GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

HOUSEHOLD GOODS 

MOVING INDUSTRY 

Progress Has Been 

Made in Enforcement, 

but Increased Focus 

on Consumer 

Protection Is Needed 

October 2009 

GAO-10-38 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

HOUSEHOLD GOODS MOVING INDUSTRY

Progress Has Been Made in Enforcement, but 

Increased Focus on Consumer Protection Is Needed 

Highlights of GAO-10-38, a report to 

congressional committees 

Each year, the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) within the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) receives 

about 3,000 consumer complaints 

regarding interstate moving 

companies: some involve 

egregious offenses, such as 

holding goods hostage. Over the 

years, Congress and GAO have 

raised concerns about the 

adequacy of FMCSA’s oversight 

of the industry. As requested, 

GAO reviewed the (1) extent to 

which states have used authority 

in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) to take federal 

enforcement action against 

interstate movers and challenges 

in using that authority; (2) extent 

and timeliness of FMCSA’s 

progress in its consumer 

protection efforts; and (3) 

advantages and disadvantages of 

options for enhancing consumer 

protection in the industry. GAO 

analyzed applicable laws and 

regulations; interviewed 

government, moving industry, 

and consumer protection 

officials; surveyed state 

regulatory agencies and state 

attorneys general; and analyzed 

consumer protection models. 

What GAO Recommends

DOT should evaluate whether to 

move the household goods 

program to OST and address 

problems with FMCSA’s consumer 

protection efforts. DOT and FTC 

agreed with the information in this 

report, and DOT agreed to 

consider the recommendations. 

States have not used two SAFETEA-LU provisions that permit state regulatory 

agencies and state attorneys general to bring a federal consumer protection 

action against an interstate household goods mover. The state officials GAO 

surveyed cited several challenges to using the provisions; for example, state 

regulatory agencies cited concerns about a lack of resources to bring an 

action and insufficient awareness of and clarity on how to use the provisions. 

State attorneys general reported a strong preference for wanting to use their 

own state laws and their own state courts to pursue interstate carriers; 

however, the Carmack Amendment—a statute limiting carrier liability—

preempts them from doing so. 

FMCSA has made progress in its household goods consumer protection 

efforts; however, the effectiveness of these efforts is unknown and the 

progress has been slow. FMCSA has focused most of its efforts on improving 

enforcement, such as increasing the number of household goods compliance 

reviews, and has made limited progress in other areas of consumer protection, 

including consumer education and outreach, partnering with key 

stakeholders, and reporting and using consumer complaints data. FMCSA has 

been slow to implement improvements in consumer protection recommended 

by GAO or required by law. For example, the agency completed a study of 

alternative dispute mechanisms 11 years after its legislative deadline elapsed. 

Recent steps FMCSA has undertaken in an effort to improve its household 

goods program are too new for their impact to be determined. 

Several policy options exist for enhancing consumer protection in the 

interstate household goods moving industry and each has potential 

advantages and disadvantages. First, FMCSA could retain oversight 

responsibility, given that it has already invested time and resources into the 

effort and has recently implemented actions to improve enforcement. 

However, FMCSA’s primary mission is safety, and the limitations in the 

agency’s consumer protection efforts to date raise questions about its 

commitment to enhancing consumer protection. A second option is to create a 

separate office within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) 

similar to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (OAEP). OAEP 

focuses on consumer protection for the aviation industry, leaving safety the 

purview of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This could be an 

effective model for resolving concerns about how FMCSA addresses 

consumer protection for the interstate household goods moving industry 

within its safety mission. However, given OST’s structure, creating a new 

office would require careful consideration of organizational, legal, budgetary, 

and resource issues. A third option is to move this function to the Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC). As the nation’s consumer protection agency, the 

FTC has the expertise to protect consumers. However, FTC has no experience 

or expertise with the interstate household goods industry and is currently 

legally prohibited from regulating common carriers, including moving 

companies. 

View GAO-10-38 or key components.

For more information, contact Susan Fleming 

at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-38 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

States Have Not Brought an Action Against Any Interstate 

Household Goods Mover Using SAFETEA-LU Authority and 

Cited Several Challenges to Doing So 11 

While FMCSA Has Made Some Progress in Its Consumer 

Protection Efforts, the Effectiveness of These Efforts Is 

Unknown and Implementation Has Been Slow 16 

Three Options to Enhance Consumer Protections in the Interstate 

Household Goods Moving Industry Have Potential Advantages 

and Disadvantages 27 

Conclusions 39 

Recommendations for Executive Action 41 

Agency Comments 42 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 43 

Appendix II Number and Type of Consumer Complaints about 

Household Goods Movers Received by FMCSA, by 

Category, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 49 

Appendix III Results from GAO Surveys of State Regulatory 

Agencies and State Attorneys General 50 

Appendix IV Comparison of Consumer Protection Efforts in 

Three Organizations Reviewed by GAO 57 

Appendix V Types of Consumer Protection Activities 61 

Appendix VI Comments from the Federal Trade Commission 62 

 Household Goods Moving Industry 
Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64 

Tables 

Table 1: Challenges to Using SAFETEA-LU Authority Cited by State 

Regulatory Agencies in Responding to Our Survey 12 

Table 2: Challenges to Using SAFETEA-LU Authority Cited by State 

Attorneys General in Responding to Our Survey 14 

Table 3: FMCSA’s Reviews and Enforcement Actions for 

Household Goods Movers, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 18 

Table 4: Length of Time It Has Taken FMCSA to Implement Our 

Recommendations and the Mandates Enacted in 

SAFETEA-LU 24 

Table 5: Organizations Whose Officials Were Interviewed 44 

Table 6: State Attorneys General and State Regulatory Agencies We 

Surveyed to Determine Use of SAFETEA-LU Provisions 46 

Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Consumer Complaints for 2008 and Location 

of FMCSA’s Household Goods Specialists 5 

Figure 2: Selected Steps in the Household Goods Consumer 

Complaint Processes of Four Organizations 7 

Page ii GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Abbreviations 

ACPD Aviation Consumer Protection Division 

AMSA American Moving and Storage Association 

BBB Better Business Bureau 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

FTC Federal Trade Commission 

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission 

NCCDB National Consumer Complaint Database 

OAEP Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

OST Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

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-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Page 1 GAO-10-38 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 30, 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 Frank R. Lautenberg 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Thune 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Surface Transportation 

 and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, 

 Safety, and Security 

Committee on Commerce, Science, 

 and Transportation 

United States Senate 

Consumer protection in the interstate household goods moving industry—

a small but unique industry governed by complex federal laws and 

regulations—has been of significant interest to Congress since the 

breakup of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1995. 

Consumers who hire interstate household goods movers must rely 

primarily on federal oversight and enforcement of the household goods 

moving industry for consumer protection because it is one of the few 

industries in which states are limited in their role to protect consumers 

using state consumer protection laws and other state laws. Furthermore, 

the household goods moving industry is one where the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, does not 

have authority to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices or unfair methods of competition.1

 For the last decade, the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) has had responsibility for protecting 

consumers involved in interstate household goods moves. It exercises this 

1

15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2). 

 Household Goods Moving Industry 
 

responsibility by issuing regulations, conducting oversight activities, and 

taking enforcement actions.2

We and Congress have raised concerns over the years about the adequacy 

of FMCSA’s oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry, 

including FMCSA’s efforts to collect and track complaint information and 

conduct education and outreach activities that would effectively protect 

consumers. Since 2001, we have reported that although some progress has 

been made, FMCSA has fallen short in its consumer protection efforts by 

not establishing a comprehensive strategy or adequate performance 

measures and by not implementing adequate outreach to or coordination 

with federal and state law enforcement and regulatory officials.3

 In 2005, a 

number of provisions in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)4

 were 

enacted, in part, to address some of these concerns. In particular, two 

SAFETEA-LU provisions gave states (state regulatory agencies and state 

attorneys general) the authority to enforce DOT-delineated federal 

household goods consumer protection laws and regulations against 

interstate household goods movers.5

 By using this authority, states can 

assist FMCSA in carrying out its consumer protection enforcement efforts. 

In light of continuing interest, this report addresses the following: 

 

2

Until 1996, ICC had regulatory and consumer protection responsibilities for interstate 

household goods movers. The ICC Termination Act of 1995, among other things, dissolved 

ICC and transferred these responsibilities to DOT, which placed the program within the 

motor carrier safety office in the Federal Highway Administration. See Pub. L. No. 104-88, § 

101, 109 Stat. 803, 804. FMCSA was assigned oversight responsibility for the household 

goods moving industry as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. See 

Pub. L. No. 106-159, § 101, 113 Stat. 1748, 1750. 

3

GAO, Consumer Protection: Some Improvements in Federal Oversight of Household 

Goods Moving Industry Since 2001, but More Action Needed to Better Protect Individual 

Consumers, GAO-07-586 (Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007); Consumer Protection: Federal 

Actions to Oversee the Household Goods Moving Industry Are Unlikely to Have 

Immediate Impact, GAO-01-819T (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2001); and Consumer 

Protection: Federal Actions Are Needed to Improve Oversight of the Household Goods 

Moving Industry, GAO-01-318 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 5, 2001). 

4

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144. 

5

Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 4206, 119 Stat. 1144, 1754-1757 (2005), codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 14710, 

14711. The provisions gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to determine 

which laws and regulations could be enforced under this authority. On November 17, 2006, 

FMCSA published a list of these laws and regulations. See 71 Fed. Reg. 67009. This 

authority was provided to both state regulatory agencies and state attorneys general, 

respectively. We refer to these together as the state for purposes of this report. 

Page 2 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

• the extent to which states have used the SAFETEA-LU provisions that 

allow states to enforce federal household goods consumer protection laws 

and regulations, and any challenges to using the provisions; 

• the extent and timeliness of progress made by FMCSA in its consumer 

protection efforts; and 

• options for enhancing consumer protection in the federal oversight of the 

household goods moving industry, and the advantages and disadvantages 

of those options. 

To address these issues, we analyzed federal and state laws and 

regulations related to the household goods moving industry, reviewed 

pertinent documentation and interviewed a wide array of officials from 

federal and state agencies, the moving industry, and consumer protection 

organizations. To determine the extent to which states are using two 

SAFETEA-LU provisions that provided them with authority to enforce 

federal household goods consumer protection laws and regulations, we 

surveyed state regulatory agencies6

 in the 42 states and the District of 

Columbia that regulate intrastate household goods movers and state 

attorneys general in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.7

 To 

better understand FMCSA’s household goods consumer protection efforts, 

we contacted or met with officials in FMCSA’s headquarters and six field 

offices located in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and 

Texas. We chose the six field offices based on the volume of complaints 

against movers in those states, the presence of household goods 

specialists in those offices, and recommendations from FMCSA 

headquarters staff. Finally, to understand potential options for enhancing 

consumer protection in the household goods moving industry, we 

reviewed two models of consumer protection: FTC’s Bureau of Consumer 

Protection and DOT’s Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

within the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST). These models 

were chosen because of the relevance of their consumer protection 

activities. 

 

6

State regulatory agencies are those state entities responsible for regulating the intrastate 

movement of household goods. In 49 U.S.C. § 14710(d), this type of entity is referred to as a 

state authority. For purposes of this report, we use “state agency” to refer to the same 

entity as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 14710(d). 

7

Of the 43 regulatory agencies, 40 (93 percent) responded to our survey. Of the 51 attorneys 

general we surveyed, 39 (76 percent) responded to our survey. 

Page 3 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through 

October 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. (See app. I for further 

details about our scope and methodology.) 

According to FMCSA, approximately 4,800 interstate moving companies 

transport the household goods of 1.6 million Americans who move across 

state lines each year. While the total number of companies is substantial, 

they constitute a small percentage of the approximately 720,000 interstate 

commercial carriers engaged in all aspects of interstate commerce. 

Background 

FMCSA’s mission is focused on reducing crashes, injuries, and fatalities 

involving large trucks and buses; however, in 1999 the agency was also 

given oversight responsibility for consumer protections involving 

interstate household goods movers. FMCSA’s oversight activities for 

interstate household goods movers include collecting complaint data, 

enforcing compliance with economic and consumer protection laws and 

regulations, and providing consumer education and outreach. 

According to its fiscal year 2010 budget request, FMCSA applies less than 1 

percent of its budgetary resources (including a small number of staff) 

toward oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry. 

Overall, FMCSA has approximately 1,100 full-time employees located in its 

headquarters facilities in Washington, D.C., and within its field office 

structure. The field office structure consists of 4 service centers and 52 

division offices—1 in each state, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. 

Across this nationwide organizational structure, FMCSA has assigned 14 of 

its 1,100 staff to oversee the interstate household goods moving industry—

5 staff in headquarters and 9 staff in field offices. Among the 9 field staff, 8 

are household goods specialists who investigate household goods 

consumer complaints. Of the existing 8 household goods specialists, only 1 

specialist dedicates 100 percent of his time to household goods 

enforcement, while the remaining 7 are also responsible for enforcing 

safety regulations on interstate motor carriers. Additionally, 128 of the 255 

safety investigators in FMCSA’s field offices throughout the country have 

taken household goods training and can assist in household goods 

enforcement. Figure 1 shows the distribution of consumer complaints 

received by FMCSA against interstate household goods movers, 

Page 4 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

juxtaposed with the location of FMCSA’s household goods specialists in 

fiscal year 2008. As the figure shows, for the most part, FMCSA has 

household goods specialists located in the states with the highest number 

of complaints. 

Figure 1: Number of Consumer Complaints for 2008 and Location of FMCSA’s Household Goods Specialists 

Pa.

Ore.

Nev.

Idaho

Mont.

Wyo.

Utah

Ariz.

N.Mex.

Colo.

N.Dak.

S.Dak.

Nebr.

Tex.

Kans.

Okla.

Minn.

Iowa

Mo.

Ark.

La.

Ill.

Miss.

Ind.

Ky.

Tenn.

Ala.

Fla.

Ga.

S.C.

N.C.

Va.

Ohio

N.H.

Mass. Mich.

Calif.

Wash.

Wis. N.Y.

Maine

Vt.

W.Va.

Alaska

Hawaii

States with

1 complaint

States with 100 complaints or more

(exact number of complaints shown in each state)

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C. (19)

452

358

221

165

106

101

89

84

82

78

77

66

74

71 71

68

49

114

5

38

36

30

25

24 23

23

24

20

22

19

20

15

18

12

13

14

12

9

12

9

7

8

5

4

6

3

2

1

1

The number of FMCSA household goods specialists located within each state (8 total nationally)

9

Sources: FMCSA; GAO; and Map Resources (base map).

Page 5 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

FMCSA receives about 3,000 complaints against interstate household 

goods movers per year,8

 including complaints about estimates and final 

charges, problems with the pickup and delivery of goods, and loss and 

damage of goods (see app. II for further details on the number and type of 

complaints received from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2008). 

Complaint data are received and managed in FMCSA’s National Consumer 

Complaint Database (NCCDB). Consumers primarily file complaints 

through FMCSA’s “Protect Your Move” Web site and its toll-free hotline. 

