Consumer Product Safety Oversight: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Coordination and Increase Efficiencies and Effectiveness
Published: 2014-11-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The oversight of consumer product safety is a complex system involving many federal agencies. As part of a mandate that requires GAO to identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals or activities, GAO reviewed federal oversight of consumer product safety.
This review examines (1) which federal agencies oversee consumer product safety and their roles and responsibilities; (2) the extent and effects of any fragmentation or overlap in the oversight of consumer products; and (3) collaboration among agencies to address any negative effects of fragmentation or overlap.
To assess the involvement of multiple agencies in the oversight of consumer product safety, GAO conducted a multiagency survey and reviewed laws and regulations, and past GAO work. GAO also interviewed federal agency officials and consumer and industry groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO identified eight agencies that have direct oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety: the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard (within the Department of Homeland Security). All eight agencies conduct regulatory activities to promote consumer product safety, such as rulemaking, standard setting, risk assessment, enforcement, and product recalls. In addition, at least 12 other agencies play a support role in consumer product safety in various areas, such as public health and law enforcement.
Oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented across agencies, and jurisdiction overlaps or is unclear for certain products. In some cases, agencies regulate different components of or carry out different regulatory activities for the same product, or jurisdiction for a product can change depending on where or how it is used. For example, NHTSA regulates hand-held infant carriers when used as car seats, but CPSC regulates the carriers when used outside of motor vehicles. Agencies reported that the involvement of multiple agencies with various expertise can help ensure more comprehensive oversight by addressing a range of safety concerns. However, agencies also noted some inefficiencies, including the challenges of sharing information across agencies and challenges related to jurisdiction. For example, GAO found that the jurisdiction for some recreational boating products can be unclear and the potential exists for confusion regarding agency responsibility for addressing product safety hazards. Coast Guard officials said they work informally with CPSC when the need arises but that these interactions are infrequent. Without a more formal coordination mechanism to address jurisdictional uncertainties some potential safety hazards may go unregulated. In addition, the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) oversees the markings of toy and imitation firearms to distinguish them from real firearms, which may be an inefficient use of resources because it does not leverage NIST's primary expertise related to scientific measurement. According to NIST, this function may be better administered by CPSC, which oversees the safety and performance of toys. However, this would require a statutory change.
Agencies reported that they collaborate to address specific consumer product safety topics, but GAO did not identify a formal mechanism for addressing such issues more comprehensively. Independent agencies, such as CPSC, are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget's planning and review process for executive agencies. Additionally, no single entity or mechanism exists to help the agencies that collectively oversee consumer product safety. GAO has identified issues for agencies to consider in collaborating, such as clarifying roles and including all relevant participants. Because no mechanism exists to help agencies collectively address crosscutting issues, agencies may miss opportunities to leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap identified in this report.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: Congress should consider (1) transferring oversight of the markings of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms from NIST to CPSC, and (2) establishing a formal collaboration mechanism to address comprehensive oversight and inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap. Also, GAO recommends that the Coast Guard and CPSC establish a formal coordination mechanism. CPSC, the Department of Homeland Security, and NIST agreed with GAO's matters and recommendation; other agencies neither agreed nor disagreed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The oversight of consumer product safety is a complex system that  evolved over time and involves a number of federal agencies. Further, as  globalization and technological advances expand the range of products  available in U.S. markets, the challenge of regulating the thousands of  product types has become increasingly complex. The Consumer Product  Safety Commission (CPSC) is charged with protecting the public from  unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with the use of thousands  of types of consumer products. However, many other federal agencies  also have various roles and responsibilities related to consumer product  safety oversight. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  (NHTSA), U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), Food and Drug  Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),  among others, have jurisdiction over products such as automobiles and  other on-road vehicles and their equipment, including tires; boats; drugs;  cosmetics; medical devices; and pesticides. These agencies conduct a  wide range of regulatory activities to oversee these products, such as risk  assessment, rulemaking, and enforcement.
As the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does the need  for federal agencies and Congress to improve the efficiency and  effectiveness of government programs and activities. As part of a  mandate that requires GAO to identify federal programs, agencies,  offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within  departments and government-wide, GAO reviewed federal oversight of  consumer product safety. Specifically, this review examines (1) which  federal agencies oversee consumer product safety and their roles and  responsibilities, (2) the extent and effects of fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication, if any, in the oversight of consumer products, and (3) how do  consumer product safety oversight agencies coordinate their activities  and to what extent does that address any identified negative effects of  fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations,  as well as literature and our past reports on consumer product safety;  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; and mechanisms for interagency  collaboration (see a list of related GAO products at the end of this report).  To identify agencies that conduct consumer product safety oversight and  to delineate their roles and responsibilities, we reviewed the following  sources: (1) laws related to consumer product safety, as well as Federal  Register notices for proposed and final rulemaking from August 2008 to  October 2013; (2) the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s web link  to federal agencies with jurisdiction over consumer products; (3) our past  reports; and (4) agency members of CPSC-identified interagency working  groups. We then disseminated a questionnaire to the agencies we  identified to (1) confirm their roles and responsibilities and (2) identify any  other relevant agencies with whom they coordinate. We also asked  questions about what types of statutory authority the agency has, its  mission, other agencies with which it coordinates, barriers to coordination,  and knowledge of any potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in  oversight. We disseminated 33 questionnaires in total and obtained and  analyzed at least one response from each of the 33 entities. We also  interviewed federal agency officials and industry groups to gather  information on the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, their  benefits and challenges, and how coordination may help to address any  negative effects. Appendix I contains a detailed description of our scope  and methodology and appendix II is a reprint of the questionnaire we sent  to the agencies.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to November 2014  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The existing system for consumer product safety, like many other federal  programs and policies, has evolved in a piecemeal fashion. New laws and  agencies have been established over time, resulting in a patchwork  system with different agencies having different regulatory and  enforcement authorities for different consumer products. Consumer  product safety activities can include setting standards and conducting  enforcement, product recalls, rulemaking, and risk assessment. Below is  a brief overview of some of the key laws that provide agencies with the  authority to conduct consumer product safety oversight.
Pre-Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) laws:
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, first enacted in 1938 to  replace the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, provides FDA with  various public health responsibilities, including to ensure the safety  and effectiveness of medical products—drugs, biologics, and medical  devices—and safety of cosmetics marketed in the United States. The  Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, mandates FDA  to, among other things, conduct pre-market reviews of the safety of all  new drugs, as well as pre-market approval of some medical devices.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act provides for the  federal regulation of pesticides. While various versions of a federal  pesticide statute have been in place since 1910, Congress enacted  substantial amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1972. Under the current version of  FIFRA, pesticides must generally be registered (licensed) by EPA  before they may be sold or distributed in the United States. EPA may  register a pesticide if it finds, among other things, that use of the  pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the  environment. When EPA registers a pesticide, it approves directions  for use of the pesticide, which must appear on the product label and  be followed by users of the pesticide.
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 established  an agency which, under the Highway Safety Act of 1970, later  became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA  to, among other things, promulgate federal safety standards for motor  vehicles and equipment.
The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 authorizes the Coast Guard  (within the Department of Homeland Security) to, among other things,  establish minimum safety standards for recreational vessels and  associated equipment and to require the installation or use of such  equipment. The act was created to improve boating safety, to  authorize the establishment of national construction and performance  standards for boats and associated equipment, and to encourage  greater uniformity of boating laws and regulations among states and  the federal government.
CPSA and post-CPSA laws:  The CPSA, first enacted in 1972, establishes CPSC and consolidates  federal safety regulatory activity relating to consumer products within  the agency. CPSC is authorized to protect the public against  unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products in  general, and also to administer other laws such as those governing  fabric flammability, hazardous substances, child-resistant packaging,  refrigerators, pool and spa safety, and toy safety. Congress enacted  the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in 2008 to   strengthen CPSC’s authority to enforce safety standards and provide  greater public access to product safety information.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, first enacted in 1976, authorizes  EPA to obtain more information on chemicals and to regulate those  chemicals that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks to human  health or the environment. chemicals already in commerce as well as chemicals yet to enter  commerce. In addition, under the Toxic Substances Control Act,  EPA can regulate the manufacture (including import), processing,  distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of “chemical substances”  and “mixtures,” including for use as or as part of a consumer product.
Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. No. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 (1976).
subsections: section_title: Definition of a Consumer Product
paragraphs: CPSA defines a consumer product, for purposes of CPSC’s jurisdiction,  as “any article, or component part thereof, produced or distributed (i) for  sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary  household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise, or (ii) for the  personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in or around a  permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation,  or otherwise,” subject to a number of exclusions. By statute, certain  categories of products that are regulated by other agencies are excluded  from the definition of “consumer product,” and therefore CPSC does not  have jurisdiction over them. For purposes of our report, because we are  looking at consumer products broadly rather than solely those in CPSC’s  jurisdiction, we use the broader definition of “consumer product,” without  the statutory exclusions. We include in our purview motor vehicles,  pesticides, cosmetics, and some other products that CPSA excludes from  its definition of a consumer product.
section_title: Overview of GAO’s Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication Work
paragraphs: In 2010, Congress directed us to identify programs, agencies, offices, and  initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and  government-wide and report to Congress annually. Since March 2011,  we have issued annual reports to Congress in response to this  requirement.evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal  programs. The annual reports define fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication as shown in figure 1.
section_title: Multiple Agencies Oversee Various Aspects of Consumer Product Safety
paragraphs: We identified 8 agencies that have direct oversight responsibility for  various aspects of consumer product safety, based on our analyses of  data collected from our questionnaire and interviews with agency officials.  In addition, we identified at least 12 other agencies that have an indirect  role in consumer product safety oversight. We distinguished agencies  with direct versus indirect responsibility by whether they perform certain  regulatory activities, as well as by how the agencies self-identified in their  interviews.
subsections: section_title: Eight Agencies Have Direct Oversight Responsibility for Consumer Product Safety
paragraphs: Eight agencies reported that they have direct oversight responsibilities for  consumer product safety: the Coast Guard; CPSC; Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD); EPA; FDA; NHTSA; Nuclear  Regulatory Commission (NRC); and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials  Safety Administration (PHMSA). We considered an agency to have a  direct oversight role if it met two criteria: (1) in its response to our  questionnaire, the agency noted having statutory authority over consumer  product safety through one or more of five regulatory activities— rulemaking, standard setting, enforcement, risk assessment, and product  recalls; and (2) in subsequent interviews and follow-up discussions, the  agency confirmed that it views itself as having a role in overseeing the   We describe the oversight roles of these  safety of consumer products.agencies in table 1. Some of these agencies oversee products, whereas  others oversee components that might be found within a product (e.g.,  chemical substances or radioactive materials).
These eight agencies conduct a range of regulatory activities related to  consumer product safety, including rulemaking, standard setting,  enforcement, risk assessment, and product recalls.
Rulemaking, standard setting, and enforcement. All eight agencies  reported conducting rulemaking, standard-setting, and enforcement  activities. As an example of rulemaking, CPSC recently issued a final  rule establishing a safety standard for strollers and infant carriages.  CPSC issued the rule in response to a provision of the Consumer  Product Safety Improvement Act, which required CPSC to promulgate  consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler  products. The rule incorporates by reference the most recent  voluntary standard developed by ASTM International, a standard- setting organization. The standard includes requirements for improved  test methods of various parts (e.g., brakes, wheels) and warning label  clarifications. In an example of enforcement, PHMSA inspects  consumer commodity shipments. PHMSA staff stated that they  coordinate with other agencies to identify where hazardous  substances are coming from and where they are going. In another  enforcement example, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA  can initiate civil actions to seize an imminently hazardous substance,  mixture, or any article containing such a substance or mixture.
Risk assessment. Six of the eight agencies reported conducting risk  assessments, whereas PHMSA did not and the Coast Guard reported  that its authority in this area is unclear. As an example of risk assessment, EPA recently conducted an assessment for a flea and  tick pet collar using the insecticide propoxur. EPA’s risk assessment  found, in some but not all use scenarios, unacceptable risks to  children from exposure to propoxur pet collars. EPA noted that small  children may ingest pesticide residues when they touch a treated cat  or dog and subsequently put their hands in their mouths. EPA and the  manufacturers agreed to do a voluntary cancellation of the product  based on concerns that the residue on animals can be dangerous for  children. The Coast Guard noted that its authority to conduct risk  assessments is unclear. A Coast Guard official explained that  statutory authority allows the Coast Guard to establish whether,  according to their reasonable and prudent judgment, a defect creates  a substantial risk of personal injury.
Product recalls. Six of the eight agencies reported having regulatory  authority to recall certain products under their jurisdiction, whereas  NRC and PHMSA did not. As an example of a product recall, an  official from the Coast Guard noted that the agency works with  manufacturers and conducts between 10 and 20 recall campaigns  annually of recreational boats, equipment originally installed on boats,  and limited equipment installed after purchase. The Coast Guard  officials recently worked with Honda, which has stopped  manufacturing personal watercraft, when the company found it had a  problem with boats it manufactured from 2002 through 2008. The  manufacturer is now recalling these boats for possible fuel tank  failure. The Coast Guard stated that it does not actually conduct the  recalls but records the recalls and monitors the progress that the  manufacturer completes in the performance of the recalls. According  to the agency, once regulatory noncompliance or a substantial risk  defect is discovered, the manufacturer normally voluntarily registers  the recall campaign with the Coast Guard and performs the recall in  accordance with statutory requirements and the Coast Guard  regulations regarding recall notification. By statute, the manufacturer is required to notify the first purchaser, subsequent purchasers if  known to the manufacturer, and the dealers and distributors. Based  on the progress reports submitted to the Coast Guard by the  manufacturer, the Coast Guard decides when it is practical to close  the recall campaign. According to the agency, the Coast Guard has  the authority to require a manufacturer to perform a recall, but this  authority has rarely been used.
In addition to the regulatory activities listed earlier, agencies reported  other oversight activities they undertake. Specifically, CPSC noted that it  can also collect data and conduct informational campaigns. NHTSA also  stated that it can conduct consumer informational programs. For example,  NHTSA noted the New Car Assessment Program, under which it  conducts vehicle crash and rollover tests to encourage manufacturers to  make safety improvements to new vehicles and provide the public with  information on the relative safety of vehicles (e.g., through a safety rating  using a five-star scale). Additionally, EPA noted its statutory authority to  conduct licensing of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,  and Rodenticide Act, as amended.
section_title: At Least 12 Agencies Play an Indirect Role in Consumer Product Safety Oversight
paragraphs: Based on our analyses of information obtained through the  questionnaires and interviews with agency officials, we identified at least  12 agencies that play an indirect role in the oversight of consumer  product safety. We categorized an agency as having an indirect role if it  met one of two criteria: (1) it did not conduct any of the five regulatory  activities described in the previous section, but described other activities  that supported consumer product safety oversight; or (2) it initially  described a role in regulating consumer products, but in subsequent  interviews, did not self-identify as a consumer product safety oversight  agency. An indirect role can include such activities as conducting  underlying research to support regulatory activities and providing public  health expertise, among others. We describe the overall work of these  agencies and the specific roles that they play in relation to consumer  product safety in detail in appendix III. The 12 agencies are the National  Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Federal Communications  Commission (FCC); Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);  National Institutes of Health (NIH); Health Resources and Services  Administration (HRSA); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (CDC); Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); National Transportation  Safety Board (NTSB); Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Bureau of Alcohol,  Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); and Federal Trade  Commission (FTC).
These 12 agencies supported product safety in at least one of the  following areas: (1) public health expertise; (2) law enforcement; (3)  workplace safety; (4) transportation safety; and (5) other activities.
Public health expertise. NIH, HRSA, and CDC reported providing  public health expertise. For example, the National Institute of  Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), within NIH, manages the  National Toxicology Program, which studies substances in the  environment, including substances used in personal care products,  household products, foods, and dietary supplements, to identify any  potential harm they might cause to human health. One example of a  substance over which NIH and CPSC have coordinated is diisononyl  phthalate (DINP). Phthalates are a group of chemicals used to make  plastics more flexible and more difficult to break. The National  Toxicology Program has provided CPSC with access to its scientific  expertise and research on DINP. It also served on and provided  DINP-related analysis to the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel on DINP.  This panel advised CPSC on whether DINP in consumer products  poses a chronic hazard.
Law enforcement. CBP, ATF, and FTC reported involvement in law  enforcement. For example, FTC investigates and can take action  against companies that engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices  in or affecting commerce, which can include making deceptive safety  claims. One example where FTC has played a role in consumer  product safety is through an administrative action it took against a  manufacturer that falsely claimed that football mouth guards prevent  concussions. FTC’s settlement order with the manufacturer prohibits  the company and its owner from, among other things, misrepresenting  the health benefits of any mouth guard or other athletic equipment  designed to protect the brain from injury. FTC has also taken other  actions related to the safety of consumer products. For example, it  has challenged several after-market braking devices that called  themselves antilock brake systems (ABS) but that did not, in fact,  function as well as factory-installed antilock brakes.
