it administers.48

While CPSC has broad authority to conduct inspections of manufacturers 

and importers, significant resource and practical constraints limit its 

ability to conduct traditional inspections of foreign manufacturing plants. 

CPSC is required by rule to condition the import of a consumer product on 

the product manufacturer’s compliance with CPSC inspection and 

recordkeeping requirements.49 CPSC does not conduct inspections in 

 

47Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 224(a), 122 Stat. at 3069-70 (to be classified at 15 U.S.C. § 2088). 

48See GAO, Feasibility of Requiring Financial Assurances for the Recall and Destruction 

of Consumer Products, GAO-09-512R (Washington D.C.: Apr. 22, 2009). 

49See 15 U.S.C. §§ 2065(d) and 2066(g). CPSC has authority to enter and inspect, at 

reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, a “factory, fire-walled conformity assessment 

body, warehouse, or establishment where such products are manufactured, held, or 

transported and which may relate to the safety of such products.” 15 U.S.C. § 2065(a). Also, 

every manufacturer, private labeler, or distributor of a consumer product is required to 

establish and maintain records reasonably required by the commission to implement the 

Consumer Product Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2065(b). 

Page 24 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

foreign countries, and CPSC and many product safety and international 

trade experts cite several constraints on its ability to do so. Specifically, 

these parties state that U.S. inspectors would likely need the consent of 

both the foreign manufacturer and the foreign government to conduct an 

inspection. Other experts stated that such consent from a foreign 

government, if granted, may be accompanied by a request for the same 

rights to inspect U.S. manufacturing plants. Another constraint on 

inspections of foreign manufacturers is that such a program would need to 

be prohibitively large in order to be effective, perhaps larger than CPSC’s 

domestic inspection program. As noted earlier, CPSC had about 100 

product safety investigators in 48 locations to conduct its domestic 

inspections as of July 2009. Also, it is not clear what CPSC would look for 

when inspecting foreign manufacturing plants given that CPSC evaluates 

the final product for compliance with product safety regulations rather 

than the production process. As noted above, CPSC may condition the 

import of consumer products on cooperation with inspections. However, 

ensuring that the specific manufacturer’s products do not enter the United 

States would be difficult without detailed knowledge of individual 

companies’ supply chains, which could be gained through inspection of 

the manufacturer’s records.50 Due to these legal and practical constraints, 

CPSC stated that expanding its international education and outreach 

activities rather than conducting inspections of foreign manufacturing 

plants would more effectively prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 

products. 

 

50CPSC believes that certifications and tracking labels on consumer products may help in 

this regard. When implemented, certifications must identify the manufacturer issuing the 

certificate and the place of manufacture. See 15 U.S.C. § 2063(g)(1). Also, the Consumer 

Product Safety Act requires, as of August 14, 2009, that tracking labels be placed on 

children’s products identifying the specific source of the product. See 15 U.S.C. § 

2063(a)(5). 

Page 25 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CPSC’s regulatory authority to prevent the entry of unsafe imports is 

generally comparable to that of certain other federal agencies with 

substantial responsibility over the safety of products entering the United 

States. However, various border surveillance activities of FDA and 

USDA—particularly with respect to obtaining advance shipment data, 

allocating staff resources to border operations, and targeting capabilities, 

as well as efforts to work with foreign governments to educate foreign 

manufacturers about U.S. safety standards—provide useful information 

for strengthening CPSC’s efforts to prevent the entry of unsafe products. 

Authorities of Select 

Agencies Are 

Comparable to 

CPSC’s, but FDA and 

USDA’s Border 

Surveillance Activities 

and Overseas 

Presence Provide 

Useful Information 

for Strengthening 

CPSC’s 

Implementation of Its 

Authorities 

CPSC’s Authorities to 

Prevent the Entry of 

Unsafe Products Are 

Generally Comparable to 

Those of Other Federal 

Agencies 

CPSC’s authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe products are generally 

comparable to the authorities of four other federal agencies: FDA, which 

oversees, among other things, food, drugs, and medical devices; NHTSA, 

which, through delegated authority of the Secretary of Transportation, 

oversees motor vehicles and equipment; Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS), an agency of USDA that oversees egg products, poultry, 

and meat; and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an 

agency of USDA that oversees plants and animals. CPSC’s authorities 

provide it with similar or stronger authority to require or engage in certain 

activities compared with the authorities of the other agencies we studied. 

• Safety standards: All of these agencies have authority to regulate and 

enforce product safety standards or bans relevant to products under their 

jurisdiction.51

• Border surveillance: All of these agencies except NHTSA appear to have 

specific authority to conduct border surveillance activities and broad 

 

51See, for example, 15 U.S.C. § 2056-2057 (CPSC); 21 U.S.C. § 341 and § 360d(b) (FDA); 49 

U.S.C. § 30111 (NHTSA); and 21 U.S.C. § 1035, § 1036, § 453, § 456, § 601, and § 608 (USDA). 

Page 26 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

authority to refuse entry to items that fail to comply with relevant 

standards, among other things.52 NHTSA officials told us that, like CPSC, 

NHTSA requests that CBP detain and seize products at the border on its 

behalf. 

• Product certification/testing: Similar to FDA, manufacturers must certify 

to CPSC that their products comply with relevant standards, and this 

certification must be based on a reasonable testing program or, in the case 

of certain children’s products, the tests must be performed by third 

parties.53 Under FSIS, containers of eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat 

must be labeled as having passed inspection. Although NHTSA authorities 

require manufacturers of vehicles and equipment to certify that products 

comply with applicable federal safety standards, these certifications are 

not required to be based on testing. 

• Temporary hold at ports: CPSC, FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have the authority 

to temporarily hold shipments at U.S. ports for inspection. 

• Foreign inspection: Like FDA and FSIS, CPSC is not expressly prohibited 

from requesting consent to inspect foreign facilities. Specifically, CPSC 

may request inspection of foreign manufacturing or distribution facilities, 

third-party testing laboratories, or conveyances used to transport 

consumer products in commerce.54 As discussed above, CPSC does not 

conduct foreign inspections. Both FSIS and FDA have been successful in 

obtaining access to foreign facilities for the purpose of inspections or 

audits where incentives are strong for foreign entities to grant this access. 

For example, access is generally provided for requests that are tied to 

applications or audits before products may be eligible for import into the 

 

52See 15 U.S.C. § 2066(b) and (h), and § 2066(a-b) (CPSC); 21 U.S.C. § 381(a), § 381(m) and 

(o) (FDA); 7 U.S.C. § 7712(a), § 7713(a), § 8303(a), and § 8307(b) (USDA—live plants and 

animals); 21 U.S.C. § 620(a) (USDA—meat); 21 U.S.C. § 466(a) (USDA—poultry); 21 U.S.C. 

§ 1046(a) (USDA—egg products). 

53FDA may deny an application to introduce a new drug into commerce in the United States 

if the application does not include reports of adequate testing by all methods reasonably 

applicable to show whether or not the drug is safe for use. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b) and (e). 

Products under CPSC jurisdiction that are subject to a children’s product safety rule must 

be tested by a third party. See 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(2). 

5415 U.S.C. §§ 2065(a) and 2066(g). 

Page 27 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

United States.55 FDA officials told us that in practice, if a foreign firm 

refuses to permit such an inspection, FDA can sometimes refuse 

admission of products offered for import into the U.S. For example, the 

refusal to permit an inspection could lead to a product not receiving a 

required pre-market approval or the refusal to permit an inspection, 

combined with other information, could support a determination of the 

appearance of a violation. According to NHTSA, it does not have the 

authority to inspect foreign facilities for the manufacture of vehicles and 

vehicle equipment imported into the United States. 

• Consent to local court jurisdiction: Based on our interviews with officials 

at the federal agencies we studied, none of the agencies requires foreign 

manufacturers to consent to the jurisdiction of local courts with respect to 

enforcement actions. Some agencies, including CPSC, told us they do not 

see a need for this requirement, as they have been able to effectively carry 

out their enforcement duties under existing authorities. For example, 

foreign manufacturers seeking to offer motor vehicles for import into the 

United States are required by statute to designate a U.S. resident or firm as 

its agent to receive service of notices and process in administrative and 

judicial proceedings, and service on the agent is deemed to be service on 

the foreign manufacturer or importer.56 Also, FSIS told us that they expect 

foreign governments to carry out enforcement actions for their 

manufacturers that are certified to export to the United States. CPSC 

noted that it has satisfied its enforcement objectives by pursuing the 

domestic partners—manufacturers, importers, and retailers—of the 

foreign manufacturer without needing to resort to adjudicative 

proceedings. For example, in June 2009, CPSC reached a $2.3 million 

settlement with Mattel, Inc., regarding the importation of toys made in 

China that violated a federal ban on paint containing lead.57 Furthermore, 

 

55In general, imported egg products, poultry, and meat must be manufactured or processed 

in a foreign country that has obtained certification from FSIS indicating that it maintains a 

safety compliance program equivalent to that of the United States. See 21 U.S.C. § 466(d) 

and 9 C.F.R. Part 381, Subpart T (poultry); 21 U.S.C. § 620(f) and 9 C.F.R. Part 327 (meat 

products); 21 U.S.C. § 1046(a)(2) and 9 C.F.R. §§ 590.900—590.970 (egg products). 

Individual drugs and certain medical devices must obtain preapproval from FDA before 

they can be introduced, delivered, or marketed in U.S. commerce. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(a) 

and § 360(e). 

56See 49 U.S.C. § 30164; 49 C.F.R. Part 551. As noted in appendix II of this report, notice of 

an enforcement action is one of the necessary elements for establishing jurisdiction in a 

U.S. court. 

57In re Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0019 (reprinted in 74 Fed. 

Reg. 28030 (June 12, 2009)). 

Page 28 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CPSC also has the ability to settle enforcement actions with foreign 

parties. For example, in July 2009, CPSC reached a $50,000 settlement with 

a Hong Kong corporation with offices in the United States regarding the 

importation of toys manufactured in China that also violated the 

commission’s lead paint ban.58 Finally, CPSC staff we interviewed stated 

that the agency prefers to expand its international education and outreach 

programs rather than require foreign manufacturers to consent to U.S. 

jurisdiction to effectively prevent the entry of unsafe products, although 

they acknowledged that consent to jurisdiction or a requirement of a U.S. 

agent for service of process would be helpful.59 Appendix II contains a 

more detailed discussion of the elements of establishing personal 

jurisdiction in U.S. courts. 

The requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act appear to demand 

more from manufacturers than NHTSA with respect to preventing the 

entry of unsafe imports. NHTSA’s key authorities to ensure the safety of 

imported goods are to prescribe mandatory vehicle safety standards and to 

require foreign and domestic manufacturers to certify compliance with 

these standards. However, these certifications are not required to be based 

on a testing program, unlike CPSC’s new certification requirements for 

children’s products, nor are the results of any testing required to be 

reported to NHTSA as a condition to entry. Appendix III contains a more 

detailed description of the agencies’ key authorities for preventing the 

entry of unsafe products. 

Where key differences exist in these agencies’ authorities, they appear to 

be due to differences in the types of products under an agency’s 

jurisdiction and the particular risks that are presented. As such, these 

differences are not directly applicable to CPSC as it improves its ability to 

ensure the safety of imported goods. 

• FSIS’s foreign country equivalency: A major feature of FSIS’s framework 

for ensuring the safety of imported meat, poultry, and egg products is a 

requirement that foreign countries have a certified food safety system 

equivalent to that of the United States. As of fiscal year 2008, 34 foreign 

countries were eligible to import these products into the United States. 

According to an FSIS budget document, the United States invests 

 

58In re First Learning Company, Ltd., CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0026 (Jul. 8, 2009). 

59According to CPSC, formal action against a foreign corporation must be served following 

the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or 

Commercial Matters. 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (November 15, 1965). 

Page 29 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

substantial resources, over $800 million in fiscal year 2008, in the 

inspection of domestic products.60 The amount of funds spent on domestic 

inspection is relevant given that the concept of foreign equivalency is 

predicated on there being a domestic inspection program. As such, it is 

unclear how FSIS’s country equivalency program could be adapted for 

CPSC given that CPSC does not have comparable resources for the 

inspection of domestic products, with a budget of about $80 million in 

fiscal year 2008 for all of its activities. Furthermore, the concept of 

equivalency for meat, poultry, and egg products is established in a 1994 

multilateral trade agreement, to which the United States is a signatory.61

According to the United States Trade Representative, it is not clear 

whether any WTO Agreement to which the United States is a party 

specifically precludes application of an equivalency requirement to 

consumer products. 

• FDA’s preapproval of certain drugs and medical devices: In addition, 

FDA requires drug manufacturers to obtain prior approval for marketing 

certain drugs in the United States and for selling certain medical devices.62

However, FDA’s prior approval requirement would be inefficient for CPSC 

given the diversity of products it oversees and the frequency with which 

these products change or are updated. CPSC oversees thousands of types 

of consumer products, and many of the products it oversees, especially 

toys, change or are updated every year. 

Other key statutory differences across agency authorities need not be 

addressed by providing CPSC with new authorities because CPSC officials 

have told us they already consider CPSC to have similar authorities. 

• Agreements with foreign governments and overseas presence: FDA is 

authorized to participate through appropriate processes with 

representatives of other foreign countries to reduce the burden of 

regulation, harmonize regulatory requirements, and achieve appropriate 

reciprocal arrangements, including international agreements such as 

mutual recognition agreements, agreements to facilitate commerce in 

 

60According to USDA officials, FSIS invested approximately $19 million in fiscal year 2009 

to ensure the safety of imported products, which included costs for determining the 

equivalence of foreign inspection systems. 

61Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, signed April 15, 

1994, Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Marrakesh, 

Morocco. 

62See 21 U.S.C. § 355(a), § 360b(a), and § 360e. 

Page 30 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

devices, and memorandums of understanding, among other things.63 As 

discussed below, CPSC already has MOUs with foreign governments, 

including China and the EU, and is finalizing plans for its first overseas 

office in Beijing, China, in 2010. 

Other Federal Agencies’ 

Border Surveillance and 

Overseas Activities to 

Prevent the Entry of 

Unsafe Products May Be 

Useful for CPSC to 

Consider 

As CPSC considers ways to improve its ability to prevent the entry of 

unsafe imports, various agencies’ border surveillance and outreach 

activities to foreign governments and industry provide useful information. 

FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have expansive border surveillance activities based 

on the amount of data obtained on incoming shipments, number of staff 

supporting border surveillance operations, and targeting programs and 

information technology systems that help to integrate data from various 

sources for use in making border entry decisions. These capabilities 

enable these agencies to screen incoming shipments for a greater number 

of risks than CPSC does. According to data provided by CPSC, the agency 

has generally focused on relatively few categories of consumer products 

since 2001, specifically toys, fireworks, lighters, and electrical products 

(such as holiday lights and extension cords). 

• FDA and FSIS have better access to data for screening incoming 

shipments than CPSC. FDA receives shipment data from CBP for all 

entries under FDA jurisdiction that are imported or offered for import, 

which FDA then screens electronically against criteria it developed to 

detect potential violations, including information from domestic 

surveillance and outreach to foreign governments. In addition, the Public 

Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 

requires that FDA be given advance notice on shipments of imported food. 

FDA allows importers to provide this data no more than 30 days in 

advance of the date of arrival. This advance information helps FDA 

determine whether the food potentially poses a bioterrorism or other 

significant health risk such that FDA should deploy resources to the port 

of arrival so that an inspection can be conducted before the product enters 

the United States. FDA officials told us that this information has been so 

important in screening food shipments for potential violations that they 

are considering expanding prior notification requirements to all products 

the agency oversees. FSIS requires by regulation that various information 

accompany shipments of meat, poultry, and egg products in order to be 

considered for admission into the United States, including a foreign health 

certificate. As discussed earlier, while CPSC receives entry summary data 

 

63See 21 U.S.C. §§ 393(b)(3), 383(b), and 360(i)(3). 

Page 31 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

regarding shipments already released into commerce, CPSC does not 

receive data on incoming shipments prior to their arrival at U.S. ports of 

entry, though CBP receives such data as much as 24 hours before the 

shipment is loaded in the foreign port. Without advance shipment data, 

CPSC lacks information that other agencies have found useful in screening 

incoming shipments for potential safety violations. 