There are some organizations with which complaints against interstate 

household goods movers can be lodged and possibly resolved without ever 

being filed directly with FMCSA. For example, organizations such as 

MoveRescue, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), and the American Moving 

and Storage Association (AMSA) receive consumer complaints about 

interstate household goods movers and attempt to resolve them by 

working directly with the moving companies and consumers or through an 

arbitration program. BBB, for example, received nearly 9,000 complaints 

against both interstate and intrastate household goods movers in 2008, and 

AMSA received 300 complaints against interstate movers in 2008.9

 BBB 

and AMSA both have arbitration programs to help consumers reso

complaints, while MoveRescue provides information on consumers’ rights 

and responsibilities and attempts to intervene directly on behalf of 

consumers in recovering goods. Figure 2 depicts the processes by which a 

consumer complaint may be filed and resolved. Consumers may file 

complaints concurrently with any of these entities and the information 

may or may not be shared directly with FMCSA. For example, BBB does 

not share complaint information directly with FMCSA, AMSA notifies 

FMCSA when it is removing a carrier from its membership, and 

MoveRescue may ask FMCSA to intervene if a mover is unwilling to 

negotiate the return of a consumer’s goods being held “hostage.”

lve 

 

10

8

Number is based on an average of valid complaints from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal 

year 2008. FMCSA defines a valid complaint as a complaint involving an actual shipment by 

the moving company. 

9

BBB does not differentiate between interstate and intrastate movers. 

10“Hostage goods” situations involve a mover holding consumer goods until the consumer 

pays fees greatly in excess of the agreed-upon estimate. 

Page 6 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Figure 2: Selected Steps in the Household Goods Consumer Complaint Processes of Four Organizations 

Source: GAO analysis of organizations’ complaint processes.

Consumer 

files complaint 

with FMCSA 

against a

mover via its

Web site or 

hotline.

If FMCSA determines

the complaint is valid 

and within its purview,a

a letter is sent to the 

carrier explaining the 

complaint.

Complaint could 

trigger one of 

two federal 

enforcement 

investigations

against the 

mover. 

FMCSA may 

close the 

case with or 

without 

enforcement. 

FMCSA may perform a household 

goods review on the mover.

FMCSA may perform a safety 

compliance review on the mover. 

Federal

Motor

Carrier Safety

Administration

(FMCSA)

After BBB receives a

complaint, staff have 

2 weeks to obtain 

response from 

household goods

mover and respond 

to the consumer. 

Local BBB offers the 

parties its dispute 

resolution services. Some 

household goods movers

may decline to use the 

BBB process and instead 

use the AMSA program.

Parties agree 

to BBBsponsored 

mediation 

and/or 

arbitration. 

The BBB 

process may 

take up to 60 

days to 

address and 

resolve the 

complaint. 

Better

Business

Bureau

(BBB)

AMSA receives

complaint via phone, 

e-mail, or letter and 

forwards to mover. 

Mover has 15 days

to respond to the 

complaint. 

American

Moving and

Storage

Association

(AMSA)

MoveRescue

After MoveRescue 

receives complaint, 

consumer must 

share moving 

paperwork with 

MoveRescue

for review.

MoveRescue 

contacts 

mover. 

If mover is an AMSA member, complaint is turned over to 

AMSA (see AMSA process). 

If mover is responsive and willing, a solution is achieved and 

consumer’s household goods are returned. 

MoveRescue will try to 

mediate if dispute continues.

If mover is unresponsive or unwilling to negotiate, MoveRescue 

will ask FMCSA to intervene (see FMCSA process). 

Mover may opt to resolve 

complaint with consumer to 

avoid going through arbitration.

If complaint is not resolved, 

AMSA helps start arbitration.

 If a carrier has a pattern of consumer abuse or fails to observe the requirement to 

enter into arbitration or to pay an arbitration award, AMSA removes the carrier from its

membership and its ProMover program and notifies FMCSA of the action it has taken. 

a

FMCSA refers any household goods rate or overcharge complaints to the Surface Transportation 

Board, which has jurisdiction over certain trucking company rate matters. 

Among the consumer complaints lodged against interstate household 

goods movers, some of the most egregious and traumatic involve 

complaints about goods held hostage.11 In 2008, FMCSA received nearly 

3,000 complaints, of which 730 involved goods being held hostage. As we 

 

11In May 2006, DOT’s Acting Inspector General testified that some victims of movers that 

held their goods hostage have not seen their belongings again, have not recovered their 

damaged possessions until many months after the move, have had their goods looted and 

sold, or have had their goods end up in the homes of the perpetrators. Statement of Todd J. 

Zinser, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and 

Merchant Marine, United States Senate, May 4, 2006, Household Goods Moving Fraud, CC2006-044. 

Page 7 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

reported in 2007, movers that hold goods hostage are often illegitimate 

operators or “rogue movers”; they may be in business only for a short time 

under any given name; and they may shut down their business and set up 

operations under a new name.12 Consumers have little access to assistance 

in these situations, and when the move is interstate, the only federal 

agency with oversight responsibility is FMCSA. If it can locate the 

company, FMCSA may seek a temporary restraining order or injunctive 

relief (i.e., a court order to prevent a carrier from engaging in a specific 

action) against a carrier that is suspected of operating illegally. 

Additionally, if a consumer’s goods are being held hostage at the time the 

consumer calls FMCSA for assistance, it is possible an investigator will 

attempt to get those goods released, though this is done at the discretion 

of the investigator.13 FMCSA does not intervene on behalf of an individual 

consumer, because the agency was directed by Congress when enacting 

the ICC Termination Act of 1995 not to intervene in resolving individual 

complaints.14 Instead, FMCSA’s enforcement approach is to review 

complaint data to identify moving companies with a pattern of complaints 

and target them for investigation. 

FMCSA’s primary enforcement tool for ensuring consumer protection 

involving interstate household goods movers is commonly known as a 

household goods review of economic and consumer protection regulatory 

requirements. These reviews address, among other things, a mover’s 

liability, tariffs, advertising, and arbitration program, as well as 

documentation it provides to consumers—including publications, moving 

estimates, and bills of lading.15 Historically, household goods reviews have 

usually been conducted when a carrier receives more than 10 complaints.16

 

12GAO-07-586. 

13Because holding goods hostage is a criminal offense, the DOT Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) may become involved in a hostage goods case. The OIG has jurisdiction and 

the authority to investigate allegations of fraudulent or other criminal activity related to the 

programs and operations of DOT or its operating administrations. However, for the 

household goods moving industry, the OIG is involved with only the most egregious cases 

that affect many consumers, and prosecutions depend on the U.S. Attorneys’ Office. 

14See H.R. Rep. No. 104-311, at 87-88 (1995), and S. Rep. No. 104-176, at 11 (1995), 

accompanying the ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803. 

15Among other things, household goods reviews assess compliance with regulations, for 

instance, those at 49 C.F.R. part 375. 

16As of June 2009, FMCSA instituted a new policy for targeting moving companies for 

household goods reviews. The new policy is discussed in detail later in this report. 

Page 8 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

They are also conducted during strike forces, which occur for a period of 2 

weeks once a year.17 In addition, FMCSA may conduct safety compliance 

reviews18 on interstate motor carriers, including interstate household 

goods movers, to assess compliance with safety regulations that address 

areas such as testing drivers for alcohol and drugs, insurance coverage, 

crashes, driver qualifications, driver hours of service, vehicle maintenance 

and inspections, and transportation of hazardous materials. Not all 

commercial motor carriers receive safety compliance reviews. FMCSA is 

only able to conduct safety compliance reviews on a very small percentage 

of carriers because of the size of the motor carrier industry and the 

available resources to conduct reviews. Interstate household goods 

movers can receive a household goods review, a safety compliance review, 

or both and these reviews can be completed by one of the household 

goods specialists. In 2008, FMCSA conducted 630 household goods 

reviews and 387 safety compliance reviews on interstate household goods 

movers.19 If a mover is found to be noncompliant, FMCSA has a variety of 

actions it may take, including issuing orders to compel compliance, 

imposing civil monetary penalties, or suspending or revoking a mover’s 

operating authority. As a regulatory agency, FMCSA does not have 

authority to arrest movers that violate the criminal provisions applicable 

to household goods moves, such as holding goods hostage;20 it refers 

appropriate cases to the DOT Office of Inspector General, which conducts 

additional investigation before referring cases to the U.S. Attorneys’ Office 

for potential prosecution. 

Since 2001, we have raised concerns about FMCSA’s oversight of the 

interstate household goods moving industry and made recommendations 

that FMCSA, for example, enhance its education and outreach by reaching 

out to consumer and industry groups as well as state governments, collect 

and monitor data on consumer complaints, and develop a strategy, with 

 

17Strike forces, which focus on states that have reported a high number of complaints about 

household goods movers, bring together FMCSA and state officials to make site visits to 

the movers that have generated the greatest number of complaints. 

18For the purpose of this report, to distinguish between a household goods review and 

compliance review, we are using “safety compliance review” in place of compliance review. 

19Household goods reviews can be completed in conjunction with safety compliance 

reviews. 

20SAFETEA-LU provided for civil and criminal penalties for failure to give up possession of 

household goods. See Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 4210, 119 Stat. 1144, 1758-59 (2005), codified at 

49 U.S.C. § 14915. 

Page 9 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

performance goals and measures, that delineates how FMCSA’s oversight 

and enforcement activities related to household goods movers will 

improve consumer protection. To address the concerns we and others 

have raised, a number of provisions were enacted in SAFETEA-LU in 2005 

to enhance protections for consumers who hire interstate movers.21 Two 

of these provisions provided states with the authority to enforce feder

household goods consumer protection laws and regulations (as designated 

by DOT) against interstate household goods carriers, as follows

al 

 

22: 

• The first provision gives state regulatory agencies the authority to bring 

federal consumer protection actions against interstate household goods 

carriers in either state or federal court and specifically allows the state to 

retain any fines or penalties imposed on a carrier (see 49 U.S.C. § 14710). 

• The second provision gives state attorneys general, acting “on behalf of 

the state’s residents,” the authority to bring federal consumer protection 

actions against interstate household goods carriers in federal court only. 

The provision is silent as to whether the state may retain penalties 

imposed on a carrier (see 49 U.S.C. § 14711). 

The statutory authority contained in the two SAFETEA-LU provisions23

was designed to augment federal resources24 and provides states with a 

federal enforcement tool, as states are preempted by the Carmack 

Amendment from bringing their own actions against interstate household 

goods movers in state court using state laws.25 The Carmack Amendment, 

21See Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, title IV, subtitle B. 

22See 71 Fed. Reg. 67009 (Nov. 17, 2006) for a list of those federal consumer protection laws 

and regulations that can be enforced by the states under this authority. Additional 

household goods laws are contained in Title 49, subtitle IV, part B, of the United States 

Code—see 49 U.S.C. §§ 13102, 13701, 13702, 13704, 13707, 13901, 13902, 13907, 14104, 

14302, 14706, 14707, 14708, 14710, 14711, 14901, 14912, 14915. Regulations related to the 

interstate movement of household goods are at 49 C.F.R. part 375. 

23For purposes of this report, we refer to these SAFETEA-LU provisions, which provided 

states with the authority to enforce federal household goods consumer protection laws and 

regulations, as SAFETEA-LU authority. 

24See H.R. Rep. No. 109-203, § 4206, at 1010 (2005). This language is also contained in H.R. 

Rep. No. 109-12, § 4201, at 443 (2005). 

25The Carmack Amendment is found at 49 U.S.C. § 14706. The legal principle of 

“preemption” requires that federal law supersede any potentially conflicting state law—a 

determination ultimately made by the courts. This principle of preemption is based on the 

Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires federal law to be the 

supreme law of the land. U.S. Const. Art. VI, sec. 2. 

Page 10 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

a federal civil liability statute enacted in 1906, which sets limitations on 

carrier liability,26 broadly covers a variety of industries, including the 

household goods moving industry. 

States have not used the two SAFETEA-LU provisions that permit state 

regulatory agencies and state attorneys general to bring a federal 

consumer protection action against an interstate household goods 

mover,27 according to federal agency information and results from our 

survey. First, for any action initiated by a state under these SAFETEA-LU 

provisions, the state must serve written notice to either DOT 

Surface Transportation Board (STB).

or the 

ion, 

d 

 

28 Officials from both these agencies

told us that they had not received notice of any state filing such an act

as required by law. Second, none of the 40 state regulatory agencies or the 

39 state attorneys general responding to our survey indicated that they ha

used these two SAFETEA-LU provisions.29

The state officials we surveyed identified a variety of challenges to 

bringing federal consumer protection actions using the SAFETEA-LU 

authority,30 including resource constraints and a preference for using state 

States Have Not 

Brought an Action 

Against Any Interstate 

Household Goods 

Mover Using 

SAFETEA-LU 

Authority and Cited 

Several Challenges to 

Doing So 

26The Carmack Amendment was enacted in 1906 under the Hepburn Act, as an amendment 

to section 20 of the Interstate Commerce Commission Act of 1887. Act of June 29, 1906, c. 

3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 584, 595. The provision was subsequently amended and became a part of 

the ICC Termination Act of 1995. The statute limits liability of an interstate motor carrier to 

the actual loss or injury to the transported property. 

27See Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 4206, 119 Stat. 1144, 1754-1757 (2005), codified at 49 U.S.C. §§ 

14710, 14711. As noted above, for purposes of this report, when we refer to using 

SAFETEA-LU authority, we mean using the authority granted under these two provisions of 

SAFETEA-LU. 

2849 U.S.C. §§ 14710(b), 14711(b)(1). The STB, the successor agency to the ICC, serves as 

both an adjudicatory and regulatory body and has jurisdiction over certain trucking 

company rate matters, among other duties. 

29We surveyed the 43 state regulatory agencies (for 42 states and the District of Columbia) 

that have responsibility for oversight of intrastate household goods movers, 40 of which (93 

percent) responded to our survey. We also surveyed the attorneys general for all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia, 39 of which (76 percent) responded to our survey. 

30In addition to surveying on the challenges to bringing actions using this authority, we 

surveyed the state regulatory agencies and the state attorneys general on the reasons they 

had not used this authority. Responses to these questions, along with the complete results 

of our survey, can be found in app. III. 

Page 11 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

courts, among other challenges31 (see app. III for the complete results of 

our surveys of state regulatory agencies and state attorneys general). 

About two out of every five of those state regulatory agencies responding 

noted insufficient resources as a challenge to using SAFETEA-LU, whether 

they file the action in state or federal court32 (see table 1). This was 

something that officials we interviewed from the four regulatory agencies 

also underscored.33 As a result, using limited state resources to bring 

federal consumer protection actions against interstate movers may not be 

a top priority for some state regulatory agencies, particularly in the current 

economy. In addition, a lack of clarity on how to apply SAFETEA-LU and a 

lack of awareness of this SAFETEA-LU authority were among the most 

frequent challenges to bringing an action cited by state regulatory 

agencies.34

Table 1: Challenges to Using SAFETEA-LU Authority Cited by State Regulatory 

Agencies in Responding to Our Survey 

Number of state regulatory agency respondents 

who cited challenge 

Challenge 

Challenges to using 

provision in federal court 

Challenges to using 

provision in state court 

Insufficient resources to 

prosecute the case(s) in federal 

court 

15 16

Lack of clarity on how to apply 

the SAFETEA-LU authority 

13 15

Lack of awareness of 

SAFETEA-LU authority 

9 10

 

31Survey respondents were able to choose more than one challenge in responding to survey 

questions. 