Workplace Safety. CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety  and Health (NIOSH) and OSHA reported responsibilities for workplace  safety. For example, NIOSH conducts and publishes research on the  occupational hazards associated with the use of tools (such as nail  guns) and materials (such as spray foam insulation and methylene  chloride). NIOSH’s research focuses on worker safety, but consumers  may benefit because they may purchase the same products for use in  and around the home. In the case of nail guns, NIOSH stated that it  had identified causes of worker injuries, developed recommendations  to improve worker safety, and published the information in a variety of  media and formats, including a joint publication with OSHA, to make it  widely available. Sometimes, a manufacturer may end up making  improvements to a product as a result of NIOSH’s research, which  may enhance consumer safety. NIOSH also conducts rulemaking,  standard setting, and product recalls of respirators for use by workers,  which also may be purchased by consumers.
Transportation safety. FAA and NTSB reported responsibilities for  transportation safety. For example, NTSB investigates every civil  aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in  other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine, and  pipeline. As part of its investigations, NTSB makes safety  recommendations to other federal agencies on a variety of topics,  including their oversight of any specific consumer products involved in  the accidents. In the past, NTSB has made recommendations to  NHTSA to improve the visibility of brake and turn lights and to modify  performance and testing requirements for passenger-side air bags.  More recently, NTSB has made recommendations to FAA to improve  the safety of amateur-built aircraft.
Other activities. NIST, FCC, and FEMA’s U.S. Fire Administration  reported involvement in other activities that support consumer product  safety oversight. For example, with the increasing use of  nanomaterials, NIST stated that it has collaborated with CPSC to  measure and better understand the release of nanotechnology-based  products and exposure pathways. According to NIST, in these  collaborations, it has provided unique measurement expertise, for  example, for determining the quantities and properties of  nanoparticles released from flooring finishes and interior paints and  their subsequent airborne concentrations.
section_title: Fragmented and Overlapping Oversight Can Help Agencies Leverage Expertise but Also Creates Inefficiencies
paragraphs: We found that oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented across  multiple agencies with some overlap occurring—for example, when  agencies regulate different uses of the same product. We did not find  specific cases of duplication in oversight. Fragmentation and overlap can  help provide more comprehensive oversight by allowing agencies to  leverage one another’s expertise, resources, and authorities, but they can  also create inefficiencies. In particular, NIST’s role as regulator for the  markings of toy and imitation firearms may be an inefficient use of  resources because it may not leverage the agency’s primary mission and  expertise, which are related to scientific measurement. In addition,  because of potential jurisdictional uncertainty regarding whether some  recreational boating equipment should be regulated by the Coast Guard  or CPSC, the potential exists for some hazards to not be adequately  addressed.
subsections: section_title: Oversight Is Fragmented, and Jurisdictions Overlap When Multiple Agencies Regulate the Same Product, Its Components, or Its Uses
paragraphs: Federal regulatory oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented  across multiple agencies, and some overlap occurs among these  agencies based on their statutory authorities for certain products. The  agencies we surveyed and interviewed provided several examples of  regulatory oversight involving multiple agencies, including scenarios in  which agencies regulate different components of the same product,  regulate different uses of a product, or administer different regulatory  oversight activities for the same product. We did not find specific cases  of duplication in oversight. Figure 2 contains examples of consumer  products regulated by more than one agency. (See app. IV for a full-text  presentation of the examples in fig. 2).
In the following examples, agencies regulate different components of a  product, which can result in fragmentation and overlap.
Articles or equipment that come into contact with food (CPSC,  FDA): FDA regulates substances making up the surfaces of products,  such as spoons, drinking glasses, and lunch boxes, that come into  contact with and can potentially leach into food. In contrast, CPSC  regulates the parts of food containers or preparation articles that do  not come into contact with food, as well as certain chemical  substances. An example of a product with overlapping regulation is  spoons intended for use by infants. The substances making up the  portion of the spoon that comes into contact with the food would  generally be regulated by FDA to ensure the safety of substances in  the spoon that may migrate into the food. However, if the spoon had a  plastic coating, it could also be subject to CPSC’s limits on the use of  certain phthalates in children’s products. In another example, in 2010,  CPSC issued a voluntary recall of about 12 million drinking glasses  because the designs on the outside of the glasses contained  cadmium, a substance that can cause adverse health effects.
21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh-360ss. lead content of the paint is below the required threshold. Examples  of toy laser products include “light sabers,” toy guns with mounted  lasers for taking aim, and tops that project laser beams while they  spin. In June 2013, FDA proposed laser safety regulations specific to  toy laser products marketed to children that would restrict the amount  of radiation emitted by toy lasers to the lowest laser class limits.  FDA and CPSC indicated that they did not coordinate on the  proposed rule for toy laser products, but according to FDA officials,  the agencies collaborated on a draft guidance document concerning  this rule that was issued in August 2013. FDA also noted that the  agency has organized a multiagency Laser Communications Working  Group to educate consumers about laser safety.
Regulatory jurisdiction for some products changes depending on where or  how the product is used, which can result in overlapping oversight, as in  the following examples.
Infant car seats/hand-held infant carriers (CPSC, NHTSA): Infant  car seats can be used to protect a child inside a moving vehicle, but  some (which are also called hand-held infant carriers) can also be  used to carry an infant outside of a vehicle and can attach to strollers.  CPSC regulates hazards associated with the use of infant carriers  outside of a motor vehicle, including soft infant carriers, framed  carriers worn on caregivers’ backs, and hand-held infant carriers, as  part of their jurisdiction over durable infant and toddler products.  Overlap with NHTSA occurs with hand-held infant carriers that are  also used as car seats and are therefore considered “motor vehicle  equipment” for the purpose of NHTSA’s jurisdiction. For example,  infant car seats sold for purposes that include motor vehicle use are  considered child-restraint systems and must be certified as meeting  federal motor vehicle safety standards. In December 2013, CPSC  issued a final rule, which incorporated an existing voluntary standard  for hand-held infant carriers. For example, this standard includes  warning label requirements to address suffocation and restraint- related hazards, as well as testing procedures to ensure that the  carrier handle automatically locks. NHTSA and CPSC indicated that  they had coordinated on the rulemaking. For example, CPSC said that  the agency had worked with NHTSA to assess the effectiveness of  existing standards for hand-held infant carriers and to ensure that the  warning label to address strangulation hazards does not interfere with  NHTSA’s label for air bags.
Adult portable bed rails (CPSC, FDA): CPSC and FDA regulate  portable bed rails for adult use. These are rails that are not part of a  bed’s original design, but can be installed against or adjacent to adult  beds to protect people from falling and to assist them as they get in  and out of bed. Jurisdiction depends on whether the adult portable  bed rails constitute medical devices.portable bed rails considered to be medical devices, and CPSC  regulates adult portable bed rails that do not meet the definition of  such devices. FDA noted that for consumers, there is little difference  between the adult portable bed rails regulated by FDA or CPSC in  terms of the physical product. FDA and CPSC have been working with  manufacturers, health care practitioners, and consumer  representatives since 2013, to develop a voluntary consensus  standard for adult portable bed rails through an organization that  develops standards (ASTM International). This voluntary standard  would apply to all portable adult bed rails whether they are regulated  by FDA or CPSC and should help ensure that there are no gaps in  oversight of the safety of portable bed rails for adult use. The effort to  establish a voluntary standard for bed rails was ongoing as of  September 2014. CPSC and FDA also noted that they maintain an  interagency working group that addresses the issues associated with  adult portable bed rails. While this working group’s primary focus is  the development of the voluntary standard, CPSC and FDA said the  group also exchanges technical information and compliance  challenges to improve regulatory oversight.
FDA has jurisdiction over adult
Soaps, cleaners, and other household products (CPSC, EPA,  FDA): Jurisdiction over soaps, cleaners, and other household  products depends on whether the product is formulated and marketed  as a soap, cosmetic, drug, or pesticide, resulting in jurisdictional  fragmentation and overlap. FDA regulates cosmetics and drugs;  CPSC regulates household products, such as household cleaners,  (including soap but excluding certain items, such as drugs, cosmetics,  and pesticides); and EPA regulates pesticides and certain chemicals  that may also be contained in soaps, cleaners, and other household  products. Body-cleansing products that do not meet FDA’s definition  of “soap” but contain detergents and are used for cosmetic purposes  are typically considered cosmetics under FDA’s jurisdiction. FDA  considers antibacterial or antimicrobial cleansing products to be drugs  under its jurisdiction, even though they contain the chemical Triclosan,  which is also regulated by EPA when used as a pesticide in other  products. CPSC has authority over products that are labeled and  sold only as soap and that have specified chemical properties that  exclude them from FDA’s jurisdiction. With respect to other household  cleaners, while FDA regulates the detergents used in cosmetics,  CPSC has authority over cleansers that are not cosmetics or  pesticides, such as laundry or dishwashing detergents. In addition,  EPA staff noted that its jurisdiction overlaps with CPSC’s with respect  to some household cleaners, such as window cleaners. Even if the  cleaners are not marketed as pesticides, EPA may still regulate  certain chemicals contained in them. EPA also noted that they work  with CPSC and other agencies when their jurisdictions overlap to  share information and determine how to address a particular product  hazard.