• FDA and USDA have significantly more staff supporting border 

operations than CPSC. Federal agencies assign staff resources to border 

operations to identify and refuse admission to potentially unsafe imported 

products. NHTSA has no staff dedicated to border operations, but instead 

relies on CBP to screen incoming shipments and third-party laboratories 

to test pulled shipments. However, FDA, FSIS, and APHIS assign 

significantly more staff resources to border operations. According to FSIS 

officials, the agency physically examines 100 percent of meat, poultry, and 

egg product shipments presented for import with about 75 inspectors 

located at approximately 150 facilities near 35 border entry points. In 

addition, FSIS employed 20 import surveillance officers as of fiscal year 

2009. APHIS officials told us 100 percent of plants and animals are 

inspected in cooperation with CBP. Because of the high percentage of 

shipments that are inspected, staff resources are accordingly greater. For 

example, about 1,800 port staff had been assigned to inspect fruit and 

plants at 139 ports of entry as of 2003. FDA examines approximately 1 

percent of food presented for import and has requested about $382 million 

for fiscal year 2010 for activities that support import safety. This amount 

would fund approximately 700 staff supporting import examinations alone, 

including port operations, of which 78 percent would be field based. FDA 

personnel cover most ports of entry into the United States, including 297 

ports in fiscal year 2008, but for the ports where FDA does not maintain a 

normal presence, it coordinates with CBP to ensure it is notified of 

relevant incoming shipments for which examination and/or sampling may 

take place. FDA’s border inspection activities are supported by 

compliance programs for agency field staff to use in carrying out 

inspections, sample collections, and analyses, among other things. For 

food safety alone, there are approximately 25 compliance programs and 12 

that cover different imported foods.64 While FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have 

significant resources devoted to the port and overseas activities, they still 

face significant challenges in ensuring that products entering the United 

 

64FDA compliance programs are documents prepared by FDA centers that provide 

guidance to field staff in carrying out investigations, inspections, sample collections, 

sample analyses, and regulatory activities in defined program areas, such as domestic 

seafood and pesticides in domestic foods. 

Page 32 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

States are safe for consumers. As discussed earlier, CPSC has 9 

compliance investigators at seven ports of entry, as well as about 100 

product safety investigators located across the United States who work 

episodically to support the import surveillance program. Although the 

missions of FDA, USDA, and CPSC differ, CPSC’s staff resources 

supporting border surveillance are much less than the staff resources of 

these other agencies and may not be adequate to prevent unsafe products 

from entering the United States. 

• FDA and USDA have more sophisticated information technology systems 

and analytical support to target potential risks at border entry points. FDA, 

FSIS, and APHIS invest significant resources in information technology 

systems that support border surveillance efforts. To oversee inspection of 

plants and animals, CBP created positions in each of its 20 district offices for 

agriculture liaisons. These liaisons not only advise CBP on border 

surveillance operations but also report back to APHIS on risks detected at the 

border for the purpose of expanding targeting operations. These liaisons have 

access to CBP’s Automated Targeting System, a computer system that stores 

detailed information from cargo manifests and other documents that shipping 

companies are required to provide before shipments arrive at ports for 

inspection.65 This system allows border staff to focus inspections on higher 

risk cargo. FSIS invests substantially—nearly $1 billion—in data 

infrastructure systems to assist its border inspections by linking inspection 

data with other public health information that is designed for FSIS to quickly 

and accurately identify trends and vulnerabilities affecting meat, poultry, and 

egg products. In addition, FSIS has developed a centralized computer 

system—the Automated Import Information System (AIIS)—that links all 

ports and tracks prior inspection results from each country and each foreign 

establishment for use in generating the type of inspection required on 

incoming shipments.66 FDA also uses an electronic environment—

Operational and Administrative System for Import Support (OASIS)—to 

screen shipments presented for entry for relative risks and for making entry 

 

65As stated above, all federal agencies with import regulatory responsibility are required to 

participate in the International Trade Data System, which, according to CBP, is intended to 

link these agencies to CBP’s Automated Targeting System. 

66FSIS is developing a new risk-based public health inspection program it calls the Public 

Health Information System (PHIS) that will phase out AIIS. We did not independently 

review AIIS or PHIS. 

Page 33 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

or inspection decisions.67 OASIS links with other data systems within FDA to

leverage the latest information relating to public health. Also, FDA staff 

manually enter criteria into OASIS from sources such as import alert 

documents so that products can be flagged as they enter U.S. custom

territory for the appearance of violations. According to FDA officials, ther

are currently about 270 import alerts in effect.

s 

e 

cts for 

s 

ols. 

 

68 FDA officials also told us that 

the overseas audits and direct communication with foreign governments 

provide useful information in helping border surveillance agents make entry 

determination decisions. As discussed earlier, CPSC targets few produ

border inspections and has not developed formal systems for assessing risk

and providing port staff with risk management to

Whereas border surveillance efforts are geared toward intercepting 

potentially unsafe products at U.S. borders, outreach activities focused 

overseas may prevent potentially unsafe products from being shipped to 

U.S. ports. To this end, FDA and USDA assign staff to permanent positions 

in foreign countries and send staff overseas on a temporary basis to 

conduct educational workshops, as well as to conduct audits and 

inspections. Furthermore, some agencies have established cooperative 

agreements with foreign agencies to facilitate product safety. 

• FDA and APHIS overseas outreach efforts help inform agencies about 

unsafe products. APHIS has more than 80 people around the world 

working with foreign embassies on plant and animal health issues. FDA 

announced the opening of offices in three cities in China in November 

2008, and it has also announced plans to place technical experts and 

inspectors in four other regions, including Europe, India, Latin America, 

and the Middle East.69 These staff would be supported by approximately 8 

staff in FDA headquarters in the United States. In addition, FDA has plans 

67We did not independently review OASIS. FDA is developing a new screening tool to 

replace the admissibility screening portion of OASIS it calls the Predictive Risk-Based 

Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance Targeting (PREDICT). The PREDICT 

screening tool will be different from the legacy OASIS screening module in that it is 

designed to use multiple factors including automated data mining, pattern discovery, open 

source intelligence, and database queries of other FDA Center databases to calculate a risk 

score for import shipments. 

68Import alerts indicate particular risks that are screened for at U.S. borders and face 

potential refusal into the United States. FDA officials told us the agency may issue an 

import alert based on information from market surveillance, border inspections, or from 

information they obtain directly from foreign countries. 

69As of July 15, 2009, the Department of State has denied FDA’s request to open an office in 

the Middle East. 

Page 34 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

to hire 20 locally employed staff. FDA staff told us that an in-country 

presence is useful in preventing the entry of unsafe products because it 

improves the information border agents have to make entry decisions and 

allows the agency to train foreign establishments about compliance 

requirements. As discussed in more detail later, CPSC states that, with 

increased resources, it plans to open its first overseas office in Beijing, 

China, to facilitate safety efforts with one of the largest exporters of 

consumer products to the United States. 

• FDA and FSIS conduct temporary visits, audits, or investigations in 

foreign countries that help to build foreign awareness of U.S. product 

safety laws. FSIS conducts on-site audits of foreign manufacturers as part 

of its systems equivalence determinations of foreign countries’ food safety 

systems. FDA officials told us that the audits and announced inspections it 

conducts of overseas manufacturers are very useful in training these 

manufacturers about U.S. standards. Furthermore, FDA has reported that 

it has engaged in a variety of efforts with foreign governments to build 

foreign capacity and provide technical assistance. For example, they 

report holding regional workshops in Peru and China, participating in a 

multilateral food safety meeting geared toward developing a rapid alert 

system, and auditing Chinese government inspectors during their review 

of 13 Chinese firms to detect drug residues in aquaculture products. As 

discussed earlier, CPSC does not conduct foreign inspections. However, 

CPSC staff have conducted visits to foreign manufacturing plants with the 

permission of the foreign government. CPSC also has plans for conducting 

three outreach and training events each for foreign government officials 

and foreign manufacturers in fiscal year 2010, but the agency is limited in 

its outreach efforts due to limited numbers of staff. 

• FDA and FSIS have actively engaged with foreign governments on food 

safety. FDA has actively engaged with foreign governments to develop 

cooperative arrangements and agreements, including a substantial number 

of international government-to-government agreements. FDA’s Web site 

indicates a total of 63 MOUs or other cooperative agreements with about 

25 different foreign countries.70 FSIS has also negotiated government-togovernment agreements as part of the food safety system equivalency 

determination process. Specifically, some countries have negotiated 

alternative sanitary measures to obtain this certification. As of July 2009, 

CPSC has established MOUs for the purpose of consumer product safety 

 

70As of June 18, 2009, at http://www.fda.gov/InternationalPrograms/Agreements/ 

MemorandaofUnderstanding /default.htm.

Page 35 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

with 16 foreign agencies, as discussed later, but this activity has occurred 

fairly recently and over the last few years. 

Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and the United States have some similar 

authorities for consumer product safety, but institutional structures to 

implement these authorities vary from country to country, reflecting 

unique national approaches. Countries also share similar challenges—such 

as inconsistent laws and standards and ineffective cooperation and liaison 

among agencies involved in consumer product safety— and national 

governments’ efforts to address import safety challenges have intensified 

in light of the growing volume of imports and recent consumer safety 

incidents. Among officials we interviewed, there is broad consensus that 

continued cooperation among governments, regulators and multilateral 

organizations can improve consumer product safety policy and 

enforcement consistency and, ultimately, the effectiveness of import 

safety frameworks. CPSC’s Office of International Programs and 

Intergovernmental Affairs participates in numerous activities with other 

countries and multilateral organizations. However, CPSC does not have 

comprehensive plans to guide its work with these countries and 

multilateral organizations due to resource constraints and other priorities, 

according to CPSC officials. 

Information Sharing 

and Cooperation 

among Countries 

Provide Way to Bridge 

Differences and 

Strengthen CPSC’s 

Implementation of Its 

Authorities, but CPSC 

Lacks a 

Comprehensive Plan 

to Guide Its Work 

While Similarities in 

Import Safety Authorities 

and Challenges Exist 

among Certain Countries, 

Their Institutional 

Structures and 

Implementation Reflect 

Unique National 

Approaches 

Import safety authorities in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and the 

United States reflect certain shared values and experiences. According to 

the OECD, a fundamental objective of consumer product safety policy is to 

prevent consumers from suffering harm as a consequence of using 

products that present an unreasonable risk of injury. While these countries 

have similar authorities, however, the implementation of those authorities 

may be different. For example, all the countries monitor both domestically 

manufactured and imported products, and all conduct some type of 

product testing and/or sampling. However, some of the countries monitor 

goods on their own initiative, while others operate on the basis of 

complaints that they receive about particular goods and products. 

According to the officials representing the countries we reviewed, none of 

those countries has the authority to conduct an extraterritorial inspection 

of the facilities of a foreign manufacturer that exports products to that 

country. In most cases, these officials stated that the countries have been 

more successful in working with the exporting country and its 

manufacturers in order to correct problems that may arise. These officials 

also stated that none of the countries we reviewed has the authority to 

Page 36 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

require foreign manufacturers to consent to local jurisdiction. U.S. 

Embassy and Australian government officials indicated that, under current 

law, Australia could ask foreign jurisdictions to enforce Australian 

consumer product safety laws; however, the Australian government 

prefers other methods, such as approaching manufacturers directly to 

raise safety concerns. 

The approach countries take to consumer product safety begins 

fundamentally with how they define “safe” and “unsafe” products. The 

definitions vary considerably from country to country, as indicated in 

appendix IV. According to a report by the OECD, most countries apply 

broad principles to determine whether a product can be defined as safe.71

For example, according to this report, in some countries (Japan, the 

United States, and the EU) all products must meet a positive standard—

that is, they should be safe for consumers to use or consume prior to 

market distribution. Businesses selling unsafe goods may be subject to 

regulatory action, regardless of whether the product has caused a specific 

accident, injury, or harm to a consumer. In other countries (Australia and 

Canada), according to the OECD report, products must not breach a 

negative standard—that is, once the goods are placed on the market they 

should not carry an unreasonable risk of injury or death. The report notes 

that producers are held liable for the negative effects of their products 

once placed on the market. 

According to officials, some variations exist with other authorities. They 

noted that in most of the countries we reviewed only a relatively small 

number of imported consumer products are subject to mandatory 

standards. However, according to a senior representative of an industrial 

association in Europe, the wide variety of product standards among 

countries, combined with variable concepts and legal interpretations 

applied by governments makes it difficult for industry to ensure safety and 

for countries to coordinate enforcement efforts. There are also differences 

in the case of product certification. Officials stated that neither Australia 

nor Canada requires certification for imported products. According to 

Japanese government officials, certain imported and domestic products in 

Japan are subject to product testing and cannot be sold in Japan without 

 

71In 2008, OECD sent out a questionnaire to its member nations on consumer product 

safety. The Analytical Report on Consumer Product Safety, DSTI/CP(2008)18/FINAL, 

OECD, 2008, was prepared to facilitate discussion of the questionnaire responses at the 

Roundtable on Consumer Product Safety, sponsored by the OECD Committee on 

Consumer Policy on Oct. 23, 2008. 

Page 37 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

certification to prescribed standards. In the EU, according to official 

documentation, businesses must carry out conformity and safety 

assessments of their products in accordance with the General Product 

Safety Directive (GPSD),72 and businesses are required to certify that their 

products are safe, as defined under GPSD. The documentation indicates 

that for some products self-declaration is sufficient, but other products 

require third-party verification. 

According to the OECD report on consumer product safety, institutional 

structures for product safety can also vary from country to country, which 

can sometimes create challenges for coordination within and among 

countries and, in many cases, accounts for differences in enforcement and 

implementation of authorities. The report states that in Canada, consumer 

product safety policy, development, enforcement, information, and 

education functions are in one organization, Health Canada, with the 

provinces retaining some enforcement responsibilities. In the United 

States, CPSC is the primary agency responsible for implementing and 

enforcing federal consumer product safety laws and establishing 

consumer product safety policy. The OECD report further notes that some 

countries have institutional arrangements that separate policy and 

enforcement functions. In Japan, for example, policy responsibility is 

spread across the government in a range of departments, with a central 

coordinating function in a central policy agency (the Cabinet Office). 

Certain other countries, such as Australia, have regionally focused policy 

and enforcement structures for consumer product safety that reflect a 

division of powers and responsibilities between the national government 

and states, provinces or regions. In the EU, policy responsibilities lie with 

the European Commission, the executive arm of the EU responsible for 

defining and implementing its policies and running its programs. However, 

individual EU member countries are responsible in their respective 

territories for enforcement—market surveillance, product monitoring and 

testing, and possible restrictive or corrective actions. 

 

72GPSD aims at ensuring that only safe consumer products are sold in the EU. According to 

the EU, GPSD provides a broad definition of a safe product, and products must comply 

with this definition. In addition to the basic requirement to place only safe products on the 

market, producers must inform consumers of the risks associated with the products they 

supply. They must take appropriate measures to prevent such risks and be able to trace 

dangerous products. Under GPSD, the member states are obliged to enforce the 

requirements on producers and distributors. In addition to the power to impose penalties, 

the directive gives the surveillance authorities a wide range of monitoring and intervention 

powers. 

Page 38 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Countries also share similar challenges as they respond to changing 

demands in the international market place. Similar to the United States, 

national governments’ efforts to address import safety problems have 

intensified in light of the growing volume of imports entering each country 

and recent consumer safety incidents. According to the OECD report, 

many countries face enforcement challenges at both domestic and 

international levels, including 

• finite resources; 

• inconsistent laws, regulations, standards, and sanctions within 

countries and across borders; 

• ineffective cooperation and liaison among agencies involved in 

consumer product safety enforcement; and 

• insufficient sharing of injury information across borders. 

Governments have taken a variety of actions to address these challenges, 

including enacting new laws and regulations and, in some cases, they have 

created new organizations to address new consumer safety challenges. See 

appendix IV for more information. 

Engagement among 

Countries Provides Ways 

to Address Shared Import 

Safety Challenges 

Officials in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan and the United States indicate 

that a mix of bilateral (country-to-country) and multilateral (involving 

multiple countries) exchanges and agreements among importing and 

exporting countries has been useful in addressing import safety 

challenges. The CPSC and its counterparts in other countries have taken a 

particularly active role in engaging China on consumer safety issues to 

create more transparent and cooperative relationships. 