32State regulatory agencies are permitted to bring actions in either state or federal court. 

See 49 U.S.C. § 14710. 

33Resource constraints were cited less frequently by state attorneys general as a challenge 

to bringing an action using the SAFETEA-LU authority. Of the state attorneys general 

responding to our survey, seven noted that they face resource constraints when bringing a 

case to federal court. 

34FMCSA developed some guidance (in the form of a PowerPoint presentation) to help 

states with use of the two provisions provided in the law, and it provided the Household 

Goods Working Group, discussed later in this report, with sample legal pleadings to initiate 

and prosecute civil enforcement actions in federal district court. 

Page 12 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Number of state regulatory agency respondents 

who cited challenge 

Challenge 

Challenges to using 

provision in federal court 

Challenges to using 

provision in state court 

Lack of familiarity with the 

federal court system 

8 Not applicable

State regulatory agency prefers 

to bring action in state courts 

6 Not applicable

State consumer protection laws 

provide stronger penalties 

1 1

Other 10 8

Source: GAO survey of state regulatory agencies. 

Notes: Forty of the 43 state regulatory agencies that have responsibility for oversight of intrastate 

household goods movers responded to our survey. 

State regulatory agencies responding to our survey were able to choose more than one response to 

the survey questions. 

Other challenges cited by respondents included limited resources and issues regarding the state 

authority granted to the state regulatory agency. 

State attorneys general cited a different set of challenges to bringing a 

federal household goods consumer protection action under SAFETEA-LU 

(see table 2). Unlike state regulatory agencies, state attorneys general are 

authorized by SAFETEA-LU to bring these actions in federal court only.35

Just over half of the state attorneys general responding to our survey 

identified a challenge to bringing actions under SAFETEA-LU that is 

related to this statutory constraint—a preference of state attorneys 

general for bringing actions in state courts. In addition, the same number 

of state attorneys general cited two additional obstacles: that the fines and 

penalties imposed on a carrier only benefit the federal government, not the 

states,36 and that state consumer protection laws provided stronger 

penalties than those available under SAFETEA-LU. 

 

35See 49 U.S.C. § 14711(a). 

36As noted above, 49 U.S.C. § 14711 is silent about the retention of penalties. FMCSA 

believes this provision authorizes states to retain penalties when bringing an action under 

this authority. Many state attorneys general, on the other hand, cited their lack of authority 

to retain penalties under the provision as a challenge to using this authority. In our view, 

the provision’s silence about the retention of penalties, together with other factors, makes 

it unclear whether, for example, Congress intended these penalties to be retained by the 

state, to be deposited into the federal treasury, or to be made available for claim by 

aggrieved state residents. 

Page 13 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Table 2: Challenges to Using SAFETEA-LU Authority Cited by State Attorneys 

General in Responding to Our Survey 

Challenge 

Number of state attorneys 

general respondents who 

cited challenge

State attorneys general office prefers to bring action in 

state courts 

20

State consumer protection laws provide stronger 

penalties 

20

Financial remedies under SAFETEA-LU benefit the 

federal government, not the state 

20

Lack of awareness of the SAFETEA-LU authority 10

Insufficient resources to prosecute the case(s) in federal 

court 

7

Lack of clarity on how to apply the SAFETEA-LU 

authority 

7

Other challenge 3

Source: GAO survey of state attorneys general. 

Notes: Thirty-nine of the 51 state attorneys general responded to our survey. 

State attorneys general responding to our survey were able to choose more than one response to the 

survey questions. 

Other challenges cited by respondents included stronger penalties under state law, potential for 

expedited relief using state law, and the inability of the state to retain fines and penalties. 

Our survey results indicate that many state attorneys general would prefer 

to bring actions against interstate household goods movers in their own 

state courts using state laws—a position they have previously expressed. 

In 2004, 48 state attorneys general signed a letter to Congress that 

indicated support for a proposed bill that would have amended the 

Carmack Amendment to provide states with the authority to enforce their 

own consumer protection laws and regulations against interstate 

household goods carriers in state courts, among other things.37 State 

attorneys general prefer their own state consumer protection laws, which 

provide, for example, consumer restitution, injunctive relief, and penalties 

against businesses that engage in deceptive practices—remedies not 

available to them under federal law. The National Association of Attorneys 

General also noted during our interviews that state attorneys general 

preferred to bring cases in a familiar court system. 

 

37H.R. 1070, 108th Cong. (2003). 

Page 14 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

However, as we noted earlier in this report, states are constrained from 

enforcing state consumer protection laws against interstate household 

goods carriers by the broad scope of federal preemption under the 

Carmack Amendment, which courts have ruled preempts bringing an 

action in state court under state consumer protection laws, among other 

state laws.38 Because preemption is a judicial determination made in 

different jurisdictions throughout the country, courts interpret the reach 

of the Carmack Amendment differently. Nonetheless, courts have 

consistently interpreted the Carmack Amendment very broadly in this 

context to preempt most, if not all, state civil actions.39 Although the reach 

of the Carmack Amendment is a judicial determination, the scope of the 

law is a construction of Congress and can be amended or repealed; 

however, amendment or repeal of the law would likely cause 

consequences in the moving industry and may cause a rippling effect in a 

number of other industries covered by the long-standing Carmack 

Amendment.40

As a result of the broad scope of preemption under the Carmack 

Amendment, the only option states have to take an action against an 

interstate household goods mover is under the authority provided in 

SAFETEA-LU. However, no state has used this authority since SAFETEALU’s enactment in 2005. The wide variety of challenges state regulatory 

 

38See, for example, Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 506 (1913); Charleston 

and W.C.R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co., 237 U.S. 597 (1915); New York, Philadelphia, & 

Norfolk R.R. Co. v. Peninsula Produce Exch. of Maryland, 240 U.S. 34, 38 (1916); New 

York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131 (1953); Hughes 

Aircraft Co. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 970 F.2d 609, 613 (9th Cir. 1992); United 

Van Lines, Inc., v. Shooster, 860 F. Supp. 826 (S.D. Fla. 1992); Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. 

Coast Packing Co., 236 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2002); and Miracle of Life, LLC v. North 

American Van Lines, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 494 (D. S.C. 2005). 

39State actions could include negligence, breach of contract, violation of insurance codes, 

and claims of emotional distress, among others. See Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 343 

F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2003) (reaffirming a list of claims preempted by the Carmack 

Amendment that the court had articulated 10 years earlier in Moffit v. Bekins Van Lines, 6 

F.3d 305, 305 (5th Cir. 1993)). See also fn. 38. The Carmack Amendment might also be 

interpreted to preempt state criminal actions against interstate carriers. Courts have found 

that the Carmack Amendment preempts tort claims that overlap with state common law 

criminal actions. See Miracle of Life, LLC v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 

2d 494 (D. S.C. 2005); Hoskins v. Bekins Van Lines Co., 343 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2003); 

United Van Lines v. Shooster, 860 F. Supp. 826 (SD. Fla. 1992); and Moffit v. Bekins Van 

Lines, 6 F.3d 305, 305 (5th Cir. 1993). 

40We have not assessed repealing or amending the Carmack Amendment, as it is beyond the 

scope of this report. 

Page 15 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

agencies and state attorneys general cited to using the SAFETEA-LU 

provisions raises questions about whether states will use this authority 

moving forward to help augment, as Congress desired, federal 

enforcement against interstate household goods carriers. With the states 

playing little, if any role, enforcement of consumer protection laws related 

to the interstate household goods moving industry rests solely with 

FMCSA. 

While FMCSA Has 

Made Some Progress 

in Its Consumer 

Protection Efforts, the 

Effectiveness of 

These Efforts Is 

Unknown and 

Implementation Has 

Been Slow 

FMCSA Has Made Some 

Progress in Enhancing 

Consumer Protection; 

However, the Effectiveness 

of These Efforts Remains 

Unknown 

Since we issued our 2001 report,41 FMCSA has taken several steps to 

enhance consumer protection in the household goods moving industry, 

making some progress in each of four categories of consumer protection: 

(1) enforcement, (2) establishing and maintaining partnerships, 

(3) education and outreach, and (4) collecting data on, monitoring, and 

reporting on consumer complaints.42 In particular, FMCSA has increased 

its oversight and enforcement activities against illegitimate interstate 

movers. However, much of the agency’s progress in all four areas of 

consumer protection has been made at the behest of Congress or us, 

rather than through the agency’s own initiative or as a result of its own 

assessments of ongoing efforts. Furthermore, even when the agency 

implemented mandates and some of our recommendations, the success of 

 

41GAO-01-318. 

42We identified the four categories of consumer protection based on our own work for this 

report and our two prior reports (GAO-07-586 and GAO-01-318) and based on information 

from the Federal Trade Commission’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011. (See app. V 

for further information.) 

Page 16 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

these efforts has varied, and although FMCSA performed a onetime 

assessment of its enforcement activities in 2004, the effectiveness of many 

of the efforts is generally unknown, as discussed below. 

Enforcement: Much of FMCSA’s progress in its consumer protection 

efforts has been through enhancing its enforcement of interstate 

household goods movers. For example: 

• In response to our 2001 report, FMCSA reviewed its enforcement process 

and conducted a onetime assessment of its interstate household goods 

enforcement program in 2004 to help determine staffing needs. FMCSA 

increased its resources for household goods enforcement from 5 staff and 

approximately $300,000 in 2001 to 14 staff and $3.1 million requested for 

fiscal year 2010. In addition, since 2004 the agency has trained 128 safety 

specialists in household goods investigation techniques, and these 

specialists may be called upon to assist in household goods reviews. 

• FMCSA has also enhanced its enforcement of interstate household goods 

movers through the use of strike forces, which focus on states that have 

reported a high number of complaints about household goods movers. 

Strike forces bring together FMCSA and state law enforcement officials to 

make site visits to the carriers that have generated the greatest number of 

complaints. As we reported in 2007, approximately 90 percent of 

complaints were generated in six states—Florida, New York, New Jersey, 

California, Texas, and Illinois—and FMCSA has targeted strike force 

activity in these problem states. 

• In 2005, the agency began setting goals for completing household goods 

reviews,43 and it has surpassed these goals each year. FMCSA has also 

steadily increased the number of enforcement actions against household 

goods movers and the number of movers that it has put out of service, as 

shown in table 3. 

 

43The agency set a goal of completing 300 household goods reviews in fiscal year 2005 and a 

goal of completing 450 household goods reviews a year in each fiscal year 2006 through 

2009. For fiscal year 2010, FMCSA officials told us that they were moving away from a 

numerical goal for completing household goods reviews. 

Page 17 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Table 3: FMCSA’s Reviews and Enforcement Actions for Household Goods Movers, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 

FMCSA actions 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Household goods reviewa,b 13 20 30 52 386 570 499 630

Safety compliance reviewb,c 13 20 30 52 381 562 412 387

Enforcement actions 5 11 6 12 46 72 94 105

Amount fined $78,000 $481,000 $396,180 $150,360 $312,120 $467,905 $931,944 $743,663

Amount collected $61,500 $226,000 $40,180 $56,910 $245,420 $323,775 $334,830 $230,541

Household goods carriers put out of 

serviced

1 5 1 3 11 7 203 241

Source: GAO analysis of FMCSA’s household goods reviews, safety compliance reviews, and enforcement actions. 

a

Household goods reviews are regulatory reviews of household goods carriers using the five 

commercial parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR)—49 C.F.R. Parts 366 

(Designation of process agent), 370 (Principles and practices for the investigation and voluntary 

disposition of loss and damage claims and processing salvage), 371 (Brokers of property), 375 

(Transportation of household goods in interstate commerce; consumer protection regulations), and 

377 (Payment of transportation charges). Unlike safety compliance reviews, household goods 

reviews do not result in the carrier receiving a rating of satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or conditional. 

b

According to FMCSA, matching review numbers for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 may indicate that 

the only household goods reviews that were completed during this period were in conjunction with 

comprehensive safety compliance reviews. 

c

Safety compliance reviews are performed on household goods carriers to assess their compliance 

with the safety-related regulations in the FMCSR. This type of review can result in a carrier’s 

receiving a rating of satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or conditional. 

d

Household goods carriers can only be put out of service for failing a safety compliance review or for 

not paying fines. 

While FMCSA has focused much of its efforts on enforcement—by 

increasing household goods reviews and assessing penalties on household 

goods movers—it is unknown if the enforcement tools are effective in 

protecting consumers or are a sufficient deterrent to illegal operators. For 

instance, household goods reviews may not identify some of the most 

egregious violators—illegitimate movers, sometimes called rogue 

movers—that intend to operate illegally and often do not have actual 

physical locations or file the appropriate paperwork. Officials told us that 

these moving companies can be the most difficult to target because a 

household goods review cannot be conducted if the specialist is unable to 

locate the company or its principals. Thus, these illegal moving companies 

continue to operate and take advantage of consumers without 

consequences. Furthermore, while FMCSA may assess civil monetary 

penalties for violations of household goods regulations found during 

household goods reviews, the agency has not used other legal options, 

such as seeking court orders to stop regulatory violations (injunctions). 

According to FMCSA officials, the agency relies on financial penalties over 

other options. Officials also explained that another more severe penalty—

Page 18 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

putting a household goods mover out of service—is only available to them 

for safety violations or when a carrier does not pay its fines. For some 

moving companies operating illegally, the fine may not be a sufficient 

threat. Some FMCSA officials that we spoke with told us that because the 

agency is not a law enforcement agency and does not have arrest authority 

or the ability to take custody of a consumer’s goods in hostage goods 

situations, it relies on the threat of a substantial federal fine. Field officials 

we interviewed indicated that relying on civil penalties can be limiting if 

companies are intent on holding goods hostage or operating illegally. For 

example, one official told us that the agency had imposed a fine on a 

carrier for holding a consumer’s goods hostage, but instead of paying the 

fine the company went out of business and reconstituted itself under a 

different name.44

FMCSA has taken a number of additional steps to improve its 

enforcement, but it is too soon to know their impact and too early to 

understand whether they will be effective in enhancing consumer 

protections. They include the following: 

• October 2008: FMCSA created the Household Goods Technical Assistance 

Group—made up of the eight household goods specialists and a field 

administrator as the group leader—to increase coordination among its 

household goods specialists and to share best practices. Since its 

formation in 2008, the Household Goods Technical Assistance Group has 

only met once. 

• April 2009: FMCSA added household goods moving companies to its New 

Applicant Screening (NAS) process for newly registered motor carriers 

that is aimed at identifying “chameleon” carriers—those movers that are 

potentially evading FMCSA enforcement and continuing to operate under 

a different registration. The NAS uses a tool, known as the Evasion 

Detection Algorithm, for identifying potential chameleon carriers from 

 

44Trucking companies that circumvent FMCSA’s scrutiny and continue operating under a 

different registration are called chameleon carriers. Such companies evade unpaid fines 

and disown their previous enforcement records. This practice is believed to occur among 

all types of companies. Although the frequency is unknown, there is concern that it is 

particularly prevalent among companies that move household goods. We have recently 

issued two reports on chameleon carriers: GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: Reincarnating 

Commercial Vehicle Companies Pose Safety Threat to Motoring Public; Federal Safety 

Agency Has Initiated Efforts to Prevent Future Occurrences, GAO-09-924 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 28, 2009), and Motor Carrier Safety: Commercial Vehicle Registration Program 

Has Kept Unsafe Carriers from Operating, but Effectiveness Is Difficult to Measure, 

GAO-09-495 (Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2009). 