In addition, agencies can conduct different regulatory oversight activities  for the same product, but requirements can overlap.
Fireworks (ATF, CPSC, PHMSA): CPSC oversees fireworks that are  used by consumers, which includes examining the length of the fuse  to determine how quickly and how long it will ignite, among other  things. PHMSA regulates the approval, importation, and transport of  fireworks based on its authority to regulate the transportation of  hazardous materials. PHMSA staff noted that some overlap exists  between CPSC’s and PHMSA’s manufacturing requirements for  fireworks. They explained that both sets of requirements have been  incorporated into industry standards (standard 87-1 of the American  Pyrotechnic Association), which PHMSA in turn has incorporated into  its regulations governing the approval and transport of fireworks.  Additionally, ATF enforces explosives laws and licenses  manufacturers to use explosives, including in consumer fireworks.
Mobile phones and other wireless devices (FCC, FDA): FCC and  FDA share regulatory responsibilities for mobile phones and other  wireless devices. Although FCC does not directly regulate the safety  of mobile phones and wireless devices, it sets limits on the amount of  radiofrequency energy these devices can emit and certifies that  devices sold in the United States comply with FCC requirements.  According to FDA, the agency, as part of its oversight of radiation- emitting products, ensures that mobile phones and other wireless  devices do not emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is hazardous  to the user. FDA also stated that as a health expert agency, its  expertise was significant in developing the radiofrequency exposure  limits from which the FCC radiofrequency emission limits are derived,  and it is FDA that would have the jurisdiction to determine whether a  product is unsafe. For example, while FDA does not review the  safety of mobile phone devices before they are marketed, it can  require manufacturers to replace or recall mobile phones that are  shown to emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is hazardous. As  we previously reported, FCC said it relies heavily on the guidance and  recommendations of federal health and safety agencies when  determining the appropriate exposure limit for radiofrequency  energy. As we discuss in the next section of this report, FDA, FCC,  and other agencies are part of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work  Group, which works to share information and research on  radiofrequency energy-related issues.
section_title: Current Structure Helps Provide More Comprehensive Oversight but Also Creates Some Inefficiencies
paragraphs: Agency officials, as well as a consumer group and industry expert, told us  that the involvement of multiple agencies with various areas of expertise  can help ensure more comprehensive oversight of a product. Consumer  product safety encompasses complex topics and often requires a range  of expertise to address the breadth of products and potential safety  hazards (e.g., manufacturing, transport, effects on the environment, or  use in different settings). As a result, it may be impractical for any single  agency to oversee consumer product safety alone. For example, CPSC  staff noted that in the area of nanomaterials, no single agency has the  resources to tackle the potential human health and environmental risks.  Moreover, some agencies noted that each agency brings a different  mission or focus to addressing consumer product safety problems. For  example, CPSC staff noted that while CPSC and EPA both conduct risk  assessments as part of their oversight of generators, EPA’s focus is on  how much pollution a generator emits into the environment, while CPSC  focuses on the safety implications of how consumers use generators  around their homes. CPSC staff noted that risk assessments from other  agencies can serve as an additional check on their own safety  assessments.
As part of providing more comprehensive oversight of consumer product  safety within a fragmented and overlapping regulatory structure, agencies  noted that they leverage one another’s expertise, resources, and statutory  authorities. For example, we previously reported that in 2009, CPSC led a  task force to address hazards associated with high hydrogen sulfide  emissions from imported defective drywall (i.e., sheetrock used in  construction), which crossed the jurisdiction of several federal agencies.  Members of this task force brought their areas of expertise to this effort.  For example, CPSC coordinated with EPA to conduct an elemental  analysis of the drywall components; HUD’s role was to develop guidance  for the identification and remediation of problem drywall in homes; CDC’s  role was to assess the health effects and develop a public awareness  campaign; and CBP’s role was to help identify imports of defective  drywall.
Because agencies have different missions and areas of expertise, they  also have access to different data and information sources, and some  agencies noted that sharing this information can increase their knowledge  of product safety issues. For example, NHTSA noted that they share  complaint and injury data associated with the use of hand-held infant  carriers in motor vehicles with CPSC during joint investigations to inform  CPSC’s oversight of these products when used outside of motor vehicles.  Some agencies stated that given their current regulatory authorities, they  may need to rely on other agencies’ authorities to address certain  problems with unsafe products. For example, PHMSA noted that they do  not have the authority to recall a product once it is in the possession of  consumers, so they would rely on an agency such as CPSC or FDA to  remove products from commerce that are under their respective  jurisdictions.
While agencies noted some benefits to the current regulatory structure for  consumer product safety, fragmentation also creates some inefficiencies,  including challenges related to communication among federal agencies  and with industry and consumers and to the ability to identify and respond  to new and emerging product hazards.
subsections: section_title: Communication and Coordination Can Be Difficult When Oversight Involves Multiple Agencies
paragraphs: Some agencies indicated that it can be difficult to find the right people  with whom to coordinate if agencies or their staff have no pre-existing  working relationships, if relationships change (such as through staff  turnover), or if the agencies are large. For instance, program staff in  EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs stated that it can be difficult to find  the right people with whom to coordinate if they are not familiar with an  agency’s organization.
Moreover, agencies might not be aware of the regulatory activities of  other agencies that relate to their oversight. For example, CPSC had  issued a rule on child-resistant packaging for over-the-counter and  prescription drug products containing specified levels of the drug  imidazoline in 2012. FDA officials said that the agency had not received  adequate notification of the content of the rulemaking as it progressed,  although CPSC initially made requests to FDA for data related to the  issues covered by the rulemaking. FDA had concerns about certain  provisions in the imidazoline packaging rule and felt that the final rule  could have benefited from direct input from FDA. FDA staff noted that one  way in which agencies learn about other agencies’ rulemaking activities is  through a planning and review process for draft rules led by the Office of  Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory  Affairs (OIRA). This planning and review process can also be a way to  resolve disputes among agencies. However, independent agencies, such  as CPSC, are not subject to OIRA’s interagency planning and review  process. As a result, entities other than independent agencies, such as  FDA would not see rules proposed by CPSC as part of this process.  However, CPSC noted that while it does receive draft rules from some  agencies (mostly from EPA) during the OIRA planning and review  process, the timing of the review would probably be too late to address  major issues. FDA stated that agencies may consult with one another  outside of the OIRA planning and review process.
In another example, FDA expressed concern that CPSC’s 2010 rule  establishing requirements for cribs might eliminate cribs with drop-side  rails that are necessary for medical purposes outside of hospital  settings. In response to CPSC’s crib requirements, FDA is developing a  proposed rule to regulate the safety and effectiveness of pediatric cribs,  while allowing for the use of drop-side rails. FDA said they expect to issue  the proposed rule in fall 2014. According to FDA staff, the agency has  been coordinating with CPSC on how to publicly communicate their crib  requirements. CPSC also noted in subsequent guidance that medical  cribs are regulated by FDA and are not subject to CPSC’s crib standards.
section_title: Fragmentation and Overlap Can Create Challenges Related to Jurisdiction
paragraphs: When consumer products fall under more than one agency’s jurisdiction,  it may be unclear which agencies have primary oversight responsibility for  them. As we previously discussed, products such as body-cleansing  products may be regulated by different agencies depending on how they  are used or marketed. Additionally, multiple agencies have regulatory  jurisdiction for the packaging of certain household substances to ensure  that children cannot easily open them. Under the Poison Prevention  Packaging Act, CPSC oversees child-resistant packaging for household  substances, including cosmetics and drugs, except for substances that  are defined as pesticides by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act (e.g., antimicrobial or antibacterial products). EPA  regulates the child-resistant packaging of pesticides used in residential  settings. EPA’s standards for child-resistant packaging are required by  law to be consistent with CPSC’s requirements under the Poison  Prevention Packaging Act and according to EPA’s website, EPA and  CPSC worked together to develop reference guides for the public on their  respective child-resistant packaging requirements. However, oversight  over child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body- cleansing products is unclear. EPA indicated that they do not regulate  child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body-cleansing  products that contain the chemical Triclosan, which is also found in  pesticides, because these products are regulated by FDA as over-the- counter drugs and not as pesticides by EPA. According to CPSC  officials, the agency has not had occasion to consider whether it has  jurisdiction over child-resistant packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial  body-cleansing products containing Triclosan even though CPSC’s  authorities under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act include over-the- counter drugs.