According to the OECD’s 2008 Report on Consumer Product Safety, 

bilateral engagement helps facilitate an exchange of information regarding 

consumer product safety issues and provides a mechanism for 

coordinated action against unsafe products. In the United States, CPSC’s 

Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs 

administers MOUs between CPSC and consumer product safety entities in 

other countries, maintains regular contact with key exporting countries, 

and attends meetings and discussions sponsored by multilateral 

organizations. According to CPSC, as of June 2009, the office had 

established MOUs for the purpose of consumer product safety with 16 

foreign agencies in Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Israel, South Korea, 

Page 39 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, India, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, Egypt, Columbia, 

and Vietnam. CPSC’s Office of International Programs also conducts 

training sessions in various countries to explain U.S. import safety 

processes and procedures. According to CPSC, staff hold monthly 

teleconferences with the agency’s counterparts in Canada, China, and the 

EU, and every two months CPSC holds a three-way teleconference with 

Mexico and China to provide additional opportunities for engagement. In 

2008, CPSC created a Chinese-language page on the CPSC Web site and, 

not long after, a Vietnamese-language page to help facilitate information 

sharing. The pages provide information about U.S. product safety 

requirements, including relevant regulations and standards for products 

bound for the U.S. market, as well as information about the new CPSIA. 

Over the last few years, CPSC has increased its bilateral engagement with 

China. According to CPSC, the first U.S.-China Product Safety Summit was 

held in Beijing in 2005 and culminated in a joint Action Plan on Consumer 

Product Safety. CPSC and its counterpart in China, the General 

Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine 

(AQSIQ), established four working groups focused on fireworks, toys, 

lighters, and electrical products. According to CPSC, a third summit will 

be held in October 2009 and will build on the previous two, with the goal 

of institutionalizing a culture of product safety among Chinese consumer 

product manufacturers and exporters. In 2005, CPSC established a China 

Program Plan as a way of managing CPSC’s various China-related 

activities and as the basis for an overall strategy to promote the safety and 

compliance of Chinese consumer products exported to the United States. 

Although the plan is to be updated on an annual basis to account for 

changing conditions and new opportunities for progress, CPSC has not 

updated the China Program Plan since 2007. According to a senior CPSC 

official, the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 plans were essentially the same as 

the 2007 plan. He stated, however, that a revised China Program Plan for 

2010 will be submitted to the reconstituted commission and will be 

published when approved. 

Other countries have also established bilateral agreements with China. 

The European Commission engages in international contacts and 

cooperation and has, for instance, agreed on a Memorandum of 

Understanding with China's AQSIQ.73 According to the EU, one of the key 

 

73According to the EU, half of all dangerous products seized by European customs and 

product safety authorities in 2008 came from China, and China is the EU’s biggest supplier. 

Page 40 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

initiatives launched by the EU and China has involved the RAPEX system, 

the EU’s Rapid Alert System for nonfood consumer products.74 In May 

2006, according to EU documentation, the European Commission decided 

to provide China’s AQSIQ with access to the RAPEX system—specifically 

its notifications on products coming from China. EU officials report that 

China agreed to investigate all reported cases of dangerous products of 

Chinese origin and report back to the EU on the results, including 

withdrawals of export license and other corrective actions.75 Also, EU 

officials state that certain individual EU Member States have established 

limited bilateral contacts with China. According to Health Canada, Canada 

signed an agreement with China on import safety in 2007. A summit 

between China, the EU, and the United States occurred in November 2008 

to strengthen consumer product safety trilateral cooperation, according to 

U.S. and EU documents. As a key exporting nation, China has revised 

some of its own laws, regulations, and procedures in response to highprofile recalls of Chinese-made goods and the consequent international 

engagement on these issues, according to a senior CPSC official. He 

indicated that an example of such a change occurred in March 2009, when 

the Chinese National Institute of Standardization approved Administrative 

Guidelines for Safe Consumer Product Manufacturing that emphasizes the 

role of manufacturers in ensuring consumer product safety. In addition, 

the CPSC official stated that China’s AQSIQ had reported to CPSC that it 

has increased significantly the inspection of paint on export toys and 

closed down many factories that failed to implement a government 

requirement of selecting paint suppliers for toys only from a governmentapproved list. 

Multilateral engagement on consumer product safety issues provides other 

ways to encourage sharing of information and lessons learned on 

consumer product safety among a larger group of nations. Organizations 

such as OECD, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the 

 

74The EU’s RAPEX system was established by the GPSD and applies to only nonfood 

consumer products. It is designed to ensure the swift transfer of information on dangerous 

nonfood consumer products found in one EU member state to the European Commission 

and to other member states. The system is intended to promote effective cross-border 

market surveillance. Once a dangerous product is found and stopped, the national contact 

point notifies national market surveillance authorities, customs authorities, and the 

European Commission. The commission validates the notification and then transmits the 

information to the other countries through the RAPEX system. 

75Summaries of these reports are publicly available at 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/int_coop/july2009_after_vi_report.pdf. 

Page 41 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

International Consumer Product Safety Caucus provide additional 

frameworks for cooperation. U.S. and other officials believe that 

continued cooperation and coordination among governments and 

regulators can improve policy consistency and enforcement and, 

ultimately, the effectiveness of consumer product safety frameworks, 

particularly since consumer safety enforcement challenges are shared by 

most nations. 

On October 23, 2008, the OECD’s Committee on Consumer Policy hosted 

its first Roundtable on International Consumer Product Safety, with an 

aim to examine consumer product safety trends and challenges at both 

domestic and international levels. The Director of CPSC’s Office of 

International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs attended this 

meeting, as did other OECD member nation representatives. The final 

report identified a number of key issues shared by member nations and 

initiatives for the future.76 CPSC representatives have also participated in 

APEC discussions concerning consumer product safety. In 2007, APEC 

leaders agreed on the need to develop a more robust approach to 

strengthening food and consumer product safety standards and practices 

in the region, using scientific, risk-based approaches and without creating 

unnecessary impediments to trade, according to APEC documents. APEC 

members reconvened in 2009 to determine future work on consumer 

product safety. CPSC’s Chairman and three staff participated in an APEC 

regulators’ dialogue on toy safety in August 2009 in Singapore aimed at 

strengthening information exchange among APEC members’ product 

safety officials. 

The International Consumer Product Safety Caucus is another platform 

that facilitates the exchange of information on consumer product safety 

issues in the area of governmental policy, legislation and market 

surveillance, with a view to strengthening collaboration and cooperation 

among governments and regulatory agencies around the world. Current 

active members include Australia, Canada, China, the EU, Korea, Japan, 

and the United States (represented by CPSC). The caucus meets at least 

twice a year. 

 

76The roundtable recommended greater coordination and cooperation within and among 

countries and multilateral organizations. In addition, the roundtable also recommended 

that governments take a more proactive approach to product safety failure, make greater 

efforts to harmonize product safety standards internationally, and work to develop a rapid 

international information exchange system. See OECD Roundtable on Consumer Product 

Safety—Summary Report, DSTI/CP (2009)1/FINAL, OECD (October 2008). 

Page 42 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

CPSC Has Not Developed 

Long-term Plans for 

International Activities 

While CPSC participates in numerous activities with other countries and 

multilateral organizations to establish and strengthen coordinated actions 

against unsafe consumer products, and has established MOUs with 16 

foreign agencies for this purpose, CPSC does not have plans covering its 

work with these countries and multilateral organizations—except for 

China. According to CPSC, this is due to resource limitations in CPSC’s 

Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs (as 

discussed earlier, the office has four staff) and because of its focus on 

China as the single largest source of foreign-made products. A senior 

CPSC official stated that with the creation of an additional staff position in 

the Office of International Programs, the office plans to expand its 

program planning to better address other countries. However, without a 

long-term plan that incorporates all the office’s activities, it is difficult to 

accurately assess current and future resource needs and take best 

advantage of opportunities for future coordination and cooperation among 

importing and exporting nations that CPSC considers integral to 

preventing the entry of unsafe products. Long-term planning is particularly 

important for CPSC’s Office of International Programs and 

Intergovernmental Affairs because of the diverse nature of its 

responsibilities and to ensure consistency in CPSC’s policies. 

CPSC has established annual goals and short-term plans to prevent the 

entry of unsafe products but lacks a long-term plan to address the agency’s 

growing role in import safety. Without a long-term plan, CPSC is not fully 

prepared to use new authorities granted in CPSIA, nor is it able to 

effectively address the safety of imported products through international 

means or to appropriately allocate any potential increases in agency 

resources. 

CPSC Has Established 

Annual Goals and 

Short-term Plans to 

Prevent the Entry of 

Unsafe Products, but 

Lacks a Long-term 

Plan for the Future 

CPSC Has Established 

Short-term Plans and 

Annual Goals for Import 

Safety 

In May 2009, CPSC submitted a 2010 Performance Budget Request to 

Congress, which contains a section called the Import Safety Initiative. This 

initiative has three key principles: (1) assure that product safety is built 

into manufacturing and distribution processes from the start, (2) increase 

enforcement at the border to stop dangerous goods from entering the 

country, and (3) enhance surveillance of the marketplace to remove 

unsafe products from store shelves. These three principles are consistent 

with principles established on a governmentwide basis in 2007. In 

Page 43 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

particular, the principles are consistent with those established by the 

Interagency Working Group on Import Safety, of which CPSC was a part.77

The working group issued an Action Plan for Import Safety in November 

2007 that established three organizing principles: (1) prevention, which 

means to prevent harm in the first place by working with the private sector 

and foreign governments to adopt an approach to import safety that builds 

safety into manufacturing and distribution processes; (2) intervention, 

which means to act swiftly and in a coordinated manner when problems 

are discovered to seize, destroy, or otherwise prevent dangerous goods 

from advancing beyond the point of entry; and (3) response, which means 

to take swift action to limit potential exposure and harm to the American 

public in the event an unsafe import makes its way into domestic 

commerce. 

As part of the governmentwide strategy, CPSC developed its Import Safety 

Initiative, which contains annual goals that are consistent with the 

initiative’s key principles, but it is a short-term plan. For example, to help 

assure that product safety is built into manufacturing and distribution 

processes from the start, CSPC states that it plans to conduct three 

outreach and training events for foreign government officials in 2010 and 

three outreach and training events for foreign manufacturers. CPSC also 

has a short-term plan for how it will manage its various China-related 

activities and states that, for 2010, staff will review and update this plan. 

To increase enforcement at the border, CPSC states that it plans to 

increase the number of full-time staff working at U.S. ports and to increase 

the number of sample products screened at the ports. CPSC’s Import 

Safety Initiative also links goals to requests for increased resources. For 

example, CPSC states that, with increased resources, it plans to increase 

its presence at U.S. ports of entry and open its first overseas office in 

Beijing, China. 

CPSC officials have described to us other short-term plans that they 

developed to respond to requirements and authorizations in CPSIA. For 

example, as discussed earlier in this report, CPSC’s decision to assign 

additional full-time staff to ports responds to Section 202 of CPSIA, which 

 

77The Interagency Working Group on Import Safety, composed of representatives from 12 

cabinet departments and agencies, including CPSC, was formed by executive order in July 

2007. The working group issued its Action Plan for Import Safety on Nov. 6, 2007, which 

contained several recommendations designed to improve the safety of imported products. 

According to a CBP official, representatives from import safety agencies, including CPSC, 

continue to meet to implement certain recommendations of the action plan. 

Page 44 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

requires CPSC to hire personnel to be assigned to duty stations at U.S. 

ports of entry, or to inspect overseas manufacturing facilities, subject to 

the availability of appropriations. In its Import Safety Initiative, CPSC 

requests funding for 10 additional staff to be assigned to ports in 2010. A 

CPSC official with whom we spoke said that he expects the number of 

staff assigned to ports to grow from its current level of 9 to about 50 over 

the next few years. However, CPSC has conducted limited analyses of how 

it plans to assign additional staff to ports in the coming years, and 

standard operating procedures that describe compliance investigators’ 

roles and responsibilities at ports of entry have not been updated since 

1989. CPSC officials acknowledged the need to update these procedures. 

CPSIA also requires CPSC, as discussed earlier in this report, to develop a 

methodology for identifying shipments of imported consumer products 

that are likely to violate import provisions enforced by CPSC due by 

August 2010. CPSC, as noted earlier, has taken steps to develop a plan for 

sharing information and coordinating with CBP, but it is unlikely that 

CPSC will complete this plan by August 2009, as required under CPSIA, 

because of delays in updating its agreements with CBP. 

CPSC Has Recognized the 

Need for U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Policy to 

Comply with WTO 

Obligations and 

International Trade 

Agreements 

In undertaking its planning efforts, CPSC has recognized the need for U.S. 

consumer product safety policy to comply with World Trade Organization 

(WTO) obligations and international trade agreements—a positive 

recognition on CPSC’s part. A CPSC official involved in international 

education and outreach activities said that, in working to address U.S. 

concerns about the safety of imported products, it is also critical to 

comply with WTO rules. The official said there are statutory 

requirements—namely, the Trade Act of 1979—mandating U.S. standards 

for complying with international trade agreements. He said that CPSC has 

had a productive working relationship with USTR in the past, and that 

CPSC is looking to formalize its working relationship with USTR in the 

future by developing internal standard operating procedures for consulting 

with USTR. The official said that the procedures would be useful to CPSC 

in identifying issues that should have USTR’s input before they are 

finalized. CPSC has also recognized the importance of international trade 

agreements through its work with international groups, such as OECD, as 

discussed previously in this report. In particular, CPSC has recognized that 

the WTO Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade—which establishes 

rules for preparing, adopting, and applying technical regulations, 

standards, and conformity assessment procedures—serves to encourage 

uniformity and predictability in national consumer product safety regimes. 

Page 45 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

Although CPSC has established short-term plans and annual goals to 

prevent the entry of unsafe products, the agency has not developed a longterm plan for addressing its import safety work. In particular, CPSC has 

not updated its agencywide Strategic Plan, which was issued in 2003 and 

was due for revision in 2006. According to the Government Performance 

and Results Act, strategic plans help agencies establish long-term goals, 

including identifying the resources needed to accomplish these goals. The 

act calls for federal agencies to develop multiyear strategic plans and 

update them at least every 3 years. CPSC’s Strategic Plan does not reflect 

its import safety work, its plans for international education and outreach 

activities, its plans to use new authorities granted in CPSIA to prevent the 

entry of unsafe products, or its plans to respond to mandates in CPSIA to 

improve its risk assessment and coordination with CBP. CPSC has 

recently begun efforts to update its Strategic Plan by requesting public 

comments on revisions to the plan.78

CPSC Lacks a Long-term 

Plan to Prevent the Entry 

of Unsafe Products 

In addition to lacking a long-term plan to prevent the entry of unsafe 

products, CPSC does not have outcome-oriented performance measures to 

assess the effectiveness of its import safety work. One of CPSC’s goals for 

2010 is to develop measures of import safety success, according to CPSC’s 

Import Safety Initiative. CPSC reports that, in 2008, staff researched and 

evaluated information for an enhanced surveillance system, making 

contact with FDA, CBP, and Internal Revenue Service staff to discuss 

methods and requirements of their systems. As discussed earlier in this 

report, CPSC has also requested public input concerning the development 

of consumer product safety metrics, but it received only two responses, 

neither of which addressed CPSC’s need for developing new performance 

measures.79

CPSC has established short-terms plans and annual goals for its import 

safety work, but it does not have goals for these activities beyond 2010. 

Without a long-term plan for import safety that contains key goals and 

performance measures, CPSC may be unable to replicate or enhance its 

short-term efforts over the longer term. For example, CPSC may find 

 

78See “Consumer Product Safety Commission Agenda, Priorities, and Strategic Plan: 

Request for Comments,” 74 Fed. Reg. 109 (Jun. 9, 2009). 

79We previously reported that when agencies have difficulty establishing outcome-oriented 

performance measures, they can develop intermediate measures that show how programs 

are contributing toward end outcomes. See GAO, Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad 

Administration Is Taking Steps to Better Target Its Oversight, but Assessment of Results 

Is Needed to Determine Impact, GAO-07-149 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 2007): 39-47. 

Page 46 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

insufficient staff to cover meetings and seminars needed to work with 

foreign governments and foreign manufacturers over the long-term to 

build product safety into manufacturing and distribution processes from 

the start. CPSC may also find it difficult to analyze any data it collects 

through surveillance of the marketplace to strengthen and improve its 

targeting decisions at the ports. Finally, CPSC may face challenges in 

ensuring that any further resources it devotes to increasing its port staff 

and operations are also accompanied by appropriate growth in its 

analytical and other support staff to help ensure a comprehensive and 

balanced approach to product safety. 