Page 19 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

records in other FMCSA databases, including the Motor Carrier 

Management Information System (MCMIS).45

• June 2009: FMCSA created a “Top 100 List” that prioritizes interstate 

household goods movers to target for investigation. This process rates 

carriers based on their safety profiles in MCMIS. As part of the new Top 

100 List strategy, FMCSA officials also issued a policy memorandum to 

division administrators on how to use the list to target their investigations. 

Establishing and maintaining partnerships: FMCSA’s coordination 

with federal, state, and local stakeholders has included one major 

initiative launched in 2006—establishing the Household Goods Working 

Group—which was required under SAFETEA-LU.46 The working group is 

made up of representatives from state regulatory agencies and state 

attorneys general and a representative from the National Association of 

Attorneys General. The attendance from states is voluntary with, on 

average, 2 to 3 states represented at each meeting, and as many as 10 

states participating in one meeting. The working group has two mandated 

objectives: (1) develop practices and procedures to enhance federal-state 

partnerships and (2) make legislative and regulatory recommendations to 

the Secretary of Transportation concerning enforcement efforts. The 

working group has received mixed reviews—based on our interviews with 

FMCSA officials and working group participants. Some said that having 

direct contact between states and FMCSA was beneficial in facilitating the 

exchange of information on investigations, enforcement actions, and 

states’ efforts to intervene on behalf of consumers; others said that the 

group was not inclusive and its participants had different objectives 

depending on their role, which made it difficult to keep all parties 

interested and focused on working group objectives. Consequently, the 

group experienced dwindling participation, did not complete work on its 

second objective, and has no plans to do so in the future. 

To address its first objective, the working group developed a plan to 

enhance federal-state partnerships that FMCSA issued in May 2009—the 

Enforcement Assistance Outreach Plan. The plan includes a number of 

 

45The Evasion Detection Algorithm is an algorithm that uses complaints reported in 

FMCSA’s complaint database, as well as searches from other safety data from FMCSA’s 

existing databases (e.g., MCMIS), to generate a report of suspected household goods 

moving companies with identified attributes that imply that they are evading FMCSA 

enforcement. 

46Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 4213, 119 Stat. 1144, 1759. 

Page 20 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

actions to enhance FMCSA’s enforcement through partnering with the 

states. In particular, the plan notes that FMCSA will (1) make its own 

enforcement information more widely available, (2) work with states to 

encourage increased consumer reporting to FMCSA’s NCCDB so that the 

database contains all relevant complaints against household goods 

movers, (3) develop procedures to begin the sharing of federal and state 

enforcement information, and (4) provide additional training on how to 

use its various databases and publish instructions on how to access its 

database containing information on household goods carriers’ 

enforcement and compliance history, licenses, and insurance. While this 

plan seeks to enhance enforcement and improve consumer protections 

through strengthening partnerships, the plan lacks details and, apart from 

an overall 2-year completion time frame, lacks specific timelines for 

completing action items. Also, the plan has yet to be implemented, and it is 

therefore too early to know the effectiveness of these efforts. Finally, 

although the working group also attempted to address the second 

objective to make legislative and regulatory recommendations to 

Congress, it encountered a number of obstacles. According to some 

working group members, participants representing state regulatory 

authorities did not feel that they had the authority or the legal expertise to 

discuss legislative changes on behalf of their states. Furthermore, because 

of interest on the part of state attorneys general, the working group 

attempted to develop proposed changes to SAFETEA-LU, but could not 

reach consensus on the language, so efforts to propose legislative changes 

were tabled. FMCSA officials acknowledged that efforts to propose 

legislative and regulatory changes slowed the momentum of the working 

group. 

Education and outreach: Following our 2001 report, FMCSA took a 

number of steps to educate and conduct outreach to consumers—

providing information to state consumer and law enforcement agencies 

and national consumer organizations identifying the agency as the entity 

responsible for interstate household goods enforcement and providing 

general information to consumers. The agency provided online access to 

Your Rights and Responsibilities When You Move, a publication that 

moving companies were required by regulation to provide to consumers 

before executing orders for a shipment of household goods,47 and created 

a Web site, “Protect Your Move,” to provide information to consumers. The 

Web site is also available in Spanish. According to FMCSA, since its 

 

4749 C.F.R. 375.213(b)(1). 

Page 21 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

launch, the Web site has had more than 15 million visits, with an average 

of about 11,600 hits a day and an average visit lasting 12 minutes. The 

agency also created a toll-free complaint hotline and a portal on FMCSA 

Web site through which consumers can file complaints against interstate 

household goods movers and obtain public results of the department’s 

enforcement cases through press releases. While these efforts were initial 

steps in educating and reaching out to consumers, more recently 

stakeholders have criticized the usefulness of these tools. For example, 

AMSA developed a position paper calling for better education and better 

technologies to deliver information to consumers. Additionally, AMSA 

noted that because of the volume of documents and complexity of the 

information consumers need when hiring a moving company—such as 

contracts, insurance requirements, and regulations—FMCSA should make 

the information easier for consumers to digest. In addition, some of the 

stakeholders we interviewed indicated that the “Protect Your Move” Web 

site was not adequately accessible nor was it easy to search for particular 

information. Furthermore, participants in the household goods working 

group acknowledged that the Web site in general was poorly laid out. 

FMCSA officials told us that they have recently completed a baseline 

assessment of their outreach efforts to consumers, focusing on processes 

and organizational improvements as well as effectiveness in reaching 

target audiences. Those officials said that they plan to release a report on 

their findings once the report has been internally reviewed and approved 

for public release. FMCSA is also developing a Household Goods 

Communication Plan to educate the public about household goods moving 

fraud. According to agency officials, the goals of this plan are to educate 

consumers about the typical moving practices in the household goods 

moving industry and their rights and responsibilities in a household goods 

moving situation, and to develop internal and external partnerships for 

educating consumers. FMCSA officials told us that they intend to complete 

the plan and anticipate implementing it in fiscal year 2010. 

Collecting data on, monitoring, and reporting on complaints: In late 

2002, FMCSA implemented what it considers one of its major consumer 

protection enhancements when it began collecting information on 

consumer complaints and centralizing it within the NCCDB. FMCSA 

considers the database an important consumer protection tool to help 

identify patterns of complaints against movers and to obtain additional 

information for investigations. The database information is shared across 

division offices and headquarters and is also available to the public in 

limited form. While the database is used internally by FMCSA staff, it is 

still not being actively used by states to assist in enforcement efforts. 

According to FMCSA, only seven states have asked for and gained secure 

Page 22 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

access48 to the database, and very few use it regularly for their own 

investigations. State users of the database we spoke with said that part of 

the challenge to states making regular use of the database is their lack of 

access to underlying complaint records and backup documents, such as 

mover licensing applications and log books. Furthermore, many states we 

surveyed reported that the volume of complaints in their states was too 

low to warrant filing suit using their SAFETEA-LU authority,49 although if 

state regulatory authorities and attorneys general are not accessing the 

database, it is unclear if states have full information about the number of 

consumer complaints. Finally, the database captures complaints that come 

directly to FMCSA, but not necessarily complaints lodged with other 

entities. 

FMCSA Has Been Slow to 

Implement Recommended 

and Mandated Consumer 

Protection Improvements 

Within the last year, FMCSA has initiated a number of activities, including 

the Household Goods Technical Assistance Group, aimed at bolstering its 

consumer protection efforts. In addition to the activities FMCSA initiated, 

we have made 12 recommendations since 2001 and six mandates were 

enacted as part of SAFETEA-LU in 2005 to help the agency strengthen its 

household goods consumer protection efforts (see table 4). When 

FMCSA’s actions were completed within a year, they usually involved a 

onetime effort on the part of FMCSA—such as its 2001 household goods 

symposium—or were relatively simple to undertake—such as publicizing 

results of its enforcement efforts. However, FMCSA was slow to 

implement the recommendations and mandates, and in eight of those 

actions, FMCSA either has taken more than 5 years to implement them or 

has not yet fully implemented the actions. In one particularly striking 

example—involving both a legislative requirement and a subsequent 

recommendation we made that FMCSA complete a study of arbitration, 

which household goods movers, as a condition of registration, are required 

to offer consumers as a means of settling a dispute—FMCSA completed 

the report 11 years after its legislative deadline elapsed and more than 7 

 

48A state can gain secure access by obtaining a user identification and password from 

FMCSA. 

49In our survey, 13 of the 40 state regulatory agencies and 18 of the 39 state attorneys 

general responding noted that one reason they had not used the SAFETEA-LU provisions is 

that the volume of complaints was too low. 

Page 23 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

years after we recommended that the agency complete the report.50 In 

addition, in 2001 we recommended that FMCSA make publicly available 

information on the number and general nature of complaints made against 

individual carriers. Despite completing a centralized complaint database in 

2002, FMCSA did not make its NCCDB available to the public until April 

2007—6 years after we made our recommendation. Furthermore, because 

the database has gone through changes over the last 7 years (e.g., the 

current database contains more detailed categories of information), it is 

difficult to reliably discern any trends in the consumer complaint 

information at this time. 

Table 4: Length of Time It Has Taken FMCSA to Implement Our Recommendations and the Mandates Enacted in SAFETEA-LU 

Time to implementation 

Recommendation/mandate One year or less

More than 1 

year to 3 years 

More than 3 

years to 5 years

More than 5 

years 

Not fully 

implemented 

March 2001 report recommendation

Ensure division offices consistently 

collect, maintain, and share 

consumer complaint information. 

√

Publicize information on number and 

nature of complaints against 

individual carriers. 

√

Reach out to consumers, consumer 

and industry groups, and state 

governments using Internet postings 

and other means. 

√

Publicize results of FMCSA 

enforcement cases. 

√

Notify state consumer and law 

enforcement agencies and national 

consumer organizations of FMCSA’s 

authority in the interstate household 

goods moving industry. 

√

 

50The arbitration report was originally required as part of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 

and we recommended in our 2001 report (GAO-01-318) that FMCSA complete the study. 

Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 912, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 14708(g). The provision 

required the Secretary to review the dispute settlement program, as established under the 

section, within 18 months after January 1, 1996—meaning the deadline for the report was 

July 1, 1997. FMCSA completed the study in November 2008—more than 7 years after the 

recommendation was made and 11 years after the legislative deadline elapsed. 

Page 24 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Time to implementation 

Recommendation/mandate One year or less

More than 1 

year to 3 years 

More than 3 

years to 5 years

More than 5 

years 

Not fully 

implemented 

Assess whether household goods 

carrier enforcement activities are 

effective and sufficient; if not, 

increase enforcement actions as 

outlined in FMCSA’s plan. 

√

Undertake and complete 

congressionally mandated study of 

alternative dispute mechanisms 

(particularly arbitration).a

√

Determine if legislative changes are 

needed to supplement FMCSA’s 

efforts, including authorizing states to 

enforce federal statutes and 

regulations and changing the federal 

statute limiting carriers’ liability. 

√

SAFETEA-LU mandate (2005) 

Form a working group to develop a 

plan to enhance federal-state 

partnerships and to make legislative 

or regulatory recommendations to 

the Secretary of Transportation.b

√

Develop a procedure to forward 

complaint information to appropriate 

state authorities.c

√

Establish a database and provide for 

public access.c,d

√

Establish regulations to require 

movers to submit quarterly reports on 

the number of shipments during the 

reporting period, the number and 

type of complaints registered with the 

company, and specific information on 

claims.c

√

Place Your Rights and 

Responsibilities When You Move

handbook on DOT’s Web site.c

√

Modify broker regulations requiring 

the broker to provide the shipper with 

the broker’s DOT number, FMCSA’s 

handbook, and a list of carriers used 

by the broker and a statement that 

the broker is not a motor carrier.c

√

Page 25 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

Time to implementation 

Recommendation/mandate One year or less

More than 1 

year to 3 years 

More than 3 

years to 5 years

More than 5 

years 

Not fully 

implemented 

May 2007 report recommendation 

In developing and implementing an 

outreach plan to enhance 

coordination and enforcement of 

federal laws and regulations between 

federal and state law enforcement 

and consumer protection authorities, 

include guidance to state officials on 

what is required to enable them to 

enforce the federal laws. 

√

Determine whether FMCSA’s 

“Protect Your Move” Web site link 

must be included in all interstate 

movers’ online advertising. 

√

Determine whether additional 

licensing and registration 

requirements would help reduce 

number of illegitimate interstate 

household goods carriers. 

√

Develop strategy with performance 

goals and measures delineating how 

oversight and enforcement activities 

will improve consumer protection, 

including a method for monitoring 

and evaluating performance against 

set goals and timelines. 

√

Source: GAO analysis of information in its recommendation follow-up system and in FMCSA documents. 

a

While we made this recommendation in 2001, the study was originally mandated by the ICC 

Termination Act of 1995. 

b

SAFETEA-LU mandated that this action be taken within 90 days of enactment. 

c

SAFETEA-LU mandated that this action be taken within 1 year. 

d

This was also a recommendation made in our 2001 report. 

Among the recommended actions that were partially completed or not 

completed at all are the following: 

• FMCSA has not implemented the requirement in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU 

legislation that it develop a procedure for forwarding complaint 

information to appropriate state authorities within 1 year of SAFETEALU’s enactment. 

• FMCSA has three proposed rules at various stages in the rulemaking 

process that would address recommendations or mandates—require 

movers to submit quarterly reports, strengthen broker regulations, and 

Page 26 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

provide additional licensing requirements—but these rules have 

languished within FMCSA. Comment periods have been closed for more 

than a year on two of the rules, and the deadline for publishing one for 

comment has slipped by approximately 6 months. In addition, to address 

whether a link to FMCSA’s “Protect Your Move” Web site must be included 

in all interstate movers’ online advertising, FMCSA plans to propose a rule 

to its Senior Rulemaking Committee. While these efforts could strengthen 

consumer protection efforts, FMCSA officials told us that addressing 

household goods rulemaking was a lower priority relative to the agency’s 

rulemaking priorities as a whole. 

In summary, while FMCSA has taken some steps to improve consumer 

protection, primarily in the enforcement area, the effectiveness of these 

efforts remains unknown, as the agency has not conducted any ongoing 

assessment of its programs. While FMCSA has primarily concentrated its 

efforts on improving enforcement, it has not adequately addressed the 

other elements of consumer protection. In addition, the time frames under 

which FMCSA has chosen to act on recommendations made by us and on 

mandates contained in SAFETEA-LU have been very slow, raising 

questions about the priority of those efforts within the agency. 

To identify potential options for enhancing consumer protections in the 

interstate household goods moving industry, we reviewed a range of 

models.51 Based on our preliminary review of those models and input from 

consumer and industry stakeholders, we narrowed our final review to 

three options with varying approaches: 

• Retain oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry with 

FMCSA through its existing household goods program. The program 

would remain with FMCSA, with DOT and FMCSA making a stronger 

commitment to enhancing consumer protection. 