Moreover, as new products enter the consumer marketplace or when new  uses or users arise for existing products, agencies face questions of  jurisdiction. For example, CPSC staff noted that there are potential  jurisdictional questions about products that could be used in both  workplace and home settings, particularly as consumers have greater  access to products that were previously limited to industrial settings, such  as certain lawnmowers and power tools. According to CPSC, if an  industrial product is used by consumers on more than an occasional  basis, the agency may have the authority to regulate it as a consumer  product. To make this determination, CPSC said it would have to  consider—on a case-by-case basis—a variety of factors, including the  use of the product by consumers and the associated hazards, as well as  how the product is marketed, priced, and distributed. While OSHA  typically regulates the use of products in workplace settings, CPSC can  recall consumer products if OSHA standards do not adequately address a  product’s hazards. We also previously reported on nanotechnology as  an emerging field and found that nanomaterials can be used in a wide  range of consumer products that involve multiple agencies’ jurisdictions.  For example, we reported that consumer products that incorporate  nanotechnology are as diverse as clothing, cosmetics, household  appliances, and sporting goods.
section_title: Multiple Standards May Create Inefficiencies for Industry and Confusion for Consumers
paragraphs: Some agencies noted that when oversight responsibilities are shared by  multiple agencies, manufacturers may have to meet multiple regulatory  requirements, which can increase time and costs for manufacturers. For  example, senior program officials in CDC’s National Institute for  Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) told us that NIOSH and FDA  both regulate a certain type of respiratory protective device and that this  overlap increases time and costs for manufacturers in having to meet  different requirements. NIOSH certifies respirators as meeting certain  requirements for use in workplace settings, such as construction sites, to  protect workers from dust and small particles; these respirators can also  be sold to consumers. FDA regulates respirators for use in health care  settings as medical devices (i.e., surgical N95 respirators). FDA  regulation of surgical N95 respirators includes premarket clearance  requirements. FDA indicated that its clearance involves two steps: (1)  First, FDA recommends that respirators be certified by NIOSH for use in  occupational settings. (2) Second, once NIOSH has certified the  respirators, FDA then begins its process for clearing them to be marketed  in the United States as surgical N95 respirators. According to NIOSH, the  impact on manufacturers includes the delay for the introduction of new  products intended to provide respiratory protection, as well as barrier  protection for health care workers, due to the time involved to apply to  NIOSH for certification and then to FDA for clearance. According to  NIOSH, manufacturers also incur costs for each application submitted to  FDA and NIOSH, which includes processing fees imposed by the  agencies as well as the commitment of personnel and other resources to  assemble and monitor the applications and interface with the agency  reviewers. In a request for information, NIOSH stated that it is considering  incorporating requirements from FDA’s clearance process for respirators,  such as those pertaining to fluid resistance and flammability, into the  NIOSH certification process.
In another example, program officials from EPA’s Office of Pesticide  Programs told us that a manufacturer approached the agency with  concerns over having to sell two separate antimicrobial fruit and  vegetable treatment products that met either EPA or FDA use   EPA has  requirements even though the product formula was the same.jurisdiction if the product is used to rinse whole fruits or vegetables, while  FDA has jurisdiction if the product is used to rinse processed (e.g., cut)  fruits or vegetables. EPA noted that the manufacturer wanted a single  product that could be used for either whole or processed fruits or  vegetables. To address this concern, EPA said it coordinated with FDA to  incorporate FDA’s approval of the product for use on processed fruit and  vegetables onto EPA’s pesticide label for the product. As a result, the  manufacturer was able to sell this product under a single label.
Additionally, consumer groups and some agencies and industry experts  with whom we spoke said consumers could be confused about which  agency to contact to report problems. FDA officials said that even  informed consumers may not know which agency to contact to report  product-related incidents. With fragmented and overlapping oversight,  consumers may have to visit multiple websites to report or search for  safety information on consumer products. For example, CPSC and  NHTSA have websites for consumers to report and search for safety  concerns related to the use of hand-held infant carriers and car seats,  respectively. FDA also posts phone numbers on its website for  consumers to report safety concerns with FDA-regulated products in each  state. However, FDA said that their staff are trained to refer consumers to  the appropriate agencies for concerns about products that are not under  FDA’s jurisdiction. In other cases, consumers may not be familiar with the  agencies involved in the oversight of consumer products or their  websites. For example, we previously examined consumers’ awareness  of CPSC’s public consumer product safety information database  SaferProducts.gov and found that none of the participants in consumer  focus groups we conducted had heard of the website, and few had heard  of CPSC.
section_title: Multiple Agencies Purchase the Same Data but Are Considering Options to Improve Efficiency through Data Sharing
paragraphs: Some agencies purchase the same data, resulting in multiple contracts  for the same information, but are considering options that would help  them better share these data. Deaths in the United States are reported to  the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) Division of Vital  Statistics through contracts between NCHS and the various state and  local jurisdictions that are responsible for maintaining death certificates  and other vital records. NCHS publicly releases limited information from  the death certificate data they receive, but the public file does not contain  any written narratives, which would provide greater detail on the  circumstances of the deaths. NCHS staff told us that these narratives can  contain personally identifiable information and their contracts limit their  ability to share data involving such information, including with other  federal agencies. Additionally, CPSC told us they purchase death  certificate information from states for select narrative information on  cause of death, which is used to help identify consumer product-related  deaths.
NCHS staff told us that they have been working with CPSC to identify  ways to share information that do not compromise their contractual  agreements. For example, NCHS told us that other agencies that  examine cause-of-death narratives, such as NHTSA and FDA, have had  staff work on-site at NCHS to review these data and develop  programming that would allow NCHS to extract the information the  agencies need. NCHS indicated they are considering development of a  computer program that would automatically remove personally identifiable  information from the death certificate records. CPSC suggested that it  would be more efficient and cost-effective to have either a government- wide contract for purchasing these data or to have interagency  agreements signed by other federal agencies with NCHS giving limited  access to the full death certificate data. Additionally, they said that these  agreements would have to contain strict data user clauses detailing  restrictions on the use of the data containing personally identifiable  information. For example, CPSC noted that for the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which CPSC administers, CPSC pays  individual hospitals to code injury information specific to other federal  agencies’ missions through interagency agreements. However, NCHS  staff noted that under their contractual agreements with states and  localities, the data they maintain can only be used for statistical or  research purposes and not for administrative or enforcement purposes.According to NCHS staff, its current contracts for death certificate data  will expire in 2017; however, access to these data in any renegotiated  agreements would still be determined by states and localities.
section_title: NIST’s Role as Regulator for the Markings of Toy and Imitation Firearms May Be an Inefficient Use of Resources
paragraphs: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) currently  regulates the markings of toy and imitation firearms to distinguish them  from real firearms. However, during the course of our review, we found  that NIST’s oversight of toy and imitation firearm markings may not be  efficient as it does not align with the agency’s primary mission and area of  expertise. According to NIST, this authority was delegated to NIST  following the deauthorization of the Technology Administration of the  Commerce Department under the America COMPETES Act of 2007.However, NIST stated that the agency is a nonregulatory federal research  laboratory and its mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial  competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and  technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our  quality of life. For example, as noted earlier, NIST has collaborated with  CPSC to measure and better understand the release of nanotechnology- based products and exposure pathways. In another example related to  measurement and protocol development, NIST stated it designed an  apparatus to measure the visible power of laser pointers, which was  consistent with NIST’s experience in providing industry, research, and  military agencies with laser power measurements traceable to  international standards. As these examples indicate, the regulation of the  markings of toy and imitation firearms does not align with NIST’s mission  nor its activities and expertise related to scientific measurement.
NIST staff stated that for imported imitation firearms, the review and  compliance determination process for toy and imitation firearms can be  cumbersome and time-consuming. NIST staff also noted that because  there are few, if any, domestic manufacturers of toy and imitation firearms  and because most are imported, Commerce regulations on the markings  for toy and imitation firearms are enforced almost entirely by CBP. NIST  explained that upon request from law enforcement (usually CBP), NIST  issues informal or formal opinions on whether a toy or imitation firearm  complies with markings regulations. However, NIST stated it can issue  formal opinions only after physically inspecting the items in question at its  headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland. According to NIST, because  NIST has no presence at any ports of entry, CBP has to ship samples to  NIST to be analyzed and then NIST has to return the samples. NIST also  stated that a formal opinion may result in the toy or imitation firearm and  corresponding shipment being subject to CBP seizure.