Broad agreement exists among CPSC staff, legal experts, industry 

representatives, and consumer advocates that CPSC’s authorities to 

prevent the entry of unsafe products into the United States have the 

potential to be effective, but only if they are implemented more fully. With 

delays in some rulemakings, such as testing and certification 

requirements, it remains unclear whether CPSC will be able to implement 

its authorities effectively. Furthermore, CPSC faces significant challenges 

due to competing priorities and resource constraints. CPSC has taken 

positive steps to shift its approach to import product safety from one 

focused on responding to problems after products have entered the 

marketplace to an approach focused on preventing harmful products from 

ever reaching consumers. To implement this preventive approach, CPSC 

states that it is taking steps to enhance surveillance activities, increase 

enforcement at the ports, engage foreign governments, and educate 

foreign manufacturers on U.S. standards for consumer product safety. 

Conclusions 

Our work demonstrates that CPSC needs to strengthen its surveillance 

activities, particularly its ability to target potentially unsafe products for 

further screening and review at U.S. ports. CPSC has yet to obtain access 

to advance shipment data, which FDA’s experience suggests could be 

useful in targeting incoming shipments. In addition, CPSC’s agreements 

with CBP are outdated, which hinders CPSC and CBP’s ability to target 

imports under CPSC’s jurisdiction. CPSIA requires that CPSC and CBP 

work together to develop a methodology to assess the risks of various 

imported products and to cooperate on CPSC’s participation in a CBP 

targeting center. These joint efforts are a key element for improving 

CPSC’s ability to target shipments for screening and review at the ports 

and to ensuring consistent enforcement of CPSC’s authorities across the 

United States. Because CPSC relies heavily on CBP for enforcement at the 

ports, it is imperative for CPSC and CBP to resolve issues concerning their 

agreements for sharing information and update their procedures for 

Page 47 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

operating at the port. CPSC’s targeting efforts could be strengthened 

further through expanded engagement with foreign governments and 

education of foreign manufacturers on U.S. consumer product safety 

standards. Such outreach could inform industry of its responsibility for the 

safety of consumer products entering the United States and provide CPSC 

with information on manufacturing in the respective countries to assist the 

agency’s development of a risk assessment methodology for imported 

products. Without improving its ability to target potential risks across a 

broad range of product categories, it is unclear how CPSC will succeed in 

preventing unsafe consumer products from entering the United States. 

CPSC’s inspection of foreign manufacturing plants faces practical 

constraints and would likely require tremendous resources to implement. 

CPSC believes strong cooperative relationships between countries to build 

strong frameworks for consumer product safety are a more effective 

approach for the United States. As part of its approach, CPSC is in the 

process of developing such relationships, and current MOUs between 

CPSC and certain foreign countries primarily address information sharing. 

CPSC officials state that expanding CPSC’s education and outreach rather 

than inspection of foreign plants could serve to more effectively prevent 

the entry of unsafe consumer products. Similarly, officials from the U.S. 

agencies, with the exception of FDA, and countries we reviewed, stated 

that they do not conduct inspections of foreign manufacturing plants. In 

most cases, officials we interviewed stated that the countries have been 

more successful in working with exporters in order to correct problems 

that may arise. Therefore, we are not recommending any additional 

authorities be granted to CPSC at this time. 

Efforts to expand U.S. jurisdiction to foreign manufacturers for purposes 

of enforcement action also present unique practical considerations. It may 

be argued that if foreign manufacturers were required to consent to U.S. 

jurisdiction, CPSC’s enforcement ability would be strengthened because 

CPSC would have one less hurdle to overcome in pursuing enforcement 

actions. Nevertheless, CPSC staff stated that, at this time, CPSC does not 

see the need for this requirement in order to effectively carry out its 

enforcement duties. To date, CPSC has been able to satisfy its 

enforcement objectives by pursuing the domestic partners—broadly 

defined to include those companies along the supply chain to the 

retailer—associated with the foreign manufacturer. CPSC also has the 

ability to settle enforcement actions with foreign parties. FDA and USDA 

officials have found that their efforts to educate overseas industry and 

governments on U.S. safety standards and the particular risks being 

screened for at the border could reduce the number of unsafe products 

Page 48 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

that reach U.S. consumers. Similarly, CPSC staff we interviewed stated 

that expanded international education and outreach, rather than expanded 

enforcement jurisdiction, would more effectively prevent the entry of 

unsafe products, although they acknowledged that consent to jurisdiction 

or a requirement of a U.S. agent for service of process would be helpful. 

Due to the practical considerations associated with requiring foreign 

manufacturers to consent to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of CPSC 

enforcement actions, we make no recommendations for additional CPSC 

authorities at this time. 

CPSC’s short-term plans to prevent the entry of unsafe products are 

consistent with a governmentwide approach taken by the Interagency 

Working Group on Import Safety in 2007. That group, of which CPSC was a 

part, established three organizing principles—prevention, intervention, and 

response—that represent, in our view, a comprehensive approach to import 

safety. However, CPSC lacks a long-term plan to prevent the entry of unsafe 

products. CPSC has not updated its September 2003 Strategic Plan, even 

though the Government Performance and Results Act requires this plan to be 

updated at least every 3 years. Although CPSC has initiated steps to update its 

Strategic Plan by requesting public comments, it is important for CPSC to 

work expeditiously to follow through on its efforts. In addition, while CPSC 

recognizes the need for outcome-oriented performance measures and has 

taken steps to develop new measures, it does not currently have such 

measures in place for its import safety work. Without a long-term plan that 

contains key goals and measures, CPSC may find it difficult to address its 

challenges in implementing the new authorities granted in CPSIA to prevent 

the entry of unsafe products, such as decisions about where and how to 

allocate any future increases in agency resources. 

First, to ensure that CPSC is able to exercise its full authority to prevent 

the entry of unsafe consumer products into the United States, we 

recommend that CPSC ensure expeditious implementation of key 

provisions of CPSIA, including establishing the substantial product hazard 

list and implementing testing and certification requirements that are 

subject to stay of enforcement until February 2010, and complete its 

rulemaking as required under the act. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Second, to strengthen CPSC’s ability to prevent the entry of unsafe 

products into the United States, we recommend that the Chairman and 

commissioners of CPSC take several actions to improve the agency’s 

ability to target shipments for further screening and review at U.S. ports of 

entry as follows: 

Page 49 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

1. To ensure that it has appropriate data and procedures to prevent entry 

of unsafe products into the United States, we recommend that CPSC 

update agreements with CBP to clarify each agency’s roles and to 

resolve issues for obtaining access to advance shipment data; and 

2. To improve its targeting decisions and build its risk-analysis capability, 

we recommend that CPSC 

a. work with CBP, as directed under CPSIA through the planned 

targeting center for health and safety issues, to develop the 

capacity to analyze advance shipment data; and 

b. link data CPSC gathers from surveillance activities and from 

international education and outreach activities to further target 

incoming shipments. 

Third, to provide better long-term planning for its import safety work and 

to account for new authorities granted in CPSIA, we recommend that 

CPSC expeditiously update its agencywide Strategic Plan. In updating its 

Strategic Plan, we recommend that CPSC consider the impact of its 

enhanced surveillance of the marketplace and at U.S. ports as discussed 

above and determine whether requisite analytical and laboratory staff are 

in place to support any increased activity that may occur at U.S. ports. 

Furthermore, we recommend that CPSC’s Strategic Plan include a 

comprehensive plan for the Office of International Programs and 

Intergovernmental Affairs to work with foreign governments in bilateral 

and multilateral environments to 

1. educate foreign manufacturers about U.S. product safety standards 

and best practices, and 

2. coordinate on development of effective international frameworks for 

consumer product safety. 

We provided a draft of this report to CPSC, CBP, USTR, and the 

Departments of Agriculture; Commerce; Health and Human Services; 

State; and Transportation; and to EU and Canadian officials for review and 

comment. CPSC, CBP, USTR, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, 

Transportation, and EU and Canadian officials provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. CPSC stated that it 

concurs with our recommendations. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 50 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC. We are also 

sending copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland 

Security, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation, the 

United States Trade Representative, and other interested parties. The 

report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V. 

Alicia Puente Cackley 

Director, Financial Markets and 

 Community Investment 

Page 51 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 52 GAO-09-803 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To determine the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission’s (CPSC) import safety authorities, we examined CPSC data 

and interviewed CPSC officials to learn how the agency measures and 

assesses its own effectiveness. We also conducted extensive document 

reviews on consumer product safety generally and import safety 

specifically. We interviewed legal professionals and consumer and 

industry representatives to obtain their perspective on the effectiveness of 

CPSC’s authorities. We also interviewed officials from other federal 

agencies involved in imported product safety, including U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), the Office of the United States Trade 

Representative (USTR), and the Departments of State and Commerce. We 

visited a U.S. port of entry to observe CPSC import surveillance activities 

and CPSC’s interaction with staff from CBP. We also visited CPSC’s 

Product Testing Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to observe 

laboratory testing that supports import safety activities. 

To compare CPSC’s authorities with respect to the safety of imported 

products with the authorities of select federal agencies, we identified key 

federal agencies with import regulatory authority over other types of 

consumer goods. These agencies are the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), which oversees the safety of imported food, drugs, cosmetics, and 

medical devices; the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversees the safety of 

imported egg products, meat and poultry; USDA’s Animal Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS), which oversees the safety of imported plants 

and animals; and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), which oversees the safety of imported motor vehicles and 

equipment. We interviewed officials from each of these agencies, had them 

identify the primary statutory authorities for ensuring the safety of imports 

under their jurisdiction, and discussed various agency activities supporting 

import safety. For FDA, the primary statutory authority is the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. For USDA, the primary statutory 

authorities are the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 

Inspection Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, the Animal Health 

Protection Act, and the Plant Protection Act. For NHTSA, the primary 

statutory authority is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 

which has been classified, as amended, at Subtitle VI of Title 49 of the U.S. 

Code. 

For our comparative analysis of the product safety authorities of foreign 

countries, we selected countries that are members of the International 

Consumer Product Safety Caucus, which is an international forum 

consisting of product safety officials from member governments to 

 Consumer Safety 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

facilitate the exchange of information on consumer product safety. 

Specifically, we selected Australia, Canada, China, the European Union 

(EU), and Japan.1

 We developed a set of questions concerning consumer 

product safety authorities, practices, and procedures and worked through 

the U.S. Department of State to distribute the questions to appropriate 

contacts at U.S. embassies overseas and, in some cases, to foreign 

embassies in Washington, D.C. We interviewed desk officers for the 

selected countries from the Departments of State and Commerce in 

Washington, D.C., and relied on the Department of State to advise us on 

the recommended approach to take with each country. We reviewed 

foreign laws and regulations, as well as other documents regarding 

product safety, provided by U.S. Embassy officials in the selected 

countries. We did not independently analyze the laws, regulations, or 

procedures of these countries; instead, we relied on third-party 

assessments of each country’s consumer product safety framework. We 

received written responses to our questions from and conducted 

interviews with the U.S. embassies in Australia, Canada, and China. U.S. 

embassy officials told us that their responses were coordinated with 

country officials knowledgeable of the respective country’s laws, 

regulations, and procedures. We received written responses to our 

questions from officials with the Embassy of Japan in Washington, D.C. 

We received written answers to our questions from consumer product 

safety officials in the EU. We also received information from the supreme 

audit institutions in these countries regarding their work on consumer 

product safety. We conducted interviews with consumer product safety 

officials from Canada, the EU, and Japan at a conference of the 

International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization (ICPHSO) 

in Orlando, Florida. We reviewed publicly available documents on the Web 

sites of consumer product safety agencies in each country. We also 

reviewed and utilized documents provided by the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including OECD 

member country responses to a 2008 questionnaire concerning consumer 

product safety. Department of State officials reviewed a draft of our 

country summaries and provided comments, which we incorporated. 

To evaluate CPSC’s plans to prevent the entry of unsafe products in the 

future, we reviewed CPSC’s 2010 Performance Budget Request and 

 

1

South Korea is also a member of the International Consumer Product Safety Caucus, but 

due to resource constraints, we omitted Korea from our analysis. The EU is a customs 

territory, but we refer to it as a country in this report for ease of reference. 

Page 53 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

compared CPSC’s planning efforts to guidance GAO has developed for 

implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. We 

examined other CPSC data and interviewed CPSC officials to learn about 

CPSC’s future plans. We also interviewed legal professionals and 

consumer and industry representatives to obtain their perspectives on 

CPSC’s future plans. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to August 

2009, 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. 

Page 54 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix II: Personal Jurisdiction Over 

Foreign Manufacturers for CPSC Appendix II: Personal Jurisdiction Over Enforcement Purposes 

Foreign Manufacturers for CPSC 

Enforcement Purposes 

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act contained a mandate 

requiring that GAO make a recommendation as to whether foreign 

manufacturers should be required to consent to the jurisdiction of U.S. 

courts with respect to enforcement actions by the commission. We raised 

this issue in our interviews with officials at the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC), the United States Department of Agriculture, the 

Food and Drug Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, as well as officials representing most of the international 

entities we selected for study—Australia, Canada, the European Union, 

and Japan. CPSC staff stated that, at this time, CPSC does not see the need 

for this requirement in order to effectively carry out its enforcement 

duties. 

CPSC has authority to institute administrative or civil enforcement actions 

against manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers. CPSC may 

opt to negotiate a settlement or consent agreement rather than instituting 

an adjudicative proceeding in a federal or administrative court. Enforcing 

product safety standards on foreign manufacturers through an 

adjudicative proceeding could theoretically pose practical challenges. For 

example, one important prerequisite to maintaining an action against any 

defendant in a U.S. state, federal, or administrative court is that the court 

must have the ability to exert personal jurisdiction over that party.1

 A 

court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a party must satisfy the 

fundamental notions of fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause of 

the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. In the case of a defendant physically 

located outside the territorial jurisdiction, such as a foreign manufacturer, 

personal jurisdiction can be established if sufficient contacts exist 

between a defendant and the territorial jurisdiction where the court sits, 

and the defendant receives fair notice of the suit. Both requirements are 

fact-specific and must ultimately be decided by a court, if challenged by 

the defendant. By requiring foreign manufacturers to consent to U.S. 

jurisdiction for purposes of CPSC enforcement actions, CPSC’s 

enforcement process could possibly be expedited in that it would 

eliminate a personal jurisdictional challenge to the enforcement action. 

 

1

The most common means of establishing personal jurisdiction are (1) service of process 

on a defendant that is physically located within the territorial jurisdiction of the particular 

court; (2) service of process on a defendant that is not physically located within the court’s 

territorial jurisdiction, but where such service is determined to be fair because the 

defendant has sufficient “contacts” within the jurisdiction; or (3) a defendant’s consent to 

personal jurisdiction. 

Page 55 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety 
Appendix II: Personal Jurisdiction Over 

Foreign Manufacturers for CPSC 

Enforcement Purposes 

However, as noted above, CSPC did not see a need to take such action at 

this time. 

CPSC noted that it can pursue each of the actors in the supply chain, from 

the manufacturer to the retailer, foreign or domestic. Despite the 

challenges that could theoretically arise in instituting an enforcement 

action against a foreign actor, to date, pursuing the domestic partners of 

such actors has satisfied CPSC’s enforcement objectives.2

 Further, CSPC 

has the ability to settle enforcement actions with foreign parties. In the 

event a settlement cannot be reached voluntarily, any formal action 

against a foreign corporation must be served following the Convention on 

the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or 

Commercial Matters (“Convention”).3

 CPSC also has the authority to file 

suit against a foreign manufacturer for civil penalties for violations of 

certain provisions of its statutes, if it can effect service by the Convention 

or otherwise, and establish that the court has jurisdiction. For example, 

the Department of Justice on behalf of CPSC recently filed suit against a 

foreign manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Minnesota, which was settled in July 2009.4

 CPSC staff we interviewed 

believe that expanded international education and outreach programs, as 

opposed to requiring foreign manufacturers to consent to jurisdiction, are 

preferable tools to effectively prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 

products, although they acknowledged that consent to jurisdiction or a 

requirement of a U.S. agent for service of process would be helpful. In 

addition, each of the U.S. federal agencies and international entities that 

we interviewed stated that they do not require consent by foreign 

manufacturers to local jurisdiction with respect to enforcement actions. 