• Create a separate office within the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST) similar to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (OAEP). This option would entail creating an office similar to 

OAEP, but focused on interstate household goods consumer protection. 

Three Options to 

Enhance Consumer 

Protections in the 

Interstate Household 

Goods Moving 

Industry Have 

Potential Advantages 

and Disadvantages 

 

51As part of our preliminary work, we considered but eliminated various models of 

consumer protection as possible replacements for FMCSA’s existing program for 

overseeing household goods movers. After a preliminary review, we did not pursue these 

models for various reasons, including lack of applicability. (See app. I for additional 

information on the models that we considered during our review.) 

Page 27 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

• Relocate oversight of the household goods moving industry to FTC. Under 

this option, FTC would oversee the interstate household goods moving 

industry in addition to the other industries for which it provides consumer 

protection. 

Each of these three options involves different approaches and has the 

potential to enhance oversight of the household goods moving industry 

(see app. IV for a more detailed comparison of the three organizations we 

reviewed in developing the options). However, regardless of the approach, 

the problems with the current program that were previously discussed will 

need to be addressed. 

FMCSA Could Retain 

Oversight Responsibility, 

but Concerns about the 

Existing Program Raise 

Questions about the 

Agency’s Level of 

Commitment to Consumer 

Protection 

Retaining oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry 

with FMCSA provides some advantages since the agency currently has 

oversight authority, experience, and an extensive field presence. Since 

assuming responsibility for oversight of the interstate household goods 

moving industry, FMCSA has devoted some efforts to and invested some 

resources in administering the program. As discussed earlier in this report, 

the agency has committed staff in both headquarters and the field and 

provided training and resources to conduct enforcement activities. It has 

also made strides in enhancing enforcement efforts and some progress in 

the other consumer protection areas. Furthermore, as noted earlier, 

FMCSA has recently taken additional actions to further improve interstate 

household goods enforcement. 

Another potential advantage to keeping the household goods program with 

FMCSA is that FMCSA has other program responsibilities that may provide 

the agency with some efficiencies in overseeing the interstate household 

goods moving industry. For example, FMCSA establishes requirements 

and standards for commercial motor vehicles and their drivers involved in 

interstate transportation, giving the agency some expertise and systems 

that may help support efforts in overseeing the household goods moving 

industry. In particular, FMCSA is responsible for licensing and registering 

commercial motor vehicles with a DOT number.52 A DOT registration 

number serves as a unique identifier when collecting and monitoring a 

company’s safety information acquired during audits, compliance reviews, 

crash investigations, and inspections—providing FMCSA access to 

 

52Companies that operate commercial vehicles transporting passengers or hauling cargo in 

interstate commerce must be registered with FMCSA and must have a DOT registration 

number. 

Page 28 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

information that could have bearing on the moving company’s fitness to 

operate as an interstate carrier. Furthermore, FMCSA’s New Entrant 

Safety Assurance Process—which is designed to inform newly registered 

motor carriers (new entrants) about motor carrier safety standards and 

regulations to help them comply with FMCSA requirements—may provide 

an additional opportunity for FMCSA to reinforce its consumer protection 

requirements with interstate household goods moving companies. FMCSA 

visits new carriers within their first 18 months of operations to explain 

safety requirements and review documentation as part of a “safety audit.”53

Finally, FMCSA’s network of safety data systems provides additional 

useful information on a motor carrier’s safety record that may be helpful 

for consumer protection enforcement purposes. Though the data are 

safety driven, they provide important links to interstate household goods 

moving companies that may be violating commercial motor vehicle 

regulations and possibly consumer protection regulations. For example, 

MCMIS captures information on inspections, crashes, safety compliance 

reviews, safety audits, and registration data from other FMCSA data 

systems. 

FMCSA’s efforts to date, however, also highlight some major 

disadvantages to having the agency retain responsibility for protecting 

consumers in the interstate household goods moving industry. As noted in 

the previous section of this report, FMCSA has been slow to improve its 

oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry, and the 

effectiveness of many of its efforts is unknown. The agency’s slowness in 

improving oversight and limited progress in some areas of consumer 

protection may stem from the agency’s focus on safety—something we 

heard from several senior FMCSA officials during our audit work. 

FMCSA’s agencywide focus on safety is reflected in both the attitudes and 

actions of many of FMCSA’s senior headquarters and field staff who have 

responsibility for ensuring consumer protections involving the interstate 

household goods moving industry. Many of FMCSA headquarters officials 

we interviewed told us that while the agency was obligated to provide 

oversight of the household goods moving industry, safety is the agency’s 

 

53Safety audits ensure that new carriers are knowledgeable about the safety regulations 

before receiving permanent registration. Although the emphasis of new entrant safety 

audits is on education, FMCSA can apply enforcement actions when it finds new entrants 

are not in compliance with safety regulations. 

Page 29 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

priority (as Congress intended),54 not consumer protection—giving the 

impression that they viewed their latter responsibilities as less of a 

priority. One of those officials noted that even though some draft 

household goods regulations were languishing, given the backlog of 

rulemaking for safety efforts, finalizing household goods regulations 

would be secondary to finalizing safety-related rules. In our interviews 

with field staff who carry out FMCSA’s household goods enforcement 

activities, both division administrators and the household goods 

specialists we interviewed said that although FMCSA was tasked with 

enforcing interstate household goods regulations, they viewed its primary 

responsibility as ensuring commercial vehicle safety and their priority in 

focusing their enforcement resources was safety, not consumer 

protection. Many of the field staff indicated that household goods 

enforcement activities are very time- and resource-intensive. Household 

goods specialists we interviewed indicated that investigating complaints 

against rogue movers or dealing with hostage goods situations can often 

take weeks. For example, according to one household goods specialist, 

household goods investigations can be in depth and include building a 

case and gathering evidence against a company. While some of the field 

staff we spoke with said that they had no problem balancing their 

enforcement efforts involving household goods consumer protection 

activities with their safety activities, some felt that stronger FMCSA 

leadership was needed to make clear that the agency valued the time spent 

on consumer protection. For example, some field staff commented that 

FMCSA headquarters officials had not provided them with sufficient 

guidance and direction to pursue household goods enforcement efforts, 

and those field staff observed reluctance on the part of the agency to focus 

on interstate household goods consumer protection efforts. 

Another disadvantage to retaining the household goods program in 

FMCSA is that FMCSA’s written mission statement and supporting 

documentation, along with Congress’s intent for the agency, may not 

adequately address its responsibilities for consumer protection involving 

the interstate household goods moving industry. FMCSA’s primary mission 

is safety—to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks 

and buses—a valid and important mission that carries out the will of 

Congress. Most of the agency’s staff, initiatives, programs, and training 

 

54Congress established FMCSA with the intent that safety be the highest priority of the 

office. See Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-159, § 101(a), 113 

Stat. 1748, 1750. 

Page 30 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

revolve around meeting the agency’s safety mission, with the agency 

spending about 92 percent of its budgetary resources on reducing crashes 

resulting in injuries and fatalities.55 DOT officials told us that they believe 

their budget requests and activities involving the household goods moving 

industry are consistent with expectations, given the relative proportion of 

those activities to FMCSA’s broader programs on safety. Furthermore, 

officials said that while FMCSA’s household goods activities have 

increased over the years, the agency’s responsibility to meet its safety 

mission and goals has also increased. According to a senior FMCSA 

official, even if the agency were provided with additional resources, the 

resources would be used to support its safety mission, not household 

goods consumer protection activities.56

FMCSA’s fiscal year 2010 budget request and associated strategic planning 

documents also indicate that the agency has not adequately built its 

consumer protection responsibility into its mission going forward. 

Although the budget request identifies five agency strategic goals in 

support of its mission—Safety, Productivity, Security, Global Connectivity, 

and Organizational Excellence57—consumer protection is not one of them, 

and none of the stated goals are clearly or directly tied to FMCSA’s 

consumer protection responsibilities for the interstate household goods 

moving industry. To the extent that oversight of the household goods 

moving industry is reflected in FMCSA’s strategic goals, it is included 

along with reducing traffic congestion, under the Productivity strategic 

goal as an objective “to improve responsiveness to household goods 

complaints.” In our view, this is a much narrower objective than warranted 

by FMCSA’s actual responsibilities for overseeing consumer protection in 

the industry, which include responsibility for all four categories of 

 

55FMCSA requested a total of $549 million for all its programs in its fiscal year 2010 budget 

request. 

56DOT officials noted that this statement is not representative of their official policy. Any 

specific resources or funding designated for household goods consumer protection or 

enforcement would be used as intended by Congress. 

57About 92 percent of FMCSA’s budget is dedicated to activities falling under the Safety 

goal, with less than 1 percent of its budget dedicated to the Productivity goal, which 

includes household goods enforcement activities. The remaining 7 percent of the budget 

goes toward activities funded under the goals of Security, Global Connectivity, and 

Organizational Excellence. 

Page 31 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

consumer protection.58 Moreover, while the Productivity goal contains 

some elements of consumer protection in terms of a defined strategy and 

performance elements, it does not identify related consumer protection 

performance measures.59 According to the fiscal year 2010 budget, the only 

performance measure listed under this goal—number of total crashes 

involving large trucks and buses per 100 million vehicle miles traveled—is 

indirectly related to its household goods responsibilities because it 

contributes to the efficiency of the motor carrier industry, including 

household goods moving companies. FMCSA officials told us that the 

agency has recently developed a performance measure of household 

goods effectiveness that as of September 2009, is under review by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for inclusion in FMCSA’s fiscal 

year 2011 budget and updated strategic plan. According to FMCSA 

officials, this new performance measure, if approved by OMB, will provide 

information on the extent to which household goods carriers have 

improved as a result of FMCSA’s interventions in response to consumer 

complaints. FMCSA officials did not provide us with the details of the 

measure (e.g., how “improvements” will be defined and measured) since it 

is still under review by OMB, and we were thus unable to assess its 

appropriateness. In our view, any performance measures in this area will 

need to be clearly linked to FMCSA’s full range of consumer protection 

responsibilities involving the household goods moving industry—including 

enforcement; education and outreach; establishing and maintaining 

partnerships; and collecting, monitoring, and reporting complaints. 

As discussed earlier in this report, FMCSA has not made a practice of 

assessing its consumer protection activities, and the performance measure 

in its fiscal year 2010 budget request suggests that it may not be in a 

position to do so in the near future. Combining household goods and 

congestion performance elements under the Productivity goal further 

highlights the mismatch of FMCSA’s household goods consumer 

 

58As discussed earlier in this report, we identified four categories of consumer protection 

activities—including enforcement; education and outreach; establishing and maintaining 

partnerships; and collecting, monitoring, and reporting complaints—based on our work 

and information from FTC. 

59According to our prior work, successful performance measures should be aligned with 

mission and goals, be clearly communicated throughout an organization, and encompass all 

the major activities that an organization is expected to perform to achieve its mission and 

deliver on the intent of its programs. See GAO, Public Transportation: FTA’s Triennial 

Review Program Has Improved, But Assessments of Grantees’ Performance Could Be 

Enhanced, GAO-09-603 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2009). 

Page 32 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

protection efforts with its safety mission and, consequently, the agency’s 

narrowly focused efforts in meeting its consumer protection 

responsibilities. Given FMCSA’s focus on its safety mission in its budget 

request and associated strategic planning documents—and in the actions 

of FMCSA officials as discussed above—the agency will likely continue to 

provide minimal attention to its consumer protection responsibilities 

involving the interstate household goods moving industry. 

While there are some advantages to retaining responsibility for consumer 

protection involving the interstate household goods moving industry with 

FMCSA, the agency’s actions reflect a much greater focus and priority on 

FMCSA’s safety mandate. To adequately address the continuing problems 

in FMCSA’s oversight of the interstate household goods moving industry, 

FMCSA and DOT senior management would need to focus more attention 

on this area and make a stronger and timelier commitment to 

implementing all the outstanding mandates and GAO recommendations. 

Furthermore, FMCSA and DOT would need to adequately address any 

additional recommendations we make to DOT in this report. 

Creating a Separate Office 

in OST Could Increase 

Focus on Consumer 

Protection, but Would 

Require Additional DOT 

Resources and 

Commitment 

Another option to enhance consumer protection efforts in the interstate 

household goods moving industry is to create a separate office within 

DOT’s OST—similar to OAEP—that is focused on ensuring consumer 

protection in the interstate household goods moving industry. OAEP’s 

Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD), which is located within 

the Office of the General Counsel in OST, is responsible for consumer 

protection activities involving the aviation industry. The office’s authority 

was modeled after FTC’s Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 

Prevention Act (Telemarketing Act), which deals with deceptive or 

abusive acts or practices in an effort to protect consumers.60 OAEP’s 

ACPD undertakes a wide variety of tasks, such as handling consumer 

complaints about air travel, responding to congressional inquiries, and 

conducting investigations of airlines for violations of DOT rules.61

 

60OAEP’s authority is contained at 49 U.S.C. § 41712, which prohibits unfair and deceptive 

practices and unfair methods or competition in air transportation or the sale of air 

transportation. It also provides DOT with enforcement authority involving competition that 

according to OAEP officials, exceeds that of the Department of Justice in some respects. 

FTC’s Telemarketing Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq. 

61A separate office in OST—the Office of Aviation Analysis—is responsible for ensuring 

that airlines are properly licensed and operating lawfully, but it does not conduct consumer 

protection activities. 

Page 33 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

There are two benefits to placing OAEP in the Office of the General 

Counsel within OST. First, creating an office focused solely on economic 

regulation62 (including consumer protection) ensures that efforts are 

targeted and the goal of consumer protection remains the priority. OST 

officials also told us that when DOT was considering where to put 

responsibility for its consumer protection efforts involving the aviation 

industry, it considered placing oversight with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). However, because FAA handles safety regulation 

and operates in support of a safety mission, DOT officials realized that 

there was the potential for consumer protection efforts to be lost in FAA’s 

safety mission, so they created OAEP within OST and assigned it 

responsibility for handling consumer protection for airline service, among 

other things. By separating the economic (including consumer protection) 

and safety regulatory responsibilities, DOT officials sought to avoid any 

conflict in missions, goals, and objectives. In addition, OAEP staff would 

be able to easily coordinate and work with the General Counsel’s staff in 

addressing consumer complaints, which often involve complex legal 

issues. 

OAEP’s function within OST is similar in some ways to FMCSA’s 

household goods enforcement responsibilities and thus may provide a 

sound model for creating a separate office to administer consumer 

protection efforts for the interstate household goods moving industry. For 

example, both OAEP and FMCSA are responsible for consumer protection 

in a transportation industry and both industries deal with similar legal 

issues, such as preemption.63 Also, for both regulatory bodies, consumer 

complaint information is the foundation for identifying violators and 

enforcing consumer protections. Finally, consumer protection activities 

under both OAEP and FMCSA’s interstate household goods consumer 

protection program have similar budgets. 

There are some distinct differences, however, in the scope and nature of 

the consumer protection problems that are being addressed in each of 

these two industries as well as in their ability to conduct oversight. (See 

 

62OAEP uses “economic regulation” to include economic and civil rights requirements 

related to consumer protection. 