Because the regulation of toy and imitation firearms falls outside the  scope of NIST’s primary mission and functions and because NIST has no  physical presence at ports of entry, NIST staff stated that the regulation  and oversight of toy and imitation firearm markings may better be  administered by another federal agency, such as CPSC, which also  oversees other consumer products and toys and has a presence at ports  of entry. NIST also explained that over the years, NIST has had  discussions with CPSC on transferring the oversight responsibility for  imitation firearms but it would require a statutory change. Although CPSC  collaborates with CBP on enforcement activities such as import  surveillance at ports of entry, CPSC staff agreed that it would be  reasonable for CPSC to assume oversight for toy guns because the  agency already regulates the safety and performance of toys. Although  neither NIST nor CPSC has conducted formal cost estimates for carrying  out the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation firearms, continued  regulation of the marking of toy and imitation firearms by NIST rather than  CPSC does not leverage each agency’s expertise and therefore may not  be the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.
section_title: Jurisdiction for the Regulation of Some Recreational Boating Equipment May Be Unclear
paragraphs: Oversight of products that can be used on recreational boats is  fragmented between the Coast Guard and CPSC, and the jurisdiction for  some products can be unclear. As a result, we found that the potential  exists for confusion regarding which agency has responsibility for  addressing product safety hazards. Coast Guard staff told us that they  regulate recreational boats and all originally installed associated  equipment (i.e., equipment that was installed on boats by the original  manufacturer). Coast Guard staff also stated that because of limited  staff resources, the Coast Guard through regulation has chosen to limit  the scope of its recall activities related to equipment not originally  installed on boats (i.e., after-market equipment, or equipment not installed  by the original equipment manufacturer) to four items: inboard engines,  outboard engines, stern drive units, and inflatable life jackets.result, the Coast Guard relies on voluntary recalls from the manufacturer  for all other associated equipment items other than the four types of items  for which the Coast Guard has issued regulations.
While by law CPSC does not have jurisdiction over recreational boats and  associated equipment, CPSC officials stated that they have authority over  some products that can be used either on or off of a boat—such as  boating gloves, a camping stove, or a refrigerator. However, CPSA  excludes from CPSC’s jurisdiction recreational boats and associated  equipment which could be subject to regulation under the Coast Guard’s  statutory authority. As excluded from CPSC’s jurisdiction, associated  equipment is defined by statute as a system, accessory, component, or  appurtenance of a recreational vessel or a marine safety article intended  for use on board a recreational vessel. However, the Coast Guard’s  definition of associated equipment for defect notification purposes  includes only inboard engines, outboard engines, stern drive units, and  inflatable life jackets. The different definitions of associated equipment for  different purposes could create jurisdictional uncertainty for many items of  associated equipment aboard recreational boats. Coast Guard and CPSC  both acknowledged a potential regulatory gap for certain boating  equipment based on the Coast Guard’s limited scope of oversight over  after-market associated equipment and CPSC’s lack of authority to  regulate associated equipment.
Questions of jurisdiction were raised in an accident involving the use of a  recreational vehicle. Specifically, Coast Guard staff told us that CPSC  and the Coast Guard held meetings to determine jurisdiction when a  fatality occurred involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV)—which would  typically be regulated by CPSC—that was used as a water vessel (some  ATVs can be used for flotation due to very large tires along with the  addition of an outboard motor). According to Coast Guard officials, the  agencies ultimately determined that CPSC had jurisdiction in this case. In  another case, questions arose about the Coast Guard’s and CPSC’s  jurisdiction in addressing accidents involving kite tubes (inflatable rafts  that are towed behind power boats and become airborne). Coast Guard  staff noted that because this product was intended for use off the vessel  instead of installed on the vessel, it did not fall under the Coast Guard’s  jurisdiction. However, according to Coast Guard staff, CPSC was not sure  whether this product fell under its jurisdiction. Ultimately, CPSC  concluded that it had jurisdiction and conducted a recall of the product.  Although CPSC does not have jurisdiction over recreational boats and  associated equipment, consumer products used in recreation do fall  within its jurisdiction.
Although no formal mechanism, such as an MOU, exists between the  Coast Guard and CPSC, Coast Guard staff told us the informal and  periodic coordination between the two agencies works well. However, our  work on collaboration, which we discuss in greater detail in the next  section, suggests that collaborating agencies should clarify roles and  responsibilities and, if appropriate, document their agreement on how  they will be collaborating. Moreover, given the potential for lack of clarity  regarding jurisdiction, ensuring strong communication channels is  important. Coast Guard staff said that their ad hoc, informal coordination  with CPSC works well but this coordination has been infrequent—one or  two times a year at most—and at times Coast Guard goes for years  without coordinating with CPSC.
In the example of kite tubes, the Coast Guard said that it received the  initial accident reports from state boating administrators, who are required  to report boating accidents to the Coast Guard. In this instance, the Coast  Guard stated that it shared the accident reports with CPSC after it  decided this product was outside the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction. As stated  previously, Coast Guard told us that through regulation it has chosen to  limit the scope of its recall activities for associated equipment. However,  because no formal mechanism exists between the Coast Guard and  CPSC, there is a potential risk that hazards related to products for which  jurisdiction is unclear may not be regulated. In addition, because of the  potential gap in jurisdiction, it may at times be unclear which agency has  regulatory responsibility for some products that may present safety risks,  which underscores the need for strong communication between the two  agencies.
section_title: Agencies Report Coordinating on Specific Activities but Lack a Mechanism to Facilitate Comprehensive Oversight
paragraphs: In responses to our questionnaires, all eight agencies that have direct  oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety identified a number  of mechanisms they use to coordinate with at least two other agencies on  specific issues. However, no coordinating mechanism exists to address  federal consumer product safety efforts comprehensively. Consumer  product safety agencies have different areas of expertise and functions,  and no single agency can address oversight alone. Moreover, some  oversight agencies are independent and not subject to OMB’s planning  and review process for executive agencies. As a result, there is no single  entity or mechanism to help the agencies that collectively oversee  consumer product safety address the challenges raised in this report,  such as staying informed of the regulatory activities of other agencies,  jurisdictional issues related to multiple agencies overseeing the same  product, or data sharing issues. In addition, agencies may be missing  opportunities to better leverage resources and address challenges,  including those related to fragmentation and overlap identified in this  report.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Report Coordinating through Various Mechanisms to Address Specific Activities
paragraphs: In their questionnaire responses, interviews and other documents,  agencies reported collaborating on specific topics using various  mechanisms. Collaboration mechanisms identified include (1)  memorandums of understanding (MOU) or memorandums of agreement  (MOA); (2) interagency agreements; and (3) working groups. Several  agencies stated that coordination with other agencies was positive and  generally working well. For instance, EPA stated that their relationships  with FDA and USDA were particularly positive because they have so  much commonality in their work. CPSC stated that they have strong  collaboration and cooperation with a number of agencies related to  enforcement (CBP and the Department of Justice) and science and  technical issues (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),  CDC, NIH, NIOSH, and the National Toxicology Program). Additionally,  agencies coordinate informally on a variety of topics. For instance,  NHTSA reported that it has an informal working relationship with EPA on  the importation of motor vehicles that are subject to both the federal  motor vehicle safety standards and to emission standards administered  by EPA under the Clean Air Act. PHMSA officials stated that they have an  informal working group with CPSC and ATF that meets annually to  discuss issues related to fireworks. They added that these meetings often  include industry groups, such as the National Fireworks Association. All  eight agencies with direct oversight responsibilities reported having  coordinated with at least two or more other regulatory agencies.  Moreover, agencies most frequently reported coordinating with CPSC and  EPA (see fig. 3).
Additionally, the 12 federal agencies that we identified as providing  indirect consumer product safety support also reported collaborating with  at least 1 or more of the 8 agencies with direct regulatory responsibilities.  For example, CDC reported collaborating with HUD to identify and  remedy repeat properties involving multiple cases of children identified  with elevated blood levels, and OSHA reported that it meets with FDA as  needed to discuss medical equipment used in the workplace. As  previously discussed, these 12 agencies support product safety through  activities such as public health expertise; law enforcement; workplace  safety; transportation safety; and other activities.