Therefore, we are not recommending any action at this time. 

 

2

For example, in June 2009, CPSC reached a $2.3 million settlement with Mattel, Inc., 

regarding the importation of toys manufactured in China that violated the Commission’s 

Ban of Lead-Containing Paint and Certain Consumer Products Bearing Lead-Containing 

Paint (Lead-Paint Ban), 16 C.F.R. Part 1303. In re Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., 

CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0019 (reprinted at 74 Fed. Reg. 28030 (Jun. 12, 2009). 

3 See 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (November 15, 1965). 

4

CPSC announced on August 4, 2009, that Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., which is a foreign 

entity, agreed to pay a civil penalty in the settlement of litigation filed by the U.S. 

Department of Justice (on CPSC’s behalf) in U.S. district court. In re United States v. 

Wagner Spray Tech Corp. and Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 6478 (D. Minn. 

July 23, 2009). Also, in July 2009, CPSC reached a $50,000 settlement with First Learning 

Company, Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation with offices in the U.S., regarding the importation 

of toys manufactured in China that violated the Commission’s Lead-Paint Ban. In re First 

Learning Company Ltd., CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0026 (Jul. 8, 2009). 

Page 56 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies 

Federal Agencies 

We compared the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) key 

authorities for preventing the import of unsafe consumer products to 

those of three federal agencies—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Table 1 describes some 

of the statutory and regulatory provisions of such agencies with respect to 

various regulatory activities, such as inspecting shipments that are 

presented for import into the United States.1

 In acknowledgement of the 

ongoing efforts of the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety, in 

which these four agencies participate, we present these authorities 

according to the same principles that are the foundation of the group’s 

strategic framework—prevention and intervention.2

 Although the group 

uses a third principle—response—we generally did not evaluate agencies’ 

authorities to respond after an unsafe import enters U.S. commerce 

because the scope of our work was limited to those authorities to prevent 

their entry. 

 

1

This table is not a comprehensive representation of all statutory or regulatory provisions 

applicable to a particular regulatory activity. In the absence of a primary statutory 

provision that expressly authorizes or prohibits a particular regulatory activity, we did not 

undertake an independent analysis to determine whether an agency is authorized to 

undertake such activity pursuant to a general grant of authority under the relevant 

implementing statute or otherwise. 

2

Established by the President on July 18, 2007, the Interagency Working Group on Import 

Safety is composed of senior officials from twelve federal departments and agencies and is 

organized to continuously improve the safety of imported goods. To accomplish this, the 

group’s strategy is to shift focus from intervention—actions taken when risks are 

identified—to prevention—actions to prevent harm in the first place. 

Page 57 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety 
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Table 1: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies for Preventing the Entry of Unsafe Imports 

Agency 

CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Product Consumer products Food (not including 

meat, poultry products, 

eggs, or egg products), 

drugs, and medical 

devicesb

Motor vehicles, motor 

vehicle equipment 

Meat, poultry products, eggs, 

and egg products; live plants 

and animals 

Primary statute Consumer Product 

Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 

92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 

(Oct. 27, 1972) 

(classified, as 

amended, at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 2051 et seq.)c

Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act, 

Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 

Stat. 372 (July 12, 

1960) (classified, as 

amended, at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1261 et seq.) 

Flammable Fabrics 

Act, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 

111 (Jun. 30, 1953) 

(classified, as 

amended, at 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1191 et seq.) 

Federal Food, Drug, 

and Cosmetic Act, ch. 

675, 52 Stat. 1040 

(Jun. 25, 1938) 

(classified, as 

amended, at 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 321 et seq.) 

National Traffic and 

Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act, codified as 

amended, at Subtitle 

VI Title 49, of the U.S. 

Code (49 U.S.C. §§ 

30101 et seq.) 

Federal Meat Inspection Act, 

ch. 2907, 24 Stat. 1260 (Mar. 

4, 1907) (classified, as 

amended, at 21 U.S.C. §§ 

601 et seq.) 

Poultry Products Inspection 

Act, Pub. L. No. 85-172, 71 

Stat. 441 (Aug. 28, 1957) 

(classified, as amended, at 

21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq.) 

Egg Products Inspection Act, 

Pub. L. No. 91-597, 84 Stat. 

1620 (Dec. 29, 1970) 

(classified, as amended, at 

21 U.S.C. §§ 1031 et seq.) 

Animal Health Protection Act, 

Pub. L. No. 107-171, Title X, 

Subtitle E, 116 Stat. 494 

(May 13, 2002) (classified, as 

amended, at 7 U.S.C. §§ 

8301 et seq.) 

Plant Protection Act, Pub. L. 

No. 106-224, Title IV, 114 

Stat. 438 (Jun. 20, 2000) 

(classified, as amended, at 7 

U.S.C. §§ 7701 et seq.) 

Page 58 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Prevention—Authorities to prevent the importation of unsafe products into the United States 

Preapproval, certification, 

and/or testing of imports 

prior to entry into the United 

States 

All manufacturers are 

required to issue a 

certificate of 

compliance with all 

applicable rules, bans, 

standards, or 

regulations. 

Certifications must be 

based on a test of 

each product or a 

reasonable testing 

program. 

With respect to certain 

children’s products, 

such certification must 

be based on testing 

conducted by a third 

party that is accredited 

by CPSC. 

Devices

Certain devices are 

subject to premarket 

approval by FDA. 

New drugsd

No new drug may be 

introduced into 

interstate commerce 

unless and until FDA 

has approved its new 

drug application. An 

application may be 

denied if the 

application does not 

include reports of 

adequate testing by all 

methods reasonably 

applicable to show 

whether or not the 

drug is safe for use. 

Manufacturers are 

required to certify that 

vehicles and 

equipment comply with 

applicable safety 

standards. Such 

certifications may be, 

but are not required to 

be, based on testing, 

and the results of any 

testing are not 

required to be reported 

to NHTSA as a 

condition for entry. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

Products must be 

accompanied by a foreign 

inspection certificate that 

includes certain information 

and representations of the 

appropriate government 

official of the exporting 

country.e

 The inspection must 

be signed by the authorized 

foreign government official 

and, in some cases, bear the 

official seal of the foreign 

government agency 

responsible for inspection of 

the products. 

(See also, “Labeling” below.) 

Page 59 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Inspection of facilities 

located in foreign countries 

CPSC is authorized to 

inspect any factory, 

warehouse, or 

establishment in which 

consumer products are 

manufactured or held 

for distribution in the 

United States. 

CPSC is required, by 

rule, to condition the 

importation of any 

consumer product into 

the United States on 

the manufacturer’s 

compliance with the 

inspection 

requirements of the 

Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA). 

FDA is authorized to 

conduct inspections of 

establishments 

engaged in the 

manufacture of food, 

drugs, or devices 

offered for commercial 

distribution in the 

United States. 

For drugs and medical 

devices, at the request 

of FDA, the U.S. agent 

of the establishment is 

required to assist in 

scheduling 

inspections. 

In practice, if the 

foreign firm refuses to 

permit such an 

inspection, FDA can 

sometimes refuse 

admission of products 

offered for import into 

the U.S. For example, 

the refusal to permit an 

inspection could lead 

to a product not 

receiving a required 

pre-market approval or 

the refusal to permit an 

inspection, combined 

with other information, 

could support a 

determination of the 

appearance of a 

violation. 

No statutory provision 

expressly authorizes 

NHTSA to inspect 

facilities located in 

foreign countries. 

Egg products, poultry, and 

meat 

Only products from 

establishments certified by 

eligible foreign countries are 

eligible for importation into 

the United States. In order to 

be an eligible country, the 

Food Safety and Inspection 

Service (FSIS) must 

determine that the foreign 

country (1) maintains an 

inspection system equivalent 

to that of the United States 

and (2) ensures compliance 

with such inspection system. 

In determining eligibility of a 

particular country, FSIS will 

conduct an initial review of 

the operation of the country’s 

inspection system, and 

conduct periodic reviews 

thereafter. 

The eligibility of foreign 

establishments to continue to 

export products to the United 

States is subject to periodic 

review, including 

observations of the foreign 

establishments by FSIS. 

Live plants and animals 

APHIS may inspect plants 

and animals for export at 

international ports or other 

points of origin. 

Page 60 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Intervention—Authorities to intercept unsafe goods before they enter U.S. commerce 

Product standards/ product 

bans 

CPSC may promulgate 

mandatory product 

safety standards, as 

well as rules declaring 

a product a banned 

hazardous product. 

Currently, there are 33

mandatory safety 

standards. 

CPSC may also 

petition a U.S. District 

Court to declare a 

product an imminently 

hazardous consumer 

product and grant such 

relief as may be 

appropriate to protect 

the public, such as 

ordering a recall of the 

product or ordering the 

notification of such risk 

to the purchasers of 

the product. 

Food and devices 

Applicable law sets 

forth the definitions for 

adulterated and 

misbranded food, 

drugs, and devices, 

including the standards 

for manufacturing 

practices. 

NHTSA may prescribe 

motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

Currently, there are 45 

safety standards for 

vehicles and 15 safety 

standards for 

equipment. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

FSIS regulates the sanitary 

operating practices of plants 

that slaughter or process 

poultry and meat and sets 

forth sanitary operating 

practices of plants that 

process egg products. 

Statutes set forth definitions 

of adulterated and 

misbranded meat, poultry, 

and egg products. 

Live plants and animals 

Statute prohibits the import of 

plants or animals that contain 

certain pests or diseases. 

Labeling CPSC may require 

permanent markings 

(e.g. labels) on 

products, where 

practicable, that 

identify the date and 

place of manufacture, 

as well as 

manufacturing cohort 

information, such as 

batch number. 

Food, drugs, and 

devices 

Products are subject to 

labeling requirements 

such as, depending on 

the product, its 

contents, and its 

proper use. 

Manufacturers affix to 

the motor vehicle or 

equipment, or to the 

equipment container, a 

label, tag, or marking 

that represents the 

required certification 

that the vehicle or 

equipment complies 

with applicable safety 

standards. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

The immediate containers of 

eggs and egg products must 

bear a label printed in English 

with certain information, 

including, for egg products, 

the inspection mark of the 

country of origin. 

The immediate containers of 

imported poultry and meat 

must bear labels that comply 

with the labeling 

requirements applicable to 

domestic products, except 

that the label will bear the 

name of the country of origin 

and the inspection mark and 

establishment number 

assigned by the foreign 

inspection system and 

certified to FSIS. 

Page 61 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Registration of foreign 

manufacturers/ facilities 

There is no statutory 

requirement for the 

registration of foreign 

manufacturers with 

CPSC. 

Food 

A foreign 

establishment that 

engages in the 

manufacture, 

processing, packing or 

holding of food for 

export to the United 

States without further 

processing or 

packaging outside of 

the United States, 

must register with FDA 

and provide certain 

information, including a 

list of all trade names 

and the name of its 

U.S. agent. 

Drugs and devices 

A foreign 

establishment 

engaged in the 

manufacture, 

preparation, 

propagation, 

compounding, or 

processing of a drug or 

device offered for 

import into the United 

States must register 

with the FDA and 

provide a list of each 

drug offered for 

commercial distribution 

and the name of its 

U.S. agent. 

Motor vehicles not 

certified to all 

applicable safety 

standards may only be 

imported by a person 

registered with NHTSA 

or by a person who 

has contracted with a 

registered importer. 

There is no statutory 

requirement for registration of 

foreign establishments with 

USDA. 

Page 62 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Preshipment/prearrival 

notification 

No statutory provision 

expressly requires 

foreign manufacturers 

to provide preshipment 

notification to CPSC. 

Food 

Food shipments 

presented for import 

must be preceded by 

prior notice to enable 

FDA to target food for 

inspection at ports of 

entry. 

Notification must 

identify the article, 

manufacturer, shipper, 

grower, country of 

origin, and anticipated 

port of entry. 

No statutory provision 

expressly requires 

foreign manufacturers 

to provide preshipment 

notification to NHTSA. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

Except for importers of 

Canadian meat products, 

importers must make an 

application for inspection at 

the port of entry. The 

application should be made 

as long as possible in 

advance of the anticipated 

arrival of the product to the 

United States. Importers of 

Canadian meat products are 

subject to streamlined 

inspection procedures. 

Page 63 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Border surveillance CPSC is required to 

maintain a permanent 

product surveillance 

program to prevent the 

entry of unsafe 

consumer products 

into the United States, 

among other things. 

CPSC may inspect 

consumer products 

being offered for 

import. At CPSC’s 

request, CBP will 

obtain a reasonable 

number of samples of 

such product for the 

purpose of making 

admissibility decisions.

All products

FDA may examine 

shipments and obtain 

samples of food, 

drugs, and devices 

presented for import to 

determine whether the 

product is subject to 

refusal of admission. 

Also, authority 

provided to prioritize 

border food 

inspections, develop 

tests for the rapid 

detection of 

adulterated food, 

improve border 

computer systems, 

and improve links with 

other federal agencies 

responsible for food 

safety. 

No statutory provision 

mandates a border 

surveillance program. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

CBP notifies FSIS when 

products from restricted 

countries are presented for 

import into the United States.

Live plants 

CBP is to notify APHIS of the 

arrival of any plant at a port 

of entry and is to hold the 

item until it is inspected and 

authorized for entry or is 

otherwise released by 

APHIS. 

Live plants and animals 

APHIS may stop and inspect, 

without a warrant, any person 

or means of conveyance 

moving into the United States 

to determine whether it is 

carrying any plant or 

regulated animal. 

Also, authorities are provided 

to improve surveillance at 

ports of entry and customs 

and to implement a 

centralized automated 

recordkeeping system to 

better track the status of 

animal and plant shipments, 

including those on hold at 

ports of entry and customs. 

Page 64 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Refusal at ports of entry CPSC may refuse 

admission of any 

consumer product 

offered for import that 

• fails to comply with 

an applicable 

mandatory safety 

standard or ban; 

• has been 

determined to be an 

imminently 

hazardous consumer 

product; 

• has a defect which 

constitutes a 

substantial product 

hazard; 

• is not properly 

certified or labeled; 

or 

• is manufactured by a 

manufacturer that 

has failed to comply 

with applicable 

recordkeeping and 

inspection 

requirements. 

All products 

Subject to an 

opportunity to 

introduce testimony, 

any food, drug, or 

device may be refused 

admission into the 

United States if it 

appears from an 

examination or 

otherwise that the 

product 

• is adulterated or 

misbranded; 

• is an unapproved 

new drug; 

• is forbidden or 

restricted in sale in 

the exporting 

country; or 

• has been 

manufactured or 

processed in 

unsanitary 

conditions or out of 

conformance with 

good manufacturing 

practices. 

Food 

FDA may refuse a food 

shipment for which 

advance shipment 

information has not 

been provided or is 

from an unregistered 

foreign manufacturer. 

Drugs and devices 

FDA may refuse drugs 

or devices that are not 

accompanied by a 

registration of foreign 

supplier. 

Motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle 

equipment 

manufactured after the 

date an applicable 

safety standard takes 

effect shall not be 

imported unless they 

comply with the 

standard and are 

covered by an 

appropriate 

certification of 

conformance. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

Eggs, egg products, poultry, 

and meat that are 

adulterated, misbranded, or 

do not comply with standards 

applicable to equivalent 

products in U.S. commerce 

shall not be imported. 

Live plants or animals 

APHIS may refuse admission 

to plants if determined 

necessary to prevent the 

spread of plant pests or 

noxious weeds in the United 

States. 

APHIS may refuse admission 

of any animal, article, or 

means of conveyance to 

prevent the introduction or 

spread of any pest or 

livestock disease in the 

United States. 

Page 65 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Detention/ seizure/ holds 

pending completion of 

inspection or further action 

by owner 

CPSC may examine 

samples of products at 

ports of entry. CPSC 

statutes describe 

prohibited acts, which 

form the basis for it to 

instruct CBP to seize 

products under the 

Tariff Act authorities. 

CPSC may also 

decide to detain the 

shipment pending 

further examination 

and testing, 

conditionally release 

the shipment to the 

importer’s premises 

pending examination 

and testing, or release 

the shipment to the 

importer outright. 