63In the aviation context, states are prohibited from regulating rates, routes, or services of 

any interstate carrier under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Pub. L. No. 95-504, § 4, 92 

Stat. 1705, 1708. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 expressly prohibits state regulation of 

rates, routes, or services of any interstate carrier. See, for example, Air Transportation 

Association of America v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d. 218 (2d Cir. 2008). 

Page 34 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

app. IV for additional information.) For example, the size of each industry 

is different—the airline industry has about 7 million enplanements64 a year 

and it receives over 10,000 complaints annually from consumers. By 

comparison, the interstate household goods moving industry includes 

about 1.6 million moves a year and, according to FMCSA’s database, 

receives about 3,000 complaints annually. Additionally, while both 

programs deal with consumer complaints, the nature of the complaints is 

different. For the airline industry, complaints are driven by on-time 

performance,65 whereas for the interstate household goods moving 

industry, complaints are driven primarily by estimates and final charges, 

pickup and delivery of goods, and loss and damage of goods. Furthermore, 

egregious violators in the interstate household goods moving industry—

such as companies that hold goods hostage and rogue movers—are not 

likely to exist in the airline industry. Finally, OST does not have a field 

office presence and only the federal government has the authority to 

enforce aviation consumer protection rules. In comparison, FMCSA uses 

its field organization to carry out investigations and implement the 

household goods consumer protection program. Further, states are able to 

assist in enforcement through authority provided under SAFETEA-LU. 

However, as we noted earlier in this report, no states have used the 

SAFETEA-LU authority to enforce interstate household goods consumer 

protections. 

There are a number of advantages to creating a new household goods 

consumer protection office and modeling it after OAEP, including better 

focusing household goods consumer protection efforts and creating more 

independence to ensure that those efforts are given an appropriate priority 

within the department. Separating consumer protection and safety 

responsibilities could help address the concerns we have raised in this 

report about FMCSA’s lack of focus on consumer protection for the 

interstate household goods moving industry by eliminating the 

competition between FMCSA’s current priorities for carrying out both its 

safety mission and its household goods consumer protection 

responsibilities. Additionally, creating a departmental shift in 

responsibilities—as opposed to moving responsibility for interstate 

household goods enforcement out of DOT—allows for a greater focus on 

 

64Enplanements are measured by the total number of passengers boarding a flight, 

including connecting passengers. 

65Other types of airline complaints involve lost baggage, overbooking, fares, customer 

service, reservations, ticketing, and boarding. 

Page 35 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

interstate household goods consumer protection while still retaining 

transportation expertise. Furthermore, an interstate household goods 

office within OST would be able to leverage its relationships with other 

OST offices, including OAEP and the Office of the General Counsel, to 

draw upon their expertise and familiarity with related consumer 

protection and legal issues, such as preemption. Relationships with the 

General Counsel’s staff would be particularly useful given the legal 

complexities of the household goods moving industry and perhaps provide 

better opportunities to enhance enforcement tools, beyond assessing 

financial penalties. Finally, because DOT has already created a program 

for consumer protection in aviation and modeled it after FTC’s efforts, the 

department has insights into establishing an office that would reflect a 

consumer protection focus. 

While there are advantages to moving the household goods consumer 

protection function to OST, there are some key drawbacks. First, some 

important efficiencies could be lost in transferring consumer protection 

responsibility from FMCSA to OST. Since FMCSA has responsibility for 

commercial motor carrier enforcement efforts, such as licensing and 

registration, a newly created separate office for consumer protection 

would need to exert strong coordination with these FMCSA programs. 

Second, unlike FMCSA, OST does not have a field operations organization 

in place, so requiring OST to take on consumer protection efforts for the 

interstate household goods moving industry would be a significant change 

for it on many levels and require careful consideration of organizational, 

legal, resource, and budgetary issues. Since OST does not have field staff, 

it would have to quickly adapt by acquiring field staff or by using 

headquarters staff for its early efforts to carry out consumer protection 

responsibilities. Among the legal issues that would need to be considered 

is the need to obtain legislative authority to restructure and re-delegate 

legal authority and responsibility from FMCSA to OST. 

With respect to resource issues, we did not conduct a cost-benefit 

analysis, as it was not part of the scope of our work; however, DOT 

officials told us that with the transfer of functions, current FMCSA 

resources, such as full-time staff and funding for the existing interstate 

household goods program function, would also need to be transferred. In 

considering such a transfer, DOT officials would need to analyze the 

program’s requirements and determine what personnel, staffing levels, and 

funding would be needed to soundly administer the new program. Also, 

DOT officials told us that depending on the cost of restructuring the 

program, any movement of funds from FMCSA to OST would best be done 

during the appropriations cycle. 

Page 36 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of transferring oversight of 

the interstate household goods moving industry from FMCSA to OST, 

several officials commented that there would need to be a compelling 

rationale and desire to make the move, requiring that a strong case be 

made about the need for the move. While modeling the new office after 

OAEP would provide DOT with an opportunity to better focus on 

consumer protection, the move itself would not automatically address the 

problems inherent in the existing program that we discuss throughout this 

report. DOT would need to fully commit to implementing outstanding 

mandates and GAO recommendations and also commit to implementing 

these recommendations and mandates in a timely manner. Furthermore, 

the agency would need to address any new recommendations we make in 

this report. However, by eliminating the competing priorities related to 

FMCSA’s safety mission, the new office may be in a better position to 

address consumer protection issues going forward. 

Relocating Oversight to 

FTC Could Increase Focus 

on Consumer Protection, 

but FTC Lacks Expertise 

and Legal Authority to 

Oversee the Interstate 

Household Goods Moving 

Industry 

As the nation’s consumer protection agency,66 FTC provides insights as a 

model and could also be an option for overseeing the interstate household 

goods moving industry. FTC’s overarching mission and one of its strategic 

goals is specifically to provide consumer protection by preventing fraud, 

deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace—and it has 

experience and expertise in enforcing consumer protection laws in a 

variety of industries.67 In turn, FTC’s strategic objectives, performance 

measures, and implementing strategies are aligned to support its strategic 

goal in four categories of consumer protection: (1) enforcement; 

(2) establishing and maintaining partnerships; (3) conducting education 

and outreach; and (4) collecting, monitoring, and reporting complaints 

(see app. V for a detailed description of the type of activities expected in 

each of the four consumer protection categories). FTC’s Strategic Plan 

offers a number of strategies to carry out its consumer protection goal, 

 

66FTC was established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Pub. L. No. 63-203, § 

5, 38 Stat. 717, 719 (1914). FTC’s consumer protection mission was not part of the agency’s 

jurisdiction until 1938 with the enactment of the Wheeler-Lea Act which amended section 5 

of the FTC Act to include, as unlawful, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Pub. L. No. 

75-447, § 3, 52 Stat. 111 (1938). 

6715 U.S.C. § 45. By law, FTC may “prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties in any part 

of the United States” (15 U.S.C. § 43) and may “gather and compile information concerning, 

and investigate from time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and 

management of any person, partnership, or corporation engaged in or whose business 

affects commerce, excepting banks, savings and loan institutions ... Federal credit unions 

... and common carriers.” (15 U.S.C. § 46(a)). 

Page 37 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

and it identifies year-by-year implementation plans, performance 

measures, and program evaluations to help ensure that it effectively 

achieves that goal.68

Given FTC’s history and expertise in providing consumer protection in a 

variety of industries, there are advantages to placing the responsibility for 

interstate household goods enforcement and consumer protection with 

FTC. FTC could leverage its considerable existing resources and 

expertise—in education, outreach, consumer complaint data, and 

intergovernmental partnerships—to enhance consumer protection in the 

interstate household goods moving industry. For instance, FTC has a 

robust database—Consumer Sentinel—that tracks consumer complaint 

information from various consumer protection entities and law 

enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies also have secure access 

to the database, which they can use in developing cases against violators. 

FTC also has an extensive program for consumer education and outreach 

that includes using the Web, news releases, coordination with local 

consumer protection organizations, and other tools, and the agency has 

established formal and informal relationships with other state and federal 

entities that it could use to assist in protecting household goods moving 

industry consumers. 

While there would be a number of opportunities to strengthen consumer 

protection in the interstate household goods moving industry within FTC, 

there are important obstacles and drawbacks to moving this responsibility 

to FTC. First and foremost, FTC is currently legally prohibited from 

regulating certain common carriers, which include moving companies,69 a 

restriction in place since FTC’s inception in 1914.70 This particular legal 

obstacle would require a legislative change that could have a broad impact 

on a number of industries that fall under this restriction. Likewise, FTC 

does not have experience or expertise with the interstate household goods 

 

68Federal Trade Commission, Federal Trade Commission Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 

2006-2011 (Sept. 30, 2006). 

69FTC is prohibited from regulating “common carriers subject to the Acts to regulate 

commerce....” 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2). Also, FTC’s enforcement authority does not extend to 

common carriers. 15 U.S.C. § 46(a). A “common carrier” can be defined as “a commercial 

enterprise that holds itself out to the public as offering to transport freight or passengers 

for a fee. A common carrier is generally required by law to transport freight or passengers 

or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.” Black’s Law Dictionary 

(8th ed. 2004). 

70Federal Trade Commission Act, Pub. L. No. 63-203, § 5, 38 Stat. 717, 719 (1914). 

Page 38 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

moving industry71 nor does it have the personnel to conduct such 

investigations. FTC officials told us that FTC is a law enforcement agency 

and has no regulatory expertise involving the interstate household goods 

moving industry.72 Another potential drawback is that FTC already has 

responsibility for numerous consumer protection programs in a variety of 

industries, and making it responsible for overseeing the interstate 

household goods industry (which is relatively small and unique) may 

create a risk that the household goods efforts would be lost among the 

larger, more established FTC efforts. 

The interstate household goods moving industry—a comparatively small 

subset of the commercial motor carrier industry—presents some unique 

consumer protection issues. Consumers must navigate contracts, 

insurance requirements, and regulations and may encounter egregious 

problems, such as hostage goods situation. Since 2001, FMCSA has made 

progress in increasing staff, training, and resources and generally 

enhancing its enforcement efforts in the interstate household goods 

moving industry. The agency, however, has made more limited progress in 

educating consumers; collecting, monitoring, and reporting data; and 

developing and managing partnerships with states and others. We found 

that FMCSA continues to fall short in ensuring strong consumer protection 

in the industry, in large part because its efforts to meet its primary safety 

mission (as intended by Congress) dwarf its consumer protection efforts. 

FMCSA officials repeatedly pointed out to us that FMCSA is a safety 

agency, not a consumer protection agency, and that their first priority is 

ensuring safety. Moreover, a senior FMCSA official told us that even if the 

agency were provided with additional resources, it would still apply them 

to safety—not consumer protection—activities. 

Conclusions 

Although SAFETEA-LU made it possible for state regulatory agencies and 

attorneys general to enforce federal household goods consumer protection 

 

71While DOT’s OAEP also does not have expertise in the interstate household goods moving 

industry, it is a component of the department that has expertise in and responsibility for 

enforcing commercial motor vehicle regulations. 

72While FTC officials expressed this sentiment, FTC does have some limited consumer 

protection regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for industries in which it does not 

have the expertise or primary regulatory responsibility. For instance, FTC has certain 

regulatory and enforcement responsibilities for the food and drug industry (e.g., certain 

food and cigarette labeling and advertising responsibilities), which is generally within the 

purview of the Food and Drug Administration. 

Page 39 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

laws and regulations against interstate household goods movers, no state 

has done so. We are not recommending additional revisions in the next 

reauthorization, because they likely would not lead to increased action by 

these entities. In our survey of the state attorneys general, they indicated 

their desire to use their own consumer protection laws in their own state 

courts to pursue interstate carriers; however, states are preempted from 

enforcing state consumer protection laws, among others, against interstate 

household goods carriers under the long-standing Carmack Amendment. 

Amending or repealing that law would likely cause consequences in the 

moving industry and may cause a rippling effect in a number of other 

industries. We did not assess repealing or amending the Carmack 

Amendment as it is beyond the scope of this report. These limitations in 

the states’ involvement in ensuring consumer protections for those who 

hire interstate household goods movers underscore the need to have 

strong and targeted leadership at the federal level. The two consumer 

protection models we reviewed as alternatives to retaining FMCSA as the 

entity responsible for household goods consumer protection—FTC and 

OST/OAEP models—offer some lessons about how to address the 

problems in the interstate household goods moving industry. Although 

FTC has expertise in consumer protection, its lack of expertise in and 

jurisdiction over the interstate household goods moving industry, 

combined with the breadth of its other established consumer protection 

responsibilities, suggests that it may not be the best agency to have 

responsibility for consumer protection in this particular area. OST’s 

OAEP’s authority is modeled after FTC’s Telemarketing Act, and offers the 

advantage of being housed within DOT. Moving the oversight 

responsibility for household goods consumer protection into a DOT office, 

modeled after OAEP and housed within OST, could provide an opportunity 

for DOT to focus exclusively on consumer protection in the interstate 

household goods moving industry without the distraction of a safety 

mission, but would entail costs, which we have not evaluated in this 

report. Regardless of which option DOT chooses for its oversight of 

household goods movers, the responsible entity—whether FMCSA, OST, 

or some other entity—will need to make a more concerted effort to raise 

the priority and focus on all four areas of consumer protection. In doing 

so, that entity can build upon FTC’s consumer protection strategies as a 

starting point and learn from FTC’s approach—as well as ensure that the 

consumer protection efforts undertaken are evaluated and refined to 

achieve results. 

Page 40 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

To improve DOT’s focus on consumer protection involving household 

goods movers, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation take 

the following actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

1. Evaluate whether to move the interstate household goods program to a 

separate office within OST, and if a decision is made to move the 

program, request all necessary authority and resources from Congress 

to do so. 

2. If responsibility for the household goods program remains with 

FMCSA, direct the Administrator of FMCSA (or any future 

administrator in the department who is made responsible for the 

household goods program) to take the following actions to improve 

the performance of the program: 

• Review FTC’s approach to consumer protection and make changes 

in the department’s interstate household goods consumer 

protection efforts, where applicable, to clearly articulate the 

department’s goal of ensuring consumer protection within its 

mission. 

• Develop metrics and milestones for its consumer protection 

activities, including conducting a thorough evaluation of the new 

strategy based on the “Top 100 List” and leveraging the newly 

formed Household Goods Technical Assistance Group. 

• Once baseline metrics have been established for its current 

education and outreach efforts to consumers, continue to assess 

education and outreach efforts by forming a task force made up of 

communication, industry, and consumer protection experts to 

continue to monitor and make changes as appropriate to the 

communications strategy. 

• Ensure that performance measures for household goods efforts are 

clearly linked to FMCSA’s full range of consumer protection 

responsibilities involving the household goods moving industry—

including enforcement, establishing and maintaining partnerships, 

education and outreach, and collecting data and reporting on 

consumer complaints. 

Page 41 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
 

We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOT and FTC for their 

review and comment. Both agencies agreed with the information 

contained in the report and provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DOT agreed to consider the 

recommendations we made to it in the report and provided technical 

comments via e-mail. FTC provided written comments, which are 

reprinted in appendix VI. 