We discuss some examples of interagency collaborative mechanisms that  we identified in previous work on collaboration across federal agencies.  Table 2 shows four mechanisms identified in our prior work.
subsections: section_title: Collaborative Structure within the Executive Office of the President
paragraphs: Presidential Task Force on Environmental Health and Safety Risks to  Children. According to EPA, the purpose of this task force is to identify  environmental health and safety risks to children that can be best  addressed through interagency efforts; recommend and implement  interagency actions; and communicate to federal, state, and local  decision makers information to protect children from risks. EPA stated  that both EPA and HHS are the chairs of the task force. EPA also  stated it has members on the asthma disparities, healthy settings, and  climate change subcommittees who provide expertise and technical  assistance for the subcommittees’ activities. The task force is  comprised of 17 federal departments and White House offices.  CPSC also told us that their staff participates in the senior steering  committee of the task force, such as the chemical exposures working  group and the asthma working group.
section_title: National Strategies and Initiatives
paragraphs: National Nanotechnology Initiative/Nanotechnology Environmental &  Health Implications Working Group. CPSC and EPA reported  coordinating on nanotechnology. For instance, EPA commented that  EPA researchers participate in the U.S. National Nanotechnology  Initiative/Nanotechnology Environmental Health Implications Working  Group to share information on nanomaterials research. EPA is  investigating how nanomaterials behave in the environment and how  nanomaterial properties may be modified or exposure controls  implemented to minimize and manage potential risks from products  containing nanomaterials. According to a December 2012 news  release, EPA and CPSC are collaborating in a worldwide research  effort to assess any potential impacts of nanomaterials on people’s  health and the environment. The news release also states that this  research is part of the U.S. government’s efforts to assess the  potential risks of nanomaterials and is coordinated by the National  Nanotechnology Initiative. The nano.gov website states that the National Nanotechnology Initiative consists of the individual and  cooperative nanotechnology-related activities of federal agencies with  a range of research and regulatory roles and responsibilities.
Healthy Homes Initiative/Federal Healthy Homes Work Group. HUD  and EPA reported that they participate in healthy homes activities.  According to a 2013 healthy homes report, the Federal Interagency  Healthy Homes Work Group (HHWG) consists of the Departments of  Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Labor, and Agriculture;  organizations within the Department of Health and Human Services,  including CDC and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute  of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS); EPA; and NIST. The work  group was established to strengthen coordination among federal  agencies to advance and implement the healthy homes model,  including to (1) establish a comprehensive federal strategy to promote  healthy homes, (2) identify and eliminate barriers that impede  collaboration and complicate assisting those in need of federal  technical assistance or funding, and (3) collaborate with key federal  and nonfederal stakeholders to implement a healthy homes agenda at  the community level.
section_title: Interagency Group Led by Agency and Department Heads
paragraphs: Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group. FDA commented that they  exchange information with FCC on the current state of research,  standards activity, and health effects of cell phone radiation and that  most interactions are facilitated by FDA and FCC participation in the  Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group. For example, FDA  worked on the interference between consumer products and active  medical implants, such as the interference between MP3 players and  pacemakers. FDA responded that they have worked collaboratively  (with FCC) to develop communications on wireless devices.  According to FDA’s website, the federal agencies in the working group  include NIOSH, EPA, FCC, OSHA, and the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration. The website also  states that the federal agencies in this workgroup have responsibility  for different aspects of radiofrequency safety and work to coordinate  efforts at the federal level. Additionally, FCC staff told us that the  working group meets every 2 months to share information. For  instance, one topic discussed has been the development and  eventual adoption of the FCC notice of inquiry regarding the propriety  of its current radiofrequency emissions limits.
Federal Interagency Lead-Based Paint Task Force. According to  HUD, the federal Lead-Based Paint Task Force is co-chaired by HUD  and EPA and meets several times a year to exchange information on  issues related to lead-based paint; lead poisoning (both childhood and  adult); lead exposures from paint, dust, soil, and, at times, additional  media; hazard and risk control methods; and other topics. HUD and  EPA have an MOU in place that was established in 1989. The task  force is composed of about a dozen agencies, including CPSC.  According to the MOU, the work of the task force is complex and  requires familiarity with health effects and exposure to lead and  practical considerations including costs, implementation issues, and  technical feasibility of abatement methodologies. The MOU states that  in addition to HUD and EPA, necessary expertise resides in other  federal agencies such as CDC, CPSC, OSHA, and NIEHS, as well as  state and local governments and private organizations. According to  the MOU, HUD and EPA will consult with these groups to ensure the  broadest possible input into the lead hazard research process.
section_title: Agencies Cite Challenges in Coordinating and Lack a Comprehensive Coordinating Mechanism for Product Safety Issues
paragraphs: Although agencies collaborate on a variety of issues, they also reported  that they face challenges when they work collaboratively. In our  discussions and follow-up with agencies, agency staff cited challenges  such as resource constraints, training port personnel on regulatory  standards related to imported products, and using different terminology.  For instance, EPA noted that working with other agencies to gain  agreement required time and energy. NHTSA explained that because it  has no personnel assigned to the various ports of entry, the agency is  dependent on CBP personnel to ensure that imported motor vehicle  equipment complies with applicable standards. NHTSA stated that it has  a close working relationship with CBP and provides periodic training to  CBP personnel both in-person at the ports and electronically. However,  NHTSA noted that due to the variety of automotive products offered for  importation and the turnover of CBP port personnel, NHTSA repeats  training at ports that handle the highest volume of products it regulates.  FDA staff stated that agencies may use different terminology, making  communication difficult. In addition, earlier we discussed challenges  related to fragmentation and overlap that also relate to coordination and  collaboration. These challenges include staying informed about the  regulatory activities of other agencies related to, for example, child- resistant packaging for over-the-counter and prescription drug products;  coordinating on jurisdictional issues, for example, those related to  packaging for certain household substances, including cosmetics and  drugs; and considering options to share data rather than purchasing the  same data under multiple contracts.
In past work, we have noted that interagency mechanisms or strategies to  coordinate programs that address crosscutting issues may reduce  potentially duplicative, overlapping, and fragmented efforts. In October  2005, we identified practices that can help enhance and sustain  collaboration among federal agencies, and in September 2012, we  identified key considerations for implementing collaborative  mechanisms. More specifically, we concluded that while collaborative  mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain  key features such as having clear roles and responsibilities and involving  all relevant participants. Additionally, our prior work found that agencies  that articulate their agreements in formal documents can strengthen their  commitment to working collaboratively and that written agreements are  most effective when they are regularly updated and monitored. We  noted that not all collaborative arrangements need to be documented  through written guidance and agreements, particularly those that are  informal. However, we have found that at times it can be helpful to  document key agreements related to the collaboration.
Additionally, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)  Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) establishes a framework aimed at  taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on long- term outcome-oriented goals and improving government performance.
GAO-12-1022 and GAO, Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act  Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). every 4 years, elements of this framework could be useful for oversight  agencies in collaborating more comprehensively. For instance, federal  agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans as tools to  drive collaboration with other agencies and other partners and establish  complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. Moreover,  there are requirements that agencies discuss collaborative efforts in their  strategic and performance plans. In both documents, agencies must  describe how they are working with other agencies to achieve their own  goals as well as cross-agency priority goals. Additionally, in the  performance plan, agencies are to identify the various organizations,  program activities, regulations, policies, and other activities that contribute  to each of their goals, both within and external to the agencies. Agencies’  priority goals and agency involvement in federal government priority goals  provide additional opportunities to articulate the goals of collaborative  efforts.
While we identified a number of collaborative efforts among agencies  aimed at addressing specific issues, we did not identify a collaborative  effort aimed at facilitating comprehensive coordination among the many  agencies with responsibility for consumer product safety oversight. A  number of agencies have an oversight role, but no single entity has the  expertise or authority to address the full scope of product safety activities.  Although we previously noted that OMB’s Office of Information and  Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has an interagency process for planning and  reviewing draft rules within the executive branch, this process does not  include independent regulatory agencies such as CPSC. Moreover, some  independent regulatory agencies have stated their opposition to greater  involvement by the President in setting their rulemaking requirements,  such as the preparation of cost-benefit analyses and submission of  rulemakings to OIRA for prior review. Without a collaborative mechanism to facilitate communication across the relevant agencies and  to help enable them to collectively address crosscutting issues, the  agencies responsible for consumer product safety oversight may continue  to be challenged by inefficiencies associated with fragmentation and  overlap, including those we identified in this report.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Consumer product safety oversight is a broad area involving the expertise  of many agencies with diverse missions. Fragmented and overlapping  oversight among various agencies results in a number of challenges for  the oversight of consumer product safety, including communication  difficulties, inefficient use of resources, and unclear roles resulting in  potential regulatory gaps. In particular, the role of NIST as regulator for  the markings of toy and imitation firearms in section 5001 of title 15 of the  U.S. Code (15 U.S.C. § 5001) is inefficient because such a role may not  leverage the agency’s primary mission and expertise in the area of  scientific measurement. Transferring this authority to another agency  would require a statutory change. In another example of a challenge  associated with fragmented oversight, it is unclear whether some boating  products fall under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard or CPSC. In the  absence of a formal mechanism to facilitate coordination and clarify roles  and responsibilities, as indicated in our work on collaboration, some  products that may present a safety risk may go unregulated.