All products 

Food, drugs, and 

devices are subject to 

inspection. The 

product remains in the 

custody of CBP, 

unless delivered to the 

owner or consignee 

under bond. 

Food 

FDA may request that 

a food article that 

appears to present a 

health threat be held 

for a period not to 

exceed 24 hours for 

the purpose of 

inspecting, examining, 

or investigating it. 

Food shipments that 

arrive without 

adequate prior notice 

or that are from 

unregistered foreign 

manufacturers may be 

held until prior notice 

or registration is 

completed. 

No statutory provision; 

however, NHTSA 

regulations provide 

that motor vehicles not 

in conformity with all 

applicable safety 

standards at the time 

of import may be 

admitted under a bond 

to ensure that the 

vehicle will either be 

brought into conformity 

within 120 days, 

returned to the 

custody of CBP for 

export, or abandoned 

to the United States. 

Eggs, egg products, 

poultry, and meat 

Generally, eggs, egg 

products, poultry, and meat 

are subject to U.S. inspection 

at the port of entry and may 

not be removed from the port 

of entry prior to inspection. 

The product remains in the 

custody of CBP unless 

delivered to the consignee 

under an approved bond. 

FSIS may detain egg 

products, poultry, and meat 

for a period not to exceed 20 

days. 

Live animals 

APHIS may require that any 

imported animal be raised or 

handled under quarantine to 

determine whether it is 

affected by any pest or 

disease. 

Page 66 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Product 

destruction 

Products refused 

admission into the 

United States must be 

destroyed, unless CBP 

permits the product to 

be exported from the 

customs territory of the 

United States. 

All expenses 

connected with 

destruction must be 

paid by the owner or 

consignee. A failure to 

make such payment 

shall constitute a lien 

against future imports. 

CBP may destroy any 

food, drug, or device 

that is refused 

admission, unless the 

article is exported 

within 90 days. 

All expenses 

connected to the 

destruction of refused 

goods shall be paid by 

the owner or 

consignee. A default 

shall constitute a lien 

against future imports. 

There is no statutory 

provision regarding the 

destruction of 

nonconforming motor 

vehicles or equipment 

by NHTSA. 

Egg products, poultry, and 

meat 

Egg products, poultry, and 

meat that violate federal 

requirements are destroyed 

at the expense of the owner 

or cosignee, unless they are 

exported or brought into 

compliance (e.g., labeling). 

The costs of the destruction 

are either paid directly by the 

owner or cosignee or 

reimbursed to the 

government. The failure to 

make any such 

reimbursement shall 

constitute a lien against 

future imports. 

Live animals 

APHIS may order the 

destruction or removal from 

the United States of any 

animal to prevent entry or 

spread of any pest or 

livestock disease. The 

Secretary of Agriculture may 

also order owners to disinfect 

the means of conveyance, an 

individual, or article involved 

in the importation of animals 

ordered to be destroyed or 

removed. 

If owner fails to comply with 

destruction/removal orders, 

the Secretary may recover 

from the owner the costs of 

any care/destruction. 

Page 67 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select 

Federal Agencies 

Agency 

 CPSC FDA NHTSA USDAa

Response—Authorities to act on harm, real or potential, after products enter U.S. commerce 

Require foreign 

manufacturers to consent to 

local court jurisdiction 

No statutory provision 

mandates that CPSC 

require foreign 

manufacturers to 

consent to local court 

jurisdiction. 

No statutory provision 

mandates that FDA 

require foreign 

manufacturers to 

consent to local court 

jurisdiction. 

No statutory provision 

mandates that NHTSA 

require foreign 

manufacturers to 

consent to local court 

jurisdiction. 

No statutory provision 

mandates that USDA require 

foreign manufacturers to 

consent to local court 

jurisdiction. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency guidance. 

a

USDA’s FSIS oversees meat, poultry products, eggs, and egg products, and APHIS oversees live 

plants and animals. 

b

FDA oversees other products, including biologics, cosmetics, and radiation-emitting electronic 

products, but our scope was limited to food, drugs, and certain medical devices. 

c

As stated in this report, CPSC administers other product safety statutes, but these are the three 

primarily affecting CPSC’s ability to prevent the entry of unsafe products. d

The term “new drug” does not mean simply a drug that is new on the market; rather, it is any drug, 

regardless of how old, about which insufficient data exists upon which qualified experts can reach a 

consensus that the drug is safe and effective. See 21 U.S.C. § 321(p). “In other words, a drug is not a 

new drug only if it ‘(1) is generally recognized, among experts qualified to evaluate the safety and 

effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for its labeled purposes; and (2) has been used to a 

material extent for a material time.’” U.S. v. Undetermined Quantities of Cal-Ban 3000, 776 F. Supp. 

249, 256 (E.D. N.C. 1991)(citation omitted)(emphasis added). 

e

For example, with respect to egg products, the foreign inspection official must certify that the 

products were produced under the approved regulations, requirements, and continuous government 

inspection of the exporting country. Eggs must be accompanied by a foreign inspection certificate that 

certifies that the eggs have at all times after packing been refrigerated at the required temperature. 

With respect to poultry, the foreign inspection official must certify that the product received 

antemortem and postmortem inspections at the time of slaughter and that such poultry products are 

sound, healthful, wholesome, and otherwise fit for human food. 

.

Page 68 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected International Entities 

International Entities 

We compared consumer product safety authorities, practices, and 

procedures for Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), Japan 

and the United States. Figure 3 identifies the authorities and activities we 

compared, as well as any future plans for changing the organizations, 

structures, and/or mechanisms for consumer product safety in the 

respective countries. Following the figure is a more detailed discussion of 

the authorities, practices, and procedures. The information in this 

appendix is based on information we received through U.S. Embassies in 

these countries, foreign embassies in Washington, D.C., and interviews 

with country officials. We reviewed documents regarding product safety 

provided by U.S. Embassy officials in the selected countries. We did not 

independently analyze the laws or procedures of these countries; instead, 

we relied on third-party assessments of each country’s consumer product 

safety framework. 

Page 69 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety 
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

Figure 3: Comparison of Selected International Entities’ Authorities with CPSC’s Authorities to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe 

Consumer Products 

Australia Canada European Union Japan United States

Key regulatory 

authorities

Organizational 

structure Standards Product certification / 

labeling / testing

Trade Practices Act 1974; 

various state and territory laws

The Hazardous Products Act 

and its corresponding 

regulations

Chemical Management Plan

The General Product Safety 

Directive (GPSD) (2001/95/EC) 

sets out the basic requirements

on consumer product safety for 

all EU member states. 

- Consumer Product Safety Law 

- Consumer Basic Act 

- Product Liability Act

- Law for the Control of 

 Household Products Containing 

 Harmful Substances

- Food Sanitation Law

Consumer Product Safety Act

Federal Hazardous Substances

Act

Flammable Fabrics Act

Australian Treasury and state/ 

territory offices of fair trading 

develop policy. 

Consumer law enforcement is

shared between national, state, 

and territory regulators. 

Australian Competition and 

Consumer Commission (ACCC) 

and state/territory offices of fair 

trading conduct enforcement 

and monitoring.

Health Canada is the key 

policy development and 

enforcement agency. 

Provincial governments have 

jurisdiction over the adoption 

of the National Building Code, 

which includes certification 

requirements for electrical, 

gas, and plumbing products. 

Directorate General for Health 

and Consumers (DG SANCO) is

the primary EU agency 

responsible for consumer product 

safety.

EU member states are 

responsible for implementation 

and enforcement of EU 

legislation.

METI is responsible for 

consumer product safety policy. 

The National Institute of 

Technology and Evaluation 

conducts inspections in 

accordance with METI’s

instructions and analyzes the 

cause of accidents. The Cabinet 

Office provides overall policy 

guidance.

Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) has

national responsibility for 

consumer product safety policy 

and enforcement.

CPSC may promulgate 

mandatory product safety 

standards and rules declaring a

product a banned hazardous

product. CPSC must defer to a

voluntary standard if CPSC 

determines that the voluntary 

standard adequately addresses

the hazard and that there is likely 

to be substantial compliance with 

the voluntary standard. CPSC 

may ban a consumer product if it 

determines no feasible standard 

would protect the public from 

unreasonable risk of injury.

Currently there are few direct 

consumer safety regulations on 

most imported goods; however, 

retailers can face legal action if 

the goods are faulty. Only a

small number of imported 

consumer products are subject 

to mandatory standards. 

Approximately two-thirds of 

standards in Canada are 

voluntary. Some consumer 

product standards are 

mandatory legal requirements, 

others are industry standards

developed on a voluntary basis, 

and some are purely market 

driven as a particular 

technology becomes the 

industry standard.

Imported products must meet the 

same requirements as domestic 

products. The EU product safety 

system is based on voluntary 

standards. However, for mandatory 

European Commission standards, 

products that are manufactured to 

harmonized standards developed by 

recognized European standardization bodies benefit from a

presumption of conformity with the 

safety requirements. The safety 

requirements are expressed in 

sectoral directives, conformity 

assessment measures, and, in 

certain sectors, the availability of 

European standards. The GPSD fills

in the gaps when no sectoral 

directive exists. 

Japanese Standards Association, Japanese Industrial 

Standards, and the Consumer 

Affairs Council are responsible 

for the development of 

standards. Most standards in 

Japan are voluntary. Product 

requirements fall into two 

categories: technical regulations

(or mandatory standards) and 

nonmandatory voluntary 

standards. 

CPSC requires manufacturers

to issue a certificate of 

compliance with mandatory 

standards. Certifications must 

be based on a test of each 

product or a reasonable testing 

program. Children’s products

must be certified by a third 

party. CPSC may require labels

to be permanently marked or 

affixed to any product, where 

practicable.

No requirement for imported 

product certification. The 

Productivity Commission has

suggested that importers of 

consumer goods certify that 

their goods meet applicable 

Australian mandatory safety 

standards, but the government 

has not enacted this

suggestion.

 

No requirement for product 

certification; however, new 

legislation seeks to require 

the furnishing of entry 

documents and test results

at the border.

Member states are required to 

conduct sampling and safety 

testing of domestically manufactured or imported products and to 

follow-up on consumer complaints. 

Businesses must carry out 

conformity and safety assessments

of their products in accordance 

with the GPSD and/or specific 

legislation applicable to their 

products. For some products, 

self-declaration is sufficient but 

other products require third-party 

verification.

Certain imported and domestic 

products are subject to product 

testing and cannot be sold in 

Japan without certification to 

prescribed standards. Compliance 

with regulations and standards is

also governed by a certification 

system in which inspection results

determine whether or not 

approval (certification) is granted.

Page 70 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

Inspect 

foreign facilities

Border surveillance 

authorities for imported goods

Require consent to 

local jurisdiction Future plans

United States

No statutory provision 

mandates that CPSC require 

foreign manufacturers to 

consent to local court 

jurisdiction.

Australia

The government does not have 

this authority on product safety 

grounds.

Such authority does exist in 

certain areas, such as motor 

vehicles and aircraft, covered 

by domestic legislation 

governing the import and 

licensing of such products.

Under the current law, Australia

could ask foreign jurisdictions to 

enforce Australian consumer 

product safety laws. In practice, 

the Government of Australia

prefers other methods, such as

approaching manufacturers

directly to raise concerns.

Australian Customs has

responsibility for determining 

what may enter Australia. 

Customs generally accepts

ACCC recommendations to 

ban imports of unsafe products. 

Japan does not designate 

consumer products separately 

in their border and customs

authorities. As with CPSC and 

the EU, Japan imposes its

consumer product safety laws

on importers, which means that 

products must be in compliance 

in order to be imported to 

Japan.

Canada

The government does not have 

this authority. Instead, Canada

works with the exporter and has

been successful in using this

approach, according to officials.

The government does not have 

this authority.

The Canada Border Services

Agency uses a risk-based 

approach to border management to detect and intercept 

dangerous goods and to 

facilitate the movement of 

low-risk goods. Health Canada

does not have full-time port 

presence and relies on 

Canada’s Border Services

Agency for seizure and 

destruction of products. 

European Union

DG SANCO has no inspection 

authority. Member-state 

authorities can review technical 

product files that all businesses

are required to maintain to 

certify general conformity with 

product standards. 

DG SANCO has no jurisdictional authority outside the 

common market. Within the 

common market, the regulations apply to the importer, 

distributor, manufacturer, and 

retailer. Imported products must 

meet the same requirements

as domestic products.

The EU recently issued a new 

regulation to strengthen 

customs controls. The EU 

Council Regulation provides

the customs authorities with the 

legal basis and equally 

applicable and comparable 

procedures in all member 

states to suspend, for no more 

that 72 hours, the release of 

products that they suspect of 

posing a serious risk to health 

and safety.

Japan

The government does not have 

this authority.

CPSC is required, by rule, to 

condition the importation of any 

consumer product into the 

United States on the 

manufacturer’s compliance with 

the inspection requirements of 

CPSA.

The government does not have 

this authority

Under a decision reached by 

the Council of Australian 

Governments in 2008, 

Australia’s states and territories

are expected to adopt the new 

Trade Practices Act in its

entirety in 2010, providing a

harmonized product safety 

regime with greater federal 

government control. 

On June 12, 2009, Canada’s

new Consumer Product Safety 

Act was passed by the House of 

Commons and, as of the end of 

June, is awaiting action by the 

Canadian Senate. The new act 

will provide better oversight of 

consumer products by improving 

the government’s ability to take 

timely compliance and enforcement actions when unsafe 

products are identified. It will 

also encourage compliance 

through higher fines and 

increased penalties for violators.

Recent EU initiatives aim to 

improve market surveillance 

and consistency of enforcement across the member 

states. 

On May 29, 2009, the Japanese 

Diet approved bills establishing 

the Consumer Affairs Agency. 

The agency will be responsible 

for consumer protection issues

as part of a more centralized 

approach. Approximately 200 

staff will move to the new 

agency from the Cabinet Office; 

the Fair Trade Commission; the 

Ministry of Economy, Trade and 

Industry; the Ministry of 

Agriculture, Forestry and 

Fisheries; and the Ministry of 

Health, Labor and Welfare. 

Implementation of the 

Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 is

ongoing.

CPSC is to maintain a

permanent surveillance 

program to prevent the entry of 

unsafe consumer products into 

the United States.

CPSC may request a

reasonable number of samples

from Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to examine 

products for the purpose of 

making admissibility decisions.

Definition of 

unsafe products

No definition for unsafe 

products; however, current law 

allows the Minister for 

Consumer Affairs to ban or 

compulsorily recall consumer 

products in cases where the 

products “will or may cause 

injury.”

Nothing specific at this time 

under the Hazardous Products

Act. A new act passed by the 

House of Commons and 

awaiting action by the Canadian 

Senate, as of June 2009, will 

include a definition of “danger to 

human health or safety.”

GPSD defines a “consumer 

product” and what constitutes a

“safe” and “unsafe” product. A 

“dangerous product” means any 

product that does not meet the 

definition of a “safe” product.

Article 1 of the Consumer 

Product Safety Law defines

products as unsafe if they cause 

threat to consumers’ life or 

health. 

Section 15 of Consumer 

Product Safety Act defines a

substantial product hazard as a

failure to comply with a

mandatory standard or a

product defect that creates a

substantial risk of injury.

Sources: Official documents from foreign governments and from their official Web sites, from U.S. embassies overseas, and

foreign embassies in Washington, D.C.

Page 71 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

Australia 

Environment for 

Consumer Product Safety 

in Australia 

Currently, the dominant issue concerning consumer product safety in 

Australia is the reorganization of its policy framework. On October 2, 2008, 

the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a new policy framework 

for implementation in 2010, comprising a single national consumer law 

and streamlined enforcement arrangements. This more centralized 

approach to consumer product safety replaces the current system in which 

the federal, state, and territory governments all share responsibility for 

consumer policy and enforcement. 

• Key organizations: Currently, responsibility for product safety regulation 

in Australia is shared between the federal, state, and territory 

governments. The Australian Treasury is the agency responsible for 

developing consumer policy, and the Australian Competition and 

Consumer Commission monitors and enforces compliance with product 

safety laws. In addition, state and territory governments each have their 

own fair trading agencies that enact and enforce state-based consumer 

product safety legislation. Such legislation is similar, but not identical, to 

federal government legislation, which sometimes leads to legislative 

inconsistencies between jurisdictions. 