Agency Comments 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Transportation, 

the Administrator of FMCSA, and the Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

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

of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in 

Susan A. Flem

appendix VII. 

ing 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 42 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our overall approach to addressing the objectives of this report included 

analyzing federal laws, regulations, and guidance; surveying states on their 

use of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provisions that provided authority to 

enforce federal household goods consumer protection laws and 

regulations against interstate household goods movers; and interviewing a 

wide range of government and other officials, including the following (see 

table 5 for a complete list of interviewees): 

• Officials in the Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) headquarters and six of its field 

locations in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, and Texas 

(selected based on the volume of complaints against movers in those 

states, the presence of household goods specialists in those offices, and 

recommendations from FMCSA headquarters staff); the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB); the Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

(OST); and the Office of the Inspector General. 

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Protection. 

• State officials in the offices of selected state regulatory agencies and 

attorneys general, including those in Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, 

Maryland, and Washington. 

• Representatives from the interstate household goods moving industry—

including the American Moving and Storage Association, the International 

Association of Movers, the California Movers and Storage Association, and 

the National Council of Moving Associations—and consumer protection 

groups—including the Better Business Bureau and MoveRescue. 

Page 43 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Table 5: Organizations Whose Officials Were Interviewed 

Type of 

organization Name of organization 

Federal agency Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Headquarters 

Division offices (California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New 

Jersey, and Texas) 

Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings 

Office of the Inspector General 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

Surface Transportation Board 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Federal Trade Commission 

State agency Arizona Department of Weights and Measures 

California Office of the Attorney General 

California Public Utilities Commission 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Commerce Services 

Illinois Commerce Commission 

Maryland Office of the Attorney General 

Washington (state) Utilities and Transportation Commission 

Industry association American Moving and Storage Association 

California Moving and Storage Association 

International Association of Movers 

National Council of Moving Associations 

Consumer group Council of Better Business Bureaus 

MoveRescue 

National Association of Consumer Agency Administratorsa

Other association National Association of Attorneys General 

Source: GAO. 

a

Our interviews included a former executive director of this association. 

To determine the extent to which states have used the SAFETEA-LU 

provisions that allow them to enforce federal household goods consumer 

protection laws and regulations, and any challenges to using the 

provisions, we first analyzed relevant federal laws and regulations related 

to the interstate household goods moving industry, including SAFETEALU,1

 the Carmack Amendment,2 and FMCSA’s regulations related to 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005). 

2

49 U.S.C. § 14706. 

Page 44 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

interstate household goods oversight.3 To better understand the 

congressional intent behind the federal laws, we also reviewed the 

relevant legislative history. Our primary method for addressing this 

objective was to survey the state regulatory agencies in the 42 states and 

the District of Columbia (for a total of 43 state regulatory agencies) that 

regulate intrastate household goods movers and the state attorneys 

general in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.4

 The survey for the 

state regulatory agencies was pretested with the Washington (state) 

Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Illinois Commerce 

Commission. We determined which states had an agency that regulated 

intrastate household goods by researching state statutes and contacting 

state officials. The survey for the state attorneys general was pretested 

with the National Association of Attorneys General and a representative 

from the Maryland attorney’s general office. We received responses from 

40 of the 43 state regulatory agencies and 39 of the 51 state attorneys 

general offices (see table 6 for a complete list of states that received and 

responded to the survey). We also interviewed FMCSA and Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) officials to determine if they had received 

notice of a state taking an action under the SAFETEA-LU provisions, as 

required by law. 

 

3

49 C.F.R. part 375. 

4

State regulatory agencies are those state entities responsible for regulating the intrastate 

movement of household goods. In 49 U.S.C. § 14710(d), this type of entity is referred to as a 

state authority. For purposes of this report, we use “state agency” to refer to the same 

entity as defined by 49 U.S.C. § 14710(d). 

Page 45 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Table 6: State Attorneys General and State Regulatory Agencies We Surveyed to 

Determine Use of SAFETEA-LU Provisions 

State attorneys 

general surveyed 

and responded 

State attorneys 

general surveyed, 

no response 

State regulatory 

agencies surveyed 

and responded 

State regulatory 

agencies 

surveyed, no 

response 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Mississippi 

Montana 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Alabama 

Idaho 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Oregon 

South Dakota 

Vermont 

Wyoming 

Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New Hampshire 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Virginia 

West Virginia 

Wyoming 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Washington 

Source: GAO surveys of state regulatory agencies and state attorneys general. 

Page 46 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the extent and timeliness of progress made by FMCSA in its 

consumer protection efforts, we reviewed documentation—and 

interviewed pertinent agency officials—on actions taken by FMCSA to 

address recommendations contained in prior GAO reports5

 and in 

SAFETEA-LU mandates. This included a review of the information 

contained in FMCSA’s consumer complaint database. To assess the 

reliability of the complaint database, we interviewed agency officials and 

performed basic electronic testing on the fields of interest. We determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable to be used for reporting basic 

complaint information. 

Finally, to understand potential options for enhancing consumer 

protections in the interstate household goods moving industry, we 

analyzed a variety of consumer protection models for lessons learned that 

might be applied to oversight of the interstate household goods moving 

industry and to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each of 

those models. As part of our preliminary work, we considered FTC’s 

Bureau of Consumer Protection; DOT’s Office of Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings (OAEP), Consumer Product Safety Commission, and 

STB, FTC’s implementation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,6

FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, and Canadian and 

selected state models. These models were not pursued because our 

preliminary review indicated that they were not appropriately comparable 

to the interstate household goods moving industry. For final consideration, 

we reviewed two models—FTC and DOT’s OAEP within OST—which we 

used to develop two options for restructuring oversight of consumer 

protection involving the interstate household goods moving industry. 

These were chosen because of the relevance of their consumer protection 

activities and also because FTC is considered the “national consumer 

protection” agency and OAEP’s authority for aviation consumer protection 

is based on FTC’s Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevent 

Act. To understand how they undertake consumer protection efforts, we 

interviewed officials from both entities and analyzed relevant 

documentation about their missions, budgets, and consumer protection 

activities. In addition to the two options we developed based on these two 

models, we also developed a “baseline” option of retaining FMCSA as the 

 

5

See GAO-07-586, GAO-01-819T, GAO-01-318. 

6

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, enacted in part to govern consumer product 

warranties, was identified as a model for dispute resolution procedures. Pub. L. No. 93-637, 

88 Stat. 2183 (1975). 

Page 47 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

agency responsible for oversight of the interstate household goods moving 

industry. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2008 through 

October 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 48 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix II: Number and Type of Consumer 

Complaints about Household Goods Movers 

Received by FMCSA, by Category, Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2008 

Appendix II: Number and Type of Consumer Complaints 

about Household Goods Movers Received by FMCSA, 

by Category, Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 

Complaint type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 All years

Unauthorized operations 47 35 60 66 56 38 489 352 1,143

Shipment documents 27 766 525 730 525 397 1,006 946 4,922

Estimates and final charges 0 1 14 15 20 15 1,090 1,387 2,542

Weighing 141 276 226 289 268 397 630 644 2,871

Hostage 355 560 708 708 682 482 717 730 4,942

Pickup/delivery 212 227 254 390 395 310 1,147 1,330 4,265

Loss/damage 763 693 1,395 1,832 1,803 1,725 1,348 1,190 10,749

Claim settlement 12 13 42 63 54 59 872 1,097 2,212

Other commercial complaints 251 234 452 511 466 395 482 513 3,304

No reason for complaint reported 506 340 491 686 738 618 116 6 3,501

Number of complaints for the year 1,858 1,995 2,825 3,597 3,569 3,159 2,960 2,917 22,880

Source: GAO analysis of FMCSA complaint data. 

Note: Any one complaint may have multiple reason codes; thus the column totals do not sum to the 

number of complaints for each year. 

Page 49 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry 
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of Attorneys General 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

Introduction 

State Regulatory Agency 

Survey 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been requested by 

Congress to review the authority contained in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. No. 109-59, Section 4206, 119 Stat. 1755 (2005) 

(codified at 49 U.S.C. § 14710). This authority permits a state regulatory 

agency to enforce federal consumer protection laws and regulations 

against interstate movers in federal and state courts. Hereinafter, we refer 

to this authority as “SAFETEA-LU authority.” 

As part of this study, GAO is conducting a survey of all responsible state 

regulatory agencies to determine whether states are using this authority 

and if not, why. We will be using this data in the aggregate to report to the 

Congress and to select states for further case study in order to more 

comprehensively understand this issue. 

SAFETEA-LU Authority 

1. Has your state regulatory agency ever used the authority granted to it 

under SAFETEA-LU by bringing an action against INTERSTATE

household goods movers in federal court or state court under 49 U.S.C. 

§ 14710? 

Yes........................................... 0 

No.......................................... 30 

Don’t know .......................... 10 

Page 50 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

2. If yes, please describe the type of action. 

3. Has your state regulatory agency not used the SAFETEA-LU authority 

(49 U.S.C. § 14710) against INTERSTATE household goods movers 

for any of the following reasons? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Checked Total

b. Unclear on how to apply SAFETEA-LU’s authority 17 16 5 2 40

f. Prefer the State Attorney General’s office to bring civil actions 14 12 12 2 40

i. Volume of consumer complaints against INTERSTATE household goods movers is 

low 

13 11 13 3 40

a. Unaware of the SAFETEA-LU authority 11 24 3 2 40

c. State law prohibits us from bringing any such action 5 13 19 3 40

e. There is another state or local agency responsible for bringing actions against 

INTERSTATE household goods movers 

5 22 11 2 40

g. Want to establish a pattern of behavior before using authority, and pattern has not 

emerged 

4 22 12 2 40

d. Elected to prosecute relevant cases under state laws 3 27 8 2 40

h. Penalties are insufficient under SAFETEA-LU 0 17 20 3 40

j. Other 10 7 5 18 40

4. Which of the following, if any, are challenges to bringing actions 

against INTERSTATE household goods movers in FEDERAL court 

using SAFETEA-LU’s authority? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Checked Total

c. Insufficient resources to prosecute the case(s) in federal court 15 9 13 3 40

f. Lack of clarity on how to apply the SAFETEA-LU authority 13 14 10 3 40

e. Lack of awareness of SAFETEA-LUs authority 9 18 9 4 40

d. Lack of familiarity with the federal court system 8 16 13 3 40

a. Our state regulatory agency prefers to bring action in state courts 6 18 13 3 40

b. State consumer protection laws provide stronger penalties 1 13 23 3 40

g. Other 10 6 11 13 40

Page 51 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

5. Which of the following, if any, are challenges to bringing actions 

against INTERSTATE household goods movers in STATE court using 

SAFETEA-LU’s authority? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know 

Not 

Checked Total

b. Insufficient resources to prosecute the case(s) in federal court 16 11 10 3 40

d. Lack of clarity on how to apply the SAFETEA-LU authority 15 13 9 3 40

c. Lack of awareness of SAFETEA-LUs authority 10 17 10 3 40

a. State consumer protection laws provide stronger penalties 1 12 24 3 40

e. Other 8 6 11 15 40

6. What additional federal remedies related to INTERSTATE

household goods movers would better protect consumers? 

7. Do you regularly provide information to the following entities about 

consumer complaints related to household goods movers? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

know 

Not 

checked Total

e. Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) 18 22 0 0 40

b. State moving association 13 27 0 0 40

a. State Attorney General office 11 29 0 0 40

c. State or local Better Business Bureau 7 33 0 0 40

d. American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) 0 39 1 0 40

f. Other 6 17 2 15 40

8. Do the following entities regularly provide information to your office 

about consumer complaints they receive related to household goods 

movers? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

know 

Not 

Checked Total

a. State Attorney General office 15 24 0 1 40

b. State moving association 11 28 0 1 40

c. State or local Better Business Bureau 11 28 0 1 40

e. Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) 10 29 1 0 40

d. American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) 0 37 1 2 40

f. Other 6 18 2 14 40

Page 52 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

9. How are complaints against INTERSTATE household goods movers 

investigated by your office? Please include how your office works with 

any other state or local agencies during the process. 

10. What involvement, if any, does your state regulatory agency have in 

resolving complaints against an INTERSTATE household goods 

mover? 

11. Is there anything else you’d like us to know related to household goods 

movers? 

12. If you have completed the survey, please check “Completed” below. 

Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are final. 

Completed.................................40 

Not completed............................3 

Page 53 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been requested by 

Congress to review the authority contained in the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. No. 109-59, Section 4206, 119 Stat. 1755-1756 

(2005) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 14711). This authority permits State 

Attorneys General to enforce federal consumer protection laws and 

regulations against interstate movers in federal courts. Hereinafter, we 

refer to this authority as “SAFETEA-LU authority.” 

Introduction 

State Attorneys General 

Survey 

As part of this study, GAO is conducting a survey of all State Attorneys 

General to determine whether states are using this authority and if not, 

why. We will be using this data in the aggregate to report to the Congress 

and to select states for further case study in order to more 

comprehensively understand this issue. 

SAFETEA-LU Authority 

1. Has your State Attorney General’s office ever used the authority 

granted to it under SAFETEA-LU by bringing an action against 

INTERSTATE household goods movers in federal court under 49 

U.S.C. § 14711? 

Yes............................................. 0 

No.............................................. 37 

Don’t know .............................. 2 

2. If yes, please describe the type of action. 

3. Has your office not used the SAFETEA-LU authority (49 U.S.C. § 

14711) against INTERSTATE household goods movers for any of the 

following reasons? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know

Not 

Checked Total

i. Volume of consumer complaints against INTERSTATE household goods movers 

is low 

18 11 5 5 39

g. Penalties are insufficient under SAFETEA-LU 14 14 8 3 39

h. Federal remedies do not benefit the state 14 13 8 4 39

a. Unaware of the SAFETEA-LU authority 11 23 2 3 39

Page 54 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know

Not 

Checked Total

c. Elected to prosecute relevant cases under state laws 10 21 3 5 39

e. Want to establish a pattern of behavior before using authority, and pattern has not 

emerged. 

8 23 4 4 39

b. Unclear on how to apply SAFETEA-LU’s authority 5 27 2 5 39

d. There is another state or local agency responsible for bringing actions against for 

INTERSTATE household goods movers 

5 25 4 5 39

f. Insufficient resources to prosecute the case(s) in federal court 4 27 3 5 39

j. Lack of familiarity with the federal court system 0 33 1 5 39

k. Other 5 14 7 13 39

4. Which of the following, if any, are challenges to bringing actions 

against INTERSTATE household goods movers in FEDERAL court 

using SAFETEA-LU’s authority? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

Know

Not 

Checked Total

a. Our State AG office prefers to bring action in state courts 20 12 5 2 39

b. State consumer protection laws provide stronger penalties 20 8 9 2 39

c. Financial remedies under SAFETEA-LU benefit the federal government, not 

the state 

20 8 10 1 39

e. Lack of awareness of the SAFETEA-LU authority 10 25 0 4 39

d. Insufficient resources to prosecute the case(s) in federal court 7 23 6 3 39

f. Lack of clarity on how to apply the SAFETEA-LU authority 7 24 4 4 39

g. Other 3 13 9 14 39

5. What additional federal remedies related to INTERSTATE household 

goods movers would better protect consumers? 

6. Do law enforcement officers in your state have the authority to 

intervene in a civil dispute between consumers and household goods 

movers? 

Yes........................................... 16 

No ........................................... 12 

Don’t know ............................ 11 

7. Do you regularly provide information to the following entities about 

consumer complaints related to household goods movers? 