In addition, while agencies reported collaborating using a variety of  mechanisms to address specific topics, we did not identify a mechanism  to facilitate more comprehensive collaboration. The inefficiencies we  identified in this report suggest the need for greater collaboration, which  in turn could help reduce some negative effects of fragmentation and  overlap. Also, there may be instances where more formal arrangements  would be beneficial. Due to the range of oversight areas and activities, no  single agency is able to address a problem alone. Additionally,  independent agencies such as CPSC are not subject to the executive  branch planning and review process under OMB. Our body of work on  collaborative practices and GPRAMA suggests that agencies need to  consider taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to  addressing consumer product safety oversight. A broad interagency  collaborative mechanism could help the agencies that are collectively  responsible for the oversight of consumer product safety to address some  of the key issues identified in our work on collaborative practices, such as  clarifying agency roles and responsibilities, ensuring that all relevant  participants have been included, and appropriately documenting key  agreements on collaboration. Formal collaboration—both between two  agencies to address a specific issue and across multiple agencies to  provide comprehensive oversight—can be useful in strengthening agency  commitments in working together. Without taking these actions, agencies  may not be able to fully leverage government resources and may not be  able to regulate consumer products in the most efficient and effective  manner.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, Congress should  consider transferring the oversight of the markings of toy and imitation  firearms in 15 U.S.C. § 5001 from the National Institute of Standards  and Technology (within the Department of Commerce) to the  Consumer Product Safety Commission.
To improve existing coordination of oversight for consumer product  safety, Congress should consider establishing a formal  comprehensive oversight mechanism for consumer product safety  agencies to address crosscutting issues as well as inefficiencies  related to fragmentation and overlap such as communication and  coordination challenges and jurisdictional questions between  agencies. Different types of formal mechanisms could include, for  example, creating a memorandum of understanding to formalize  relationships and agreements or establishing a task force or  interagency work group. As a starting point, Congress may wish to  obtain agency input on options for establishing more formal  coordination.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: To clarify roles and facilitate greater communication and strengthen  oversight of associated equipment related to recreational boats, we  recommend that the U.S. Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety  Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a  memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing and  better leveraging of resources.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the 20 agencies for their review and  comment. CPSC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and NIST  agreed with GAO’s matters and recommendation; other agencies neither  agreed nor disagreed. We received comment letters from CPSC and the  Department of Homeland Security that are reproduced in appendixes V  and VI. We received technical comments from CPSC; Department of  Commerce (NIST); Department of Health and Human Services (CDC,  FDA, HRSA, NIH); DHS (CBP); HUD; Department of Justice (ATF);  Department of Labor (OSHA); EPA, FCC and NRC that we incorporated,  as appropriate.
In commenting on the draft report, CPSC and NIST made the following  comments related to the report’s matters to Congress. Specifically,  concerning the matter that Congress consider transferring certain  oversight responsibilities from NIST to CPSC, CPSC suggested that we  clarify that we are referring to requirements under 15 U.S.C. § 5001 and  stated that it would be willing to accept responsibility for oversight of the  markings of toy and imitation firearms provided that the transfer of  authority from NIST includes a corresponding increase in appropriations.  To clarify the matter, we added a reference to 15 U.S.C. § 5001 to the  conclusions and matter. NIST stated in its technical comments that it  supports the transfer of the oversight of the markings of toy, look-alike,  and imitation firearms from NIST to CPSC and that the report was  consistent with NIST’s position regarding oversight of toy guns and  imitation firearms. CPSC also stated that it would be comfortable with the  establishment of a formal collaboration mechanism to address oversight  in areas of shared or fragmented jurisdiction provided that such an  approach does not compromise the agency’s independence. With regard  to the recommendation that the U.S. Coast Guard and CPSC establish a  formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of  understanding) to strengthen the oversight of associated equipment  related to recreational boats, CPSC indicated that they support, and plan  to pursue, this recommendation. The Department of Homeland Security  also agreed with our recommendation and stated that the U.S. Coast  Guard will work with CPSC to develop a formal memorandum of  understanding to facilitate communication between agencies on oversight  of items of associated equipment installed on recreational boats with an  estimated completion date of April 30, 2015.
We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional  committees, the Chairman and Commissioners of CPSC, and the  Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The report also is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you  or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at   (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VII.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this review were to examine (1) which federal agencies  oversee consumer product safety and their roles and responsibilities; (2)  the extent and effects of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, if any, in  the oversight of consumer products; and (3) how consumer product safety  oversight agencies coordinate their activities and to what extent does that  address any identified negative effects of fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication.
For all three objectives, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations, as  well as literature and our past reports on consumer product safety;  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; and mechanisms for interagency  collaboration (see list of related products at the end of this report). We  developed an inventory of agencies involved in consumer product safety  oversight activities, the methodology for which is described in greater  detail below. We also interviewed federal agency officials and industry  groups to gather information on the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication, their benefits and advantages, and options to address them.  We analyzed agency and other documentation as available.
subsections: section_title: Inventory of Agencies That Conduct Consumer Product Safety Oversight Activities
paragraphs: To initially identify agencies that conduct consumer product safety  oversight and to delineate their roles and responsibilities, we reviewed the  following sources: (1) laws and regulations related to consumer product  safety, as well as Federal Register notices for proposed and final  rulemaking from August 2008 to October 2013; (2) the Consumer Product  Safety Commission’s (CPSC) web link to other federal agencies with  jurisdiction over consumer products; (3) our past reports; and (4) agency  members of CPSC-identified interagency working groups. We  disseminated a questionnaire to the 33 agencies we identified to (1)  confirm their roles and responsibilities and (2) identify any other agencies  with whom they coordinate.
To verify agency roles and responsibilities, we developed a questionnaire  that included a request for each agency to verify its oversight areas and  relevant authorities. We also asked questions about the types of  statutory authority the agency has; its mission; other agencies with which  it coordinates; barriers to coordination; and knowledge of potential  fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. To minimize errors arising from  differences in how the questions might be interpreted and to ensure we  had provided sufficient background and clarity of our scope, we  conducted pretests with two different agencies in December 2013. We  obtained feedback during the pretests and revised the questionnaire to  improve organization and clarity.
We sent the questionnaire to the relevant agency contacts in February  2014 as attachments to an e-mail message, in which we provided an  introduction, contact information for GAO staff, and the time frame for  completion. Many of the questions were open-ended, allowing officials to  provide more in-depth information on oversight areas; interagency  initiatives; and examples of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. We  disseminated 33 questionnaires in total and received at least one  response from each of the 33 entities for a 100 percent response rate.  We received multiple responses from some agencies, which we  aggregated for reporting purposes at the agency or subagency level, as  laid out in the U.S. Government Manual. For example, we received  multiple responses from various centers within FDA, which we  aggregated to report out for FDA as a whole.
Respondents returned completed questionnaires by e-mail, and we  reviewed each program’s questionnaire to ensure agency staff had  provided complete and consistent responses. From March 2014 through  April 2014, we made telephone calls to agency staff and sent e-mails to  follow up as necessary to clarify responses. We edited the questionnaire  responses as necessary.
We used an independent contractor to keypunch the questionnaire data  and provide us with a comprehensive data file. We verified all of our  keypunched records with their corresponding questionnaires. We also  performed data checks to identify incorrectly skipped questions, and  followed up with agency staff as necessary.
Finally, we categorized the agencies to determine whether they have a  direct, an indirect, or no role in consumer product safety oversight. We  determined this categorization based on questionnaire responses and  subsequent interviews with agencies. We categorized agencies as having  a direct role if they answered in their questionnaire or in interviews that  they have regulatory authority for consumer product safety oversight— specifically that they conduct rulemaking, standard setting, enforcement,  risk assessment, or product recalls. We then confirmed in interviews and  follow-up discussions that the agency views itself as having a role in  overseeing the safety of consumer products. We categorized an agency  as having an indirect role if it met one of two criteria: (1) it did not conduct  any of the five regulatory activities described in the previous section, but  described other activities that supported consumer product safety  oversight; or (2) it initially described a role in regulating consumer  products, but in subsequent interviews, did not self-identify as a  consumer product safety oversight agency. Of the 33 questionnaires we  received, we categorized 8 as having a direct oversight role, 12 as having  an indirect oversight role, and 13 as having no role.
section_title: Examining the Extent of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: To examine the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in  oversight for consumer product safety, we asked agencies in the  questionnaire to identify potential examples of consumer products,  product categories, or other areas where there may be fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication in oversight across federal agencies. We  summarized the responses and obtained additional details about  agencies’ oversight roles in these examples