• Resources: Australia has 30 policy staff working in the Product Safety 

section of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and 

enforcement staff numbering around 150 around Australia. There is no 

separate international office for consumer product safety. The total 

combined resources allocated by the Australian Commonwealth (federal), 

state and territory governments to enforcement in this area of consumer 

product safety are estimated to be about A$5 million annually. 

• Consumer advocacy: Consumer advocacy groups have emerged in 

Australia over the last 40 years in response to growing interest in product 

safety issues. Groups such as the Australian Consumers Association 

supply information on safety issues to consumers and lobby federal, state 

and territory governments to address the most serious product-related 

hazards. 

Regulatory 

Framework/System 

• Laws and regulations: Currently, Australia’s general consumer product 

safety system is based on the product safety provisions contained in the 

Trade Practices Act 1974 and on equivalent provisions in Fair Trade Acts 

in Australia’s eight states and territories. The administration and 

enforcement of these provisions, along with other nonregulatory activities 

Page 72 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

conducted by the federal, state, and territory governments, are also part of 

the system. 

The Trade Practices Act 1974 contains general product safety provisions, 

as well as a product liability regime that enables consumers to seek a 

range of remedies, including damages for loss or damage caused by a 

defective product. The act provides the Australian government minister 

responsible for consumer affairs the power to intervene in markets to 

ensure product safety, including such activities as 

• prescribing consumer product safety and consumer product 

information standards; 

• declaring products unsafe and banning them; 

• investigating products to determine whether they will or may cause 

injury and/or issuing a warning notice of the risk of using the product; 

• ordering the compulsory recall of products; and 

• obtaining information, documents, and other evidence related to the 

administration of the safety provisions of the Trade Practices Act. 

While in law the general regime applies to all consumer products, in effect 

this system provides the general legal safety net for products not 

otherwise protected by specific legislation that addresses more hazardous 

products. 

• Definition of safe products: Australia currently has no definition of safe or 

unsafe products. However, current law allows the Minister for Consumer 

Affairs to ban or compulsorily recall consumer products in cases where 

the products will or may cause injury. 

• Standards: The Trade Practices Act provides the Australian government 

minister responsible for consumer affairs with the power to establish 

mandatory standards for a product where it can be demonstrated that it 

has the potential to cause injury. Standards Australia, an independent, 

nongovernmental organization, is the sole recognized body for standards 

development. Only a small number of imported consumer products are 

subject to mandatory standards, and over half of the standards apply to 

products that may pose a danger to children. State and territory legislation 

also allows for the issuance of mandatory standards. At times, the 

Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, the Treasury, and the 

Page 73 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

state and territory fair trading representatives have participated in 

Standards Australia processes. 

• Detection, reporting, and removal of unsafe products: The current 

regulatory system relies on governments (federal, state, and territory) to 

identify and regulate specific product hazards. According to Australia’s 

Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, the ability of these governments 

to address potential safety hazards across a great range of products is 

affected by limitations on their resources and by the time and effort 

required to implement, enforce, and review product-specific regulations. 

Currently, the vast majority of product recalls are undertaken voluntarily 

by businesses that have become aware of a safety problem concerning one 

of their products. The Trade Practices Act and many of the state and 

territory Fair Trading Acts contain provisions that allow governments to 

order compulsory product recalls when necessary. 

• Business responsibility: Businesses promote product safety through 

industry sector associations, which often undertake such self-regulatory 

activities as business education, the development of industry codes of 

conduct, and engagement with law enforcement and standards 

development bodies on enforcement and policy issues. Currently there is 

no formal requirement for suppliers to monitor the safety of the products 

they sell, once those products are released to the marketplace. Under the 

current regulatory system, businesses are required to report voluntary 

recalls to the Australian government minister responsible for consumer 

affairs and to the Office of Fair Trading in some other jurisdictions. The 

Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs has proposed that suppliers be 

required to monitor the ongoing safety of the products they sell and report 

to the government any products that are under investigation for possible 

safety risks, have been associated with serious injury and death, or have 

been the subject of a successful product liability claim. 

• Policy enforcement and compliance: The Australian Competition and 

Consumer Commission is responsible for enforcing the Trade Practices 

Act’s product safety regime. To ensure that suppliers subject to mandatory 

standards and bans are responding appropriately, the commission may 

compel the provision of information, require evidence under oath, 

undertake random market surveys, enter premises, and seize documents. 

In situations where suppliers have failed to comply with mandatory 

standards or bans, the commission can seek orders in the Federal Court 

requiring such suppliers to recall the noncomplying products. Additionally, 

the commission may institute civil proceedings or criminal proceedings 

under the Trade Practices Act. State and territory governments have 

enforcement powers similar to those of the Competition and Consumer 

Page 74 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

Commission under their own legislation. The relevant state and territory 

Fair Trading Acts contain criminal liability provisions similar to those in 

the Trade Practices Act. 

Future Plans On October 2, 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a 

new consumer policy framework as proposed by the Ministerial Council 

on Consumer Affairs. According to the Australian government, the new 

framework consists of a single national consumer law and streamlined 

enforcement arrangements. Australia’s states and territories are expected 

to adopt the new Trade Practices Act in its entirety in 2010, providing a 

harmonized product safety regime with greater federal government 

control. The council recognized that while Australia’s current consumer 

policy framework has strengths, it is in need of significant improvements 

to overcome existing inconsistencies, gaps, and duplication in Australia’s 

consumer legislation and its enforcement. The reforms have the following 

three key elements: 

• the development of a consumer law (called the Australian Consumer 

Law) to be applied both nationally and in each state and territory, 

which is based on the existing consumer protection provisions of the 

Trade Practices Act 1974, and which includes a new national provision 

regulating unfair contract terms, new enforcement powers and, where 

agreed, changes based on best practices in state and territory laws; 

• the implementation of a new national product safety regulatory and 

enforcement framework, as part of the national consumer law; and 

• the development of enhanced enforcement cooperation and 

information-sharing mechanisms between national and state and 

regulatory agencies. 

Canada 

Environment for 

Consumer Product Safety 

in Canada 

Changing consumer demands, new technologies, and the increasing 

complexity of global supply chains are the major influences behind 

Canada’s current efforts to modernize its regulatory tools for consumer 

product safety. According to the Canadian government, the authorities 

governing food, health, and consumer products in Canada derive from 

legislation developed in the 1950s and 1960s and, as a result, they are out 

of step with modern realities and needs. For example, the Canadian 

Page 75 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

government lacks sufficient authority to issue a mandatory recall of a 

health or consumer product if it poses a serious or imminent risk to health 

and safety or to compel manufacturers to take steps to reduce the risk 

associated with a product. In addition, according to the Canadian 

government, fines and penalties are low compared with those of other 

countries. New legislation will update and strengthen Canada’s consumer 

product safety framework. 

• Key organizations: Currently, Health Canada regulates the import, sale, 

and advertisement of hazardous products or substances. Health Canada 

• supports the development of safety standards and guidelines; 

• enforces legislation by conducting investigations, inspections, seizures, 

and prosecutions; 

• tests and conducts research on consumer products; 

• provides importers, manufacturers, and distributors with hazard and 

technical information; 

• publishes product advisories, warnings, and recalls; and 

• promotes safety and the responsible use of products. 

The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for stopping goods at 

the border. The agency has a service agreement with Health Canada under 

which it seeks to prevent prohibited products from entering Canada and 

facilitates additional targeted inspections of these products, as well as 

shipments of products from companies with histories of poor compliance. 

In addition, the agency’s Single Window Initiative will give the department 

access to import and export data that will help to efficiently approve 

shipments of low-risk products from low-risk suppliers or, alternatively, 

tag suspicious ones before they have left their point of export. 

Other organizations include the Standards Council of Canada, the 

Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian General Standards Board, 

and the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada. Also, Canada’s Provincial 

governments have jurisdiction over the adoption of the National Building 

Code, which includes certification requirements for electrical, gas, and 

plumbing products. 

Page 76 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

• Resources: Canada’s consumer product safety agency, within Health 

Canada, consists of 130 employees who serve as laboratory, compliance, 

and policy development staff. 

• Consumer advocacy: Consumer advocacy groups in Canada are 

particularly concerned with consumer safety issues related to children’s 

products and food products. Some advocacy groups in Canada include the 

Canada Toy Testing Council, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, 

Consumers Council of Canada, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. 

Regulatory 

Framework/System 

• Laws and regulations: The Canadian government’s key legislation 

governing consumer product safety is the Hazardous Products Act. Part 1 

of the act lists consumer products that are either restricted through 

regulation or outright prohibited from being advertised, sold, or imported 

into Canada. There are approximately 30 products and product categories 

that are regulated, and some 25 others that are prohibited. All imported 

products are subject to the D Memoranda, which incorporates legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures used by the Canada Border Services 

Agency. Canada’s Chemical Management Plan also has an impact on 

consumer product safety. 

• Definition of safe product: Canada has no specific definition under the 

Hazardous Products Act. However, a new act, currently awaiting Canadian 

Senate approval as of June 2009, will include a definition of “danger to 

human health or safety,” which will support a general prohibition. 

• Standards: Some consumer product standards are mandatory legal 

requirements, others are industry standards developed on a voluntary 

basis, and some are purely market driven as a particular technology 

becomes the industry standard. Approximately two-thirds of standards in 

Canada are voluntary. Federal and provincial legislation may impose 

mandatory standards for products, typically where health or safety issues 

are regarded as requiring regulation. Standards can also be written into the 

legislation itself; such is the case with certain specifications in toy 

regulations under the Hazardous Products Act. The Standards Council of 

Canada is the national coordinating body for the development of voluntary 

standards through the National Standards System. 

• Detection, reporting, and removal of unsafe products: The current 

Canadian product safety regulatory system follows a reactive approach. 

When a product has been deemed to pose a risk to users—usually over a 

period of time, with reported injuries and/or deaths associated with the 

product’s use—a risk assessment is carried out. The regulatory process 

Page 77 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

involves many steps, including consultation with public, industry, and 

technical experts. The end result is either that the product remains 

available for sale in the Canadian marketplace or that Health Canada 

imposes a legal ban on the product under the Hazardous Product Act. 

• Business responsibility: Currently, there is no mandatory reporting for 

businesses, and Health Canada relies largely on negotiating with suppliers 

to voluntarily recall or take other corrective measures to address a 

product that poses an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of 

consumers. The new Consumer Product Safety Act (discussed below) will 

give inspectors the ability to order a suppler to take corrective measures. 

• Policy enforcement and compliance: Canadian authorities have the ability to 

seize products, prosecute violations through a criminal code, and impose civil 

money penalties. The maximum amount of a civil money penalty is $1 million 

per violation, although penalties of $25,000 are most common. 

Future Plans On June 12, 2009, Canada’s new Consumer Product Safety Act was passed 

by the House of Commons and, as of the end of June 2009, is awaiting final 

action by the Canadian Senate. The Consumer Product Safety Act would 

replace Part I of the Hazardous Products Act and includes a new 

regulatory regime. The act focuses on three key areas: 

• Working to address problems before they happen: The legislation 

introduces a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, 

advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable 

danger to human health or safety. It strengthens compliance promotion 

and enforcement activities through increased fines up to $5 million for 

some offenses and fines that are left to the discretion of the courts where 

the offense is committed knowingly or recklessly. 

• Targeting the highest risk: The act provides the authority to require 

suppliers to conduct safety tests upon a minister’s orders and to provide 

the results where there are indications of a problem. The legislation will 

also require suppliers to notify Health Canada of serious incidents or 

defects and to provide detailed reports about the incidents. 

• Rapid response: The act allows the Canadian government to take more 

immediate responsive action to protect the public when a problem occurs. 

It would authorize inspectors to order mandatory recalls and other 

corrective measures to address unsafe consumer products and would 

require suppliers to maintain accurate records to enable quick product 

tracking. In addition, to further improve the government’s ability to 

Page 78 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

respond effectively, Health Canada would double the number of product 

safety inspectors. 

European Union 

Environment for 

Consumer Product Safety 

in the EU 

In 2007, in response to massive recalls of consumer products worldwide, 

the European Commission (EC) conducted an internal review of the 

European Union (EU) product safety framework.1

 The review concluded 

that the community regulatory system (discussed below), including the 

General Product Safety Directive, was capable of providing to European 

citizens a high level of protection against unsafe consumer products, as 

long as the rules of the system were properly applied. The review 

identified areas for improvement and ways of perfecting their system. The 

review stated that the adoption of the “Commission Decision” on magnets 

in toys2

; the revision of the “European Directive” on the safety of toys;3

and the issuance of rules called the “New Legislative Framework” for 

marketing of goods; would also raise the existing level of protection.

the 

 

4

 It 

also identified some areas for further attention.5 These findings were 

subsequently referred to in an official EU report on the implementation of 

the relevant legislation.6

1

In the EU, policy responsibilities lie with the EC— the executive arm of the EU, 

responsible for implementing its policies and running its programs. 

2

Commission Decision 2008/329/EC (OJ L 114, 26.4.2008, 90). 

3

COM (2008) 9. 

4

On July 9, 2008, a new legislative framework for the marketing of products consisting of 

Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 and Decision 768/2008/EC was adopted (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, 

30, 82). 

5

The report suggests scope to develop the framework and further actions, outlining 

benefits which further coordinated market surveillance between the Member States would 

bring, given the increasingly global market. It also suggests that efficiency in addressing 

product safety issues would be increased if the Commission were enabled to act more 

quickly to create state-of-the-art standards for specific risky products and if a permanent 

ban could be imposed under the General Product Safety Directive on products or 

substances when a risk is generally recognized, rather than having to do this through 

further product specific Directives. 

6

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the 

Implementation of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 

of 3 December 2001 on general product safety, Brussels, 14.1.2009, COM(2008)905 final. 

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/prod_legis/docs/report_impl_gpsd_en.pdf. 

Page 79 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

• Key organizations: The EC Directorates General for Health and 

Consumers (consumer product safety), Enterprise and Industry (safety of 

regulated products) and Taxation and Customs Union (import safety) put 

forth legislation aimed at further ensuring the safety of products. The 

Directorate General for Health and Consumers, referred to as DG SANCO, 

is an EU branch that is somewhat equivalent to CPSC in driving consumer 

product safety matters both within Europe and internationally. However, 

EU member states (currently 27 individual countries) are responsible for 

implementation and enforcement of EU legislation. Each member state 

has established its unique structures for handling product safety given 

their cultural history and industrial background. The European 

Commission coordinates their approaches and ensures their cooperation. 

• Resources: Because of the very different role of the EC as compared to 

CPSC in product safety enforcement, EU officials had difficulties 

providing us with useful figures on resources and stated they risked 

being seriously misleading if the member states’ role was not taken into 

consideration. They did not have conclusive data for the member states. 

Different commission departments also perform part of their functions 

related to consumer product safety, such as reviewing European 

legislation in certain sectors relevant for consumer safety, which would 

make sense to include in their “central function” resources. While the 

“Product and Service Safety” unit in DG SANCO is generally comparable to 

CPSC in terms of policy function, it does not include actual 

implementation and enforcement at the level of the individual member 

states. Many staff from the Product and Service Safety unit play a role in 

the “international” (versus “European”) area, but also have other 

responsibilities. DG SANCO determines who represents the EU at 

the international level by the subject-matter expertise for product safety. 

Regulatory Framework in 

the EU 

• Laws and regulations: The General Product Safety Directive sets out the 

basic consumer product safety requirements and defines a “consumer 

product,” and Article 2(b) and (c) of the directive defines “safe” and 

“unsafe” product. A “dangerous product” is any product that does not meet 

the definition of a “safe” product. 

• Definition of safe product: The directive defines a “safe product” as any 

product which—under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use 

including duration and, where applicable, putting into service, installation 

and maintenance requirements—does not present any risk or only the 

minimum risks compatible with the product’s use. Such a product is 

considered to be acceptable and consistent with a high level of protection 

Page 80 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

for the safety and health of persons taking into account the following 

points in particular: 

• the characteristics of the product, including its composition, 

packaging, instructions for assembly and, where applicable, 

instructions for installation and maintenance; 

• the effect on other products, where it is reasonably foreseeable that it 

will be used with other products; 

• the presentation of the product, the labeling, any warnings and 

instructions for its use and disposal, and any other indication or 

information regarding the product; and 

• the categories of consumers at risk when using the product, in 

particular children and the elderly. 