Page 55 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix III: Results from GAO Surveys of 

State Regulatory Agencies and State 

Attorneys General 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

know

Not 

checked Total

b. State moving association 31 4 0 4 39

a. State regulatory authority (agency with authority over the INTRASTATE

transportation of household goods) 

12 23 2 2 39

e. Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) 10 23 4 2 39

c. State or local Better Business Bureau 6 30 2 1 39

d. American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) 1 32 4 2 39

f. Other 7 18 4 10 39

8. Do the following entities regularly provide information to your office 

about consumer complaints they receive related to household goods 

movers? 

 Yes No 

Don’t 

know

Not 

Checked Total

a. State regulatory authority (agency with authority over the INTRASTATE

transportation of household goods) 

11 26 1 1 39

c. State or local Better Business Bureau 10 26 2 1 39

e. Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration (FMCSA) 2 34 2 1 39

b. State moving association 1 34 3 1 39

d. American Moving and Storage Association (AMSA) 0 35 3 1 39

f. Other 2 20 7 10 39

9. How are complaints against INTERSTATE household goods movers 

investigated by your office? Please include how your office works with 

any other state or local agencies during the process, if at all. 

10. What involvement, if any, does your State AG office have in resolving 

complaints against an INTERSTATE household goods mover? 

11. Is there anything else you’d like us to know related to household goods 

movers? 

12. If you have completed the survey, please check “Completed” below. 

Clicking on “Completed” indicates that your answers are final. 

Completed................................ 39 

Not completed......................... 12 

Page 56 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix IV: Comparison of Consumer 

Protection Efforts in Three Organizations 

Reviewed by GAO 

FMCSA OST, OAEP 

FTC, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection 

Organization Agency Office Agency 

Authority Regulatory and enforcement Enforcement Regulatory and law enforcement 

Description FMCSA has responsibility for 

overseeing interstate household 

goods movers. It is responsible 

for education and outreach and 

collecting information on the state 

of the industry and information on 

complaints lodged against 

interstate household goods 

movers. It also reviews 

compliance with regulatory 

requirements and enforces 

statutes and regulations. 

OST oversees a number of 

activities, including ensuring the 

fitness of U.S. airlines and 

enforcing airline consumer 

protection regulations. Within 

OST, OAEP enforces DOT’s 

aviation economic and civil rights 

requirements, which relate to 

consumer protection and many 

other areas. The requirements 

related to consumer protection 

encompass many areas, 

including unfair and deceptive 

practices, unfair competition by 

air carriers and travel agents, and 

lost baggage liability. 

The agency enforces laws that 

prohibit business practices that are 

anticompetitive, deceptive, or 

unfair. It also promotes informed 

consumer choice. 

History The Interstate Commerce 

Commission Termination Act of 

1995 transferred federal 

responsibilities for protecting 

consumers who move their 

household goods across state 

lines using commercial moving 

companies to DOT. These 

functions were further assigned 

to the motor carrier safety office 

within the Federal Highway 

Administration. The Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999 

transferred these consumer 

protection functions to FMCSA. 

Responsibility for economic 

regulatory authority was placed 

under OST in order to separate 

safety oversight from economic 

regulatory oversight. Within OST, 

OAEP has responsibility for 

consumer protection in the 

aviation industry. 

FTC was created in 1914. Its 

purpose was to prevent unfair 

methods of competition in or 

affecting commerce. Over the 

years, Congress passed additional 

laws giving the agency greater 

authority to police unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. 

Mission Promote safe commercial motor 

vehicle operation through 

education, regulation, 

enforcement, and innovative 

research and technology to 

reduce truck and bus crashes, 

which will result in fewer fatalities 

and injuries. Achieve a safer and 

more secure transportation 

environment through shared 

responsibilities with partners and 

stakeholders. 

OST OAEP does not have a 

specific mission statement. 

To prevent business practices that 

are anticompetitive or deceptive or 

unfair to consumers; to enhance 

informed consumer choice and 

public understanding of the 

competitive process; and to 

accomplish these missions without 

unduly burdening legitimate 

business activity. 

Appendix IV: Comparison of Consumer 

Protection Efforts in Three Organizations 

Reviewed by GAO 

Page 57 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry 
Appendix IV: Comparison of Consumer 

Protection Efforts in Three Organizations 

Reviewed by GAO 

 FMCSA OST, OAEP 

FTC, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection 

Relevant strategic 

goal 

Household goods enforcement is 

located under the strategic goal 

of Productivity. Under the 

Productivity goal, FMCSA aims to 

engage consumers and the 

household goods moving industry 

in reducing noncompliant 

practices. 

OAEP does not have specific 

strategic goals or performance 

measures. However, the 2011 

budget identifies a variety of 

tasks for OAEP’s Aviation 

Consumer Protection Division 

(ACPD), such as handling 

consumer complaints about air 

travel, responding to 

congressional inquiries regarding 

constituent travel problems (400 

to 700 inquiries are received 

each fiscal year), and conducting 

investigations of airlines for 

violations of DOT rules. 

Protect consumers: Prevent fraud, 

deception, and unfair business 

practices in the marketplace. 

Program resources 

(staffing and budget) 

Household goods enforcement 

For 2010: $3.1 million 

(operations, outreach, and 

hotline). 

There are currently eight 

household goods specialists who 

report to a household goods team 

leader and five staff in 

headquarters who are assigned 

to household goods enforcement. 

There are 128 safety 

investigators who are also trained 

in household goods enforcement 

and can be brought in to assist 

with household goods reviews. 

OAEP 

Budget: $3 million to 3.5 million. 

Also, received an additional $2.5 

million in each of the last 2 years 

because of the high-profile of 

airline issues. 

Staffing: 40 staff members in 

OAEP (15 specifically in ACPD). 

FTC’s Goal 1- Protect Consumers

Budget 2010: $165,144,000. 

623 full-time equivalents (FTE).a

Organizational level 

of consumer 

protection function 

Interstate household goods 

oversight is conducted within 

FMCSA (operating administration 

within DOT). 

OAEP is in the Office of the 

General Counsel. OAEP through 

ACPD has responsibility for the 

Aviation Consumer Protection 

program. 

FTC is headed by a commission 

composed of five members who are 

nominated by the President and 

confirmed by the Senate, and who 

serve staggered 7-year terms. The 

President chooses one 

commissioner to act as Chairman. 

No more than three commissioners 

can be of the same political party. 

FTC has two major law 

enforcement bureaus, Consumer 

Protection and Competition, 

supported by the Economics 

Bureau, regional offices, and 

mission support offices. 

Page 58 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix IV: Comparison of Consumer 

Protection Efforts in Three Organizations 

Reviewed by GAO 

 FMCSA OST, OAEP 

FTC, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection 

Scope of complaints FMCSA received 2,917 

complaints in fiscal year 2008. 

Complaints primarily relate to 

estimates/final charges, pickup 

delivery, and loss/damage. 

In fiscal year 2008, the office 

received over 10,000 complaints. 

Complaints are driven by airline 

flight problems, such as delays, 

cancellations, and 

misconnections. 

For calendar year 2008, FTC 

received over 1.2 million 

complaints. The greatest numbers 

of complaints related to consumer 

fraud and identity theft. 

Enforcement FMCSA enforces compliance 

with economic and consumer 

protection laws and regulations 

for the interstate household 

goods moving industry. FMCSA 

identifies and investigates 

patterns of complaints and then 

targets those violators for 

compliance reviews. When the 

agency encounters 

noncompliance it relies on a 

variety of enforcement activities, 

including imposing civil monetary 

penalties. 

OAEP is involved in enforcement 

actions, including drafting and 

negotiating settlement 

agreements, filing formal 

complaints, and assessing civil 

penalties. Actions are taken 

against any company or carrier 

offering service for which it has 

been found unfit by DOT and 

conducting unfair and deceptive 

practices in the airline industry, 

and in response to disability and 

civil rights complaints. 

FTC is involved in a variety of 

enforcement activities to protect 

consumers, including ensuring 

compliance with administrative and 

federal court orders entered in 

consumer protection cases; 

conducting investigations and 

prosecuting civil actions to stop 

fraudulent, unfair, or deceptive 

marketing and advertising 

practices; and enforcing consumer 

protection laws, rules, and 

guidelines. 

Education and 

outreach 

Budget/funding: For 2010, $1.7 

million. 

Activities: 

• Recently drafted a consumer 

education and outreach 

assessment and plan (still in 

review). 

• 1-800 hotline. 

• Web site. 

• Consumer publications. 

Budget/funding: No specific 

funding allocated for education 

and outreach. 

Activities: 

There is no strategic education 

and outreach planning. 

• Air Travel Consumer Report 

published monthly statistics 

on complaints. 

• Other consumer 

publications—Fact sheets, 

Fly-Rights, etc. 

• Web site. 

• News media relations: news 

releases and interviews. 

Budget/funding: No specific 

funding allocated for education and 

outreach. 

Activities: 

Division of Consumer and Business 

Education provides consumers with 

tools they need to make informed 

buying decisions in the marketplace 

and businesses with tools they 

need to comply with the law. 

• Web site. 

• News releases. 

• Information pamphlets. 

Establish and 

maintain 

partnerships 

FMCSA convened the Household 

Goods Working Group to develop 

and strengthen partnerships with 

the states; however, the group’s 

results were mixed. The agency 

has recently issued an 

enforcement outreach plan; 

however, it is yet to be 

implemented. Household goods 

specialists’ relationships with 

states and local stakeholders, 

including law enforcement, vary. 

Most of the relationships are 

informal partnerships to share 

information and to get information 

from consumers. Networking is a 

major effort in coordinating with 

other entities. For example, the 

office has relationships with the 

Department of Justice, the 

Transportation Security 

Administration, and FTC. 

FTC coordinates with a variety of 

federal and state agencies. The 

coordination is both formal and 

informal. Many of the informal 

relationships depend on personal 

networking and ongoing 

communication with stakeholders. 

Formal relationships could entail a 

memorandum of understanding. 

FTC officials noted that they have a 

very collaborative relationship with 

the states, particularly the state 

attorneys general. 

Page 59 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix IV: Comparison of Consumer 

Protection Efforts in Three Organizations 

Reviewed by GAO 

 FMCSA OST, OAEP 

FTC, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection 

Collect, monitor, and 

report complaints 

Complaint data are received and 

managed in FMCSA’s National 

Consumer Complaint Database. 

Consumers primarily file 

complaints through FMCSA’s 

“Protect Your Move” Web site 

and 1-800 hotline. 

The computer complaint data 

system categorizes the 

complaints. About 50 percent of 

the complaints received are 

submitted on the online form. 

The Air Travel Consumer Report 

is the tool for reporting aviation 

complaint data. The report ranks 

air carriers based on areas such 

as on-time performance, 

cancellations, and mishandled 

baggage. 

The Consumer Sentinel is a 

complaint database with information 

on fraud and identity theft. 

Complaints are self-reported and 

unverified. The database is 

available to law enforcement 

partners for use in investigations. 

FTC works to cross walk other 

agency data so that the data can 

easily be uploaded into the 

database. Some of the functionality 

that FTC has in place includes 

posting alerts and detailed search 

criteria. 

FTC reports on its complaint data 

through an annual publication. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOT and FTC information. 

a

The number of FTEs is for FTC’s consumer protection mission, which includes personnel in the 

Bureau of Consumer Protection and resources drawn from the Bureau of Economics, Office of the 

General Counsel, regional offices, and administrative and support offices. 

Page 60 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix V: Types of Consumer Protection 

Activities 

Page 61 GAO-10-38 

Appendix V: Types of Consumer Protection 

Activities 

Enforcement 

Focus agency enforcement on cutting-edge issues that threaten consumer protection in emerging areas. 

Stop injury to consumers by applying fundamental consumer protection principles to new practices. 

Halt advertising and marketing practices that are most injurious to consumers or that prey on specific groups of vulnerable consumers.

Use the results of surveys to determine where enforcement needs are greatest and meet these needs with targeted enforcement 

efforts. 

Update, rescind, or promulgate regulations in response to regulatory reviews and congressional mandates. 

Create and implement a comprehensive order-enforcement program that targets those individuals and companies that violate federal 

court and administrative orders. 

Establish and maintain partnerships 

Improve information sharing with law enforcement partners through Web site. 

Continue outreach to law enforcement partners and organizations to improve information sharing. 

Promote the criminal prosecution of the most egregious violators through coordination and cooperation with criminal law enforcement 

authorities. 

Continue to coordinate with local, state, and federal law enforcement partners for initiatives and sweeps. 

Leverage resources (by working with federal, state, local, and private sector partners) to maximize the reach of consumer and 

business education campaigns. 

Target advocacy activities to encourage state and federal government policymakers to evaluate both the costs and benefits of their 

policies for consumers, emphasizing the impact on consumers of policies that unnecessarily affect the dissemination of truthful, nonmisleading information to consumers and the interplay of competition and consumer protection concerns. 

Use letters and public comments to urge state and federal government policymakers to consider consumer research and other 

empirical data in their decisions regarding the costs and benefits of their policies for consumers. 

Encourage industry self-regulation where consumer protection problems are emerging, industry has a comparative advantage in 

addressing the problems, or legal or practical limitations constrain the government’s ability to act. 

Education and outreach 

Focus consumer and business education efforts on areas where fraud, deception, unfair practices, and information gaps cause the

greatest injury. 

Target particular demographic groups with messages about marketplace issues that affect them. 

Use the results of surveys to determine where education needs are greatest and meet these needs with targeted education efforts. 

Increase public awareness of consumer protection problems and solutions by conducting and publishing studies and filing advocacy 

comments on changes in the marketplace and the impact of business and government actions on consumers. 

Focus workshops and conferences on emerging or challenging consumer protection problems. 

Issue reports mandated by law and other reports that articulate concrete measures that the public and private sectors could take to 

address consumer protection problems. 

Collect, monitor, and report complaints 

Continue to upgrade and enhance the online consumer complaint database and Web site to respond to increasing demands and 

maintain both as the premier consumer protection information resource. 

Improve and expand the tools that are provided through this Web site by pulling multiple systems together onto one platform and

making it the gateway for those who want information about the consumer protection problems affecting consumers. 

Expand the pool of entities that make their consumer complaint data available to the community through this Web site. 

Continue to strengthen capabilities to analyze the increasing volume of consumer complaints and augment complaints with other 

sources to develop case leads and identify new or emerging concerns. 

Monitor the marketplace to identify illegal practices that may not be fully captured by the database or other information sources. 

Ensure the quality, security, and integrity of the database and Web site information. 

Source: GAO analysis of information contained in FTC’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011 (Sept. 30, 2006). 

 Household Goods Moving Industry 
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal Trade Commission 

Trade Commission 

Page 62 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix VI: Comments from the Federal 

Trade Commission 

Page 63 GAO-10-38 Household Goods Moving Industry
Appendix VII: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 64 GAO-10-38 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Susan A. Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Rita Grieco, Assistant Director; 

Amy Abramowitz; Lauren Calhoun; Erin Henderson; Delwen Jones; Alex 

Lawrence; Amanda Miller; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Josh Ormond; Beverly 

Ross; Sharon Silas; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this 

report. 

 Household Goods Moving Industry 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(541048) 
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