In addition, the feasibility of obtaining higher levels of safety or the 

availability of other products presenting a lesser degree of risk shall not 

constitute grounds for considering a product to be “dangerous.” 

In response to inconsistencies and identified weaknesses in the EU 

legislative framework for product safety, the EU issued additional 

regulations on marketing of products within the member states. Adopted 

in July 2008, this new framework aims to strengthen accreditation and 

market surveillance across member states and to remedy existing 

weaknesses of the legislative framework. It will apply from 2010. 

Guidance will be issued on its relation with the General Product Safety 

Directive. 

• Standards: The EU product safety system is based on voluntary standards. 

However, products that are manufactured to harmonized standards 

developed by recognized European standardization bodies (CEN, 

CENELEC, and ETSI) on the basis of a mandate (formal request) by the 

EC and ultimately referenced on the “Official Journal” of the EU benefit 

from a presumption of conformity with the safety requirements of the 

relevant legislative framework that are covered by those standards.7

 The 

 

7

The drafting of specific EU standards is handled by three European standards 

organizations: the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), 

the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and the European 

Committee for Standardization (CEN). 

Page 81 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

EU considers their safety requirements to be the backbone of its system. 

The safety requirements are expressed in sectoral (industry or productspecific) directives, conformity assessment measures and, in certain 

sectors, the availability of European standards. The General Product 

Safety Directive fills in the gaps when no sectoral Directive exists. For 

example, the EU has specific sectoral directives on toys, and some 

industrial products, such as electrical products, machinery, and pressure 

equipment. Businesses must carry out conformity and safety assessments 

of their products in accordance with the General Product Safety Directive 

and/or specific legislation applicable to their products. Businesses are 

required to certify that their products are safe, as defined under the 

directive. For some products self-declaration is sufficient, but other 

products require third-party verification. 

• Detection, reporting and the removal of unsafe products: The EU and its 

member states have the authorities to require mandatory recalls, and 

companies can negotiate voluntary recalls as necessary, similar to U.S. 

recalls. Under the General Product Safety Directive and applicable 

product-specific legislation, national authorities can ban the marketing of 

a dangerous product, order or organize its actual and immediate 

withdrawal, alert consumers to the risks it presents, order or coordinate 

its recall from consumers, and order or organize its destruction in suitable 

conditions. Businesses are required to report to the authorities if they 

detect that they have a dangerous product. Businesses also must remove 

unsafe products from markets and are under legal obligation to stop, 

withdraw, and/or recall their distribution. Businesses are required to 

repair or replace products and/or refund consumers the cost under certain 

criteria. 

• Policy enforcement and compliance: DG SANCO has no inspection and no 

jurisdictional authority. Member-state authorities can review technical 

product files that all businesses are required to maintain to certify general 

conformity with product standards. Within the common market, the 

regulations apply to the importer, distributor, manufacturer, and retailer. 

Imported products must meet the same requirements as domestic 

products. Member states must have authorities to carry out appropriate 

sampling and safety testing of domestically manufactured or imported 

products and to follow-up on consumer complaints. 

According to the EC report on its consumer product safety framework, the 

EU considers its customs controls to be reactive—no proactive obligation 

exists for the customs authorities to carry out controls for unsafe products 

at the EU borders on their own initiative. In response, the EU issued a 

“Council Regulation” to provide customs authorities with the legal basis 

Page 82 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

and equally applicable and comparable procedures in all member states to 

suspend, for no more than 72 hours, the release of products which they 

suspect pose a serious risk to health and safety. 

• Consumer advocacy: A unique feature of the EU approach to consumer 

product safety is the funding support they provide to consumer 

representation groups through grants. As part of this approach, the 

consumer groups help define priority/future issues that require additional 

research and contribute to standard-making, and consumer groups can 

apply for grants to survey and educate consumers on these emerging 

issues. 

Japan 

Environment for 

Consumer Product Safety 

in Japan 

Japan’s Consumer Product Safety Law regulates the manufacture and sale 

of specific products to prevent harm and injury to consumers, to secure 

the safety of consumer products, and to promote voluntary activities of 

private business for the benefit of general consumers. Japan’s consumer 

product safety policies and procedures have been developed, 

implemented, and enforced by a wide variety of government agencies and 

organizations. As with some of the other countries we reviewed, Japan 

recently reorganized its approach and mechanisms for consumer product 

safety and food safety with the creation of the new Consumer Affairs 

Agency, as follows: 

• Key organizations: The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) 

is the key government organization responsible for developing consumer 

product safety policy in Japan. The National Institute of Technology and 

Evaluation conducts on-the-spot inspections of enterprises in accordance 

with METI’s instructions and analyzes the cause of accidents based on 

accident information to prevent future problems. The Consumer Policy 

Council, the Quality-of-Life Policy Council, and the National Consumer 

Affairs Center of Japan also have roles in advising and supporting the 

government on consumer-related issues in Japan. The Japan Cabinet 

Office carries out general coordination of basic consumer policies among 

related ministries and agencies. 

• Resources: According to Japanese officials, 33 staff members are devoted 

to consumer product safety, as part of the Product Safety Division of 

METI. However, other staff located in other agencies, as indicated above, 

also work on these issues. 

Page 83 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

• Consumer advocacy: According to U.S. Embassy officials in Tokyo, 

consumer product safety issues receive considerable attention in the local 

press and the Japanese government, and consumers view consumer 

product safety as a major priority. A survey conducted by the cabinet 

office in 2005 found over 2,800 consumer groups active in Japan. Seven 

nonprofit consumer groups have been officially accredited by the 

Japanese government. They are 

• Consumer Organization of Japan, 

• Kansai Consumers Support Organization, 

• Japan Association of Consumer Affairs Specialists, 

• Kyoto Consumer Contract Network, 

• Consumer.net Hiroshima, 

• Hyogo Consumers Net, and 

• Saitama Organization to Abolish Damage to Consumers. 

Regulatory 

Framework/System 

• Laws and regulations: Domestic and imported consumer products are 

regulated by the following laws in Japan: 

• the Consumer Product Safety Law, 

• the Household Goods Quality Labeling Law, 

• the Law for the Control of Household Goods Containing Harmful 

Substances, 

• the Chemical Substances Control Law, and 

• the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law. 

Other laws relating to consumer protection include 

• the Product Liability Act, 

• the Consumer Contract Act, 

• the Consumer Basic Act, and 

Page 84 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

• the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

Under Japan’s Consumer Product Safety Law, METI collects and makes 

public information on serious accidents involving consumer (household) 

products. The law requires manufacturers, marketers, and/or importers to 

report actual serious accidents to METI, which in turn informs the public. 

Manufacturers, marketers, and/or importers are also required to inform 

the public of the product safety issues involved. Major national consumer 

centers compile complaints from consumers, including product safety 

complaints. Depending on the product type, relevant ministries maintain 

regulations covering consumer products, including ensuring that products 

meet appropriate standards and labeling and certification requirements. 

Some ministries may require foreign manufacturers to register foreign 

manufacturing sites with the local government. 

• Definition of safe product: Article 1 of the Consumer Product Safety Law 

defines products as unsafe if they cause threat to consumers’ life or health. 

In addition, Article 2, Section 2, of the Product Liability Act provides that a 

defective product is to be considered as unsafe, taking into account the 

nature of the product, the ordinarily foreseeable use of the product, the 

time when the manufacturer delivered the product, and other 

circumstances. 

• Standards: Product requirements in Japan fall into two categories: 

technical regulations (or mandatory standards) and nonmandatory 

voluntary standards. Compliance with regulations and standards is also 

governed by a certification system in which inspection results determine 

whether or not approval (certification/quality mark) is granted. To affix a 

mandatory quality mark or a voluntary quality mark requires prior product 

type approval and possibly factory inspections for quality control 

assessment. Certain regulated products must bear the appropriate 

mandatory mark when shipped to Japan in order to clear Japanese 

Customs. Safety standards are specific to types of products and fall under 

the jurisdiction of the relevant ministry. 

• Policy enforcement and compliance: Generally, the importer of record is 

responsible for ensuring the quality and safety of imported consumer 

products in Japan. If a product is deemed harmful or defective, the 

importer is responsible for working with local authorities and consumer 

outlets to take necessary measures. The government may take action 

against the importer, such as conducting on-site inspection of business 

offices, plants, stores, and/or warehouses; ordering mandatory product 

recalls; suspending business operations for a certain period of time; or 

imposing penalties including fines and/or imprisonment. 

Page 85 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

Future Plans On May 29, 2009, the Japanese Diet approved bills establishing the 

Consumer Affairs Agency, which will administer consumer protection 

issues in Japan. The agency will begin operating in the fall with about 200 

staff from the Cabinet Office; the Fair Trade Commission; the Ministry of 

Economy, Trade and Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and 

Fisheries; and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. In addition, 60 

temporary staff will be appointed from attorneys, consumer affairs 

consultants, and academics. The Consumer Affairs Agency will be placed 

under the Cabinet Office, and Consumer Affairs Centers nationwide will 

be established to provide information about product-related accidents and 

complaints. In addition, the Consumer Affairs Committee will be 

established at the same time to monitor the Consumer Affairs Agency. The 

committee—an independent body— will have authority to request 

information and reports from ministries and make recommendations for 

crisis management, through the Prime Minister, in the event of consumer 

incidents. 

China 

Environment for 

Consumer Product Safety 

in China 

China imports relatively few manufactured products compared with its 

exports. Consumer products that are imported tend to come from more 

developed and more regulated markets in Europe, Japan, and the United 

States. Therefore, China faces proportionally fewer challenges with regard 

to import products. Further, the costs of testing products and certifying 

them for sale, as well as the costs of shipping and tariffs, make it difficult 

for imported products to compete with Chinese domestic products in 

similar product categories. 

Recent high-profile cases in China involving food and product safety have 

affected China’s export reputation. These cases appear to have prompted 

the government to raise the priority of food and product safety. 

• Laws and regulations: China’s fundamental law on product safety is The 

Law of the People’s Republic of China on Product Quality, which was 

written in 1993 and revised in 2000. This law preceded the establishment 

of China’s leading quality and safety agency, the General Administration 

for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ). The law sets 

a very low standard for corporate liability by defining the amount of 

damages and fines that can be collected through lawsuits. It also applies 

some penalties to entities that can claim ignorance of the law. The law 

makes no reference to foreign manufactures or domestic goods. 

Page 86 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

China’s main regulatory code pertaining to imported consumer goods is 

found in AQSIQ’s Regulations for Compulsory Product Certification. 

Issued in 2001, this regulation created a uniform standard for imported 

and domestically manufactured goods, as well as a certification mark 

known as China Compulsory Certification (CCC) or 3C. The regulation 

applies to a catalogue of products that must be approved by AQSIQ prior 

to general sale in China. The standards for individual products are defined 

separately by national and industry standards. CCC testing is conducted 

mostly by enterprises owned in whole or in part by AQSIQ; foreign testing 

companies have not been approved to conduct CCC tests, but neither have 

they been explicitly excluded. 

The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Import and Export 

Commodity Inspection is the main law pertaining to import and export 

inspections. The law dates to 1989 and provides for fee-based inspections 

at port, as well as preshipment inspections that may be conducted in a 

foreign country. The law empowers the provincial-level organizations of 

AQSIQ—known as Customs, Inspection and Quarantine (CIQ)—to 

conduct inspections. The law also provides for an appeal process in case 

the importer or exporter disagrees with the result of an inspection. The 

law sets penalties for evading the inspection process, trading in 

counterfeit goods, and corrupt practices. However, recent problems with 

food and product safety demonstrate that the local inspection offices 

responsible for both food and product testing may lack robust technical 

abilities and the capacity to deal with the current volume of trade. 

• Key organizations: AQSIQ is China’s leading quality and safety agency. 

Standards are issued by the Standards Administration of China, a division 

of AQSIQ, which also represents China in international standards 

organizations. The Certification and Accreditation Administration of the 

People’s Republic of China (CNCA), which is also technically part of 

AQSIQ, is responsible for certifying and accrediting functions related to 

CCC tests. Numerous testing companies, almost all partially owned by 

AQSIQ, carry out testing for the CCC system. A catalogue of China’s 

specific products required to obtain CCC approval can be found on 

CNCA’s Web site.8

 In 2009, CNCA revoked a provision to allow the limited 

importation of any product not certified with a CCC mark. Unlike similar 

approvals for the United States, foreign manufacturers applying for CCC 

 

8

CNCA’s English-language Web site is http://219.238.178.8/20040420/column/227.htm

(accessed 7/6/09). It lists the types of products that require CCC tests. 

Page 87 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

approval must pay all costs, including travel and lodging expenses of 

Chinese inspectors traveling to the foreign country for factory inspections. 

Routine inspections, factory checks, recalls, and other regulatory actions 

are carried out mostly by AQSIQ’s provincial representative offices, CIQ. 

China also has a product recall entity know as the Defective Product 

Administrative Center, a part of AQSIQ, which is responsible for the 

oversight of product recalls. The center is technically responsible for 

consumer products, but its primary focus is on automobile safety. The 

local CIQ offices are responsible for overseeing recalls at the local level. 

The national system for product recalls is still undeveloped. 

• Standards: China has a comprehensive body of regulatory standards that 

fall into four categories: National Standards, Industry Standards, Local 

Standards, and Enterprise Standards. Each category includes aspects of 

product safety. The governing law for these categories dates to 1988 and 

applies to a range of industries and fields, not just consumer products. 

Some of these regulatory standards are more clearly spelled out in 

product-specific codes published on the CNCA Web site. 

Under China’s system, there are both mandatory and voluntary standards. 

Mandatory standards are those intended to safeguard human health, 

personal property, and safety and those enforced by laws and 

administrative regulations. All others are voluntary standards. Similarly, 

under the CCC product certification system, some products are not 

subject to compulsory certification but can be certified on a voluntary 

basis. The voluntary process is known as the China Quality Certification 

Center’s Voluntary Product Certification System. It applies to products 

that are not included in an itemized catalogue of products subject to 

mandatory certification. The system is also an AQSIQ function, and this 

certification is limited to Chinese companies only. 

• Policy enforcement and compliance: CIQ offices are responsible for local 

enforcement actions. Local CIQ offices have responsibility for inspecting 

and certifying factories, issuing and revoking manufacturing licenses, 

issuing or revoking export permits, conducting preshipment export 

inspections, and clearing or refusing goods for importation into China. 

Local CIQ offices have their own laboratory facilities but often call upon 

AQSIQ headquarters for policy guidance and technical support. Local CIQ 

offices also have the authority to initiate a mandatory recall, although 

China’s recall system is still developing. As of July 2009, China’s recall 

provisions emphasized the cessation of manufacturing and sale of 

dangerous goods and included no methodical system for the physical 

Page 88 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected 

International Entities 

collection of goods already sold. According to U.S. Embassy officials in 

Beijing, draft regulations in China on product recalls represent a positive 

step for improved product safety. 

• Authority to inspect foreign manufacturing plants: China 

unambiguously holds and maintains the authority to inspect foreignowned plants operating in China, and such inspections are conducted by 

AQSIQ and the Ministry of Health. However, for any plant operating only 

for the purpose of export manufacturing (i.e., no sales in China), AQSIQ 

takes a less rigorous approach to regulation. Such plants are not required 

to undergo the same assessments as plants manufacturing for local 

consumption. 

U.S. Embassy officials in Beijing stated that they are unaware of any 

memorandum of understanding that AQSIQ may have to facilitate foreign 

inspections. However, the CCC system requires factory inspection to be 

conducted by a certification body that has been accredited by CNCA. Only 

one non-Chinese certification and testing body, Underwriters 

Laboratories, has been accredited to conduct follow-up factory 

inspections in the United States for CCC approval. CNCA has similar 

arrangements with other countries. 

Page 89 GAO-09-803 Consumer Safety
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 90 GAO-09-803 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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

In addition to the individual named above, Debra Johnson, Assistant 

Director; Meghana Acharya; Philip Curtin; Elizabeth Guran; Ronald Ito; 

Marc Molino; Omyra Ramsingh; Linda Rego; Jennifer Schwartz; Jay Smale; 

and Kathryn Supinski made key contributions to this report. Important 

contributions also were made by Loren Yager, Director, International 

Affairs and Trade; Richard Stana, Director, Homeland Security and Justice; 

and Christine Broderick, Assistant Director, International Affairs and 

Trade. 

 Consumer Safety 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250422) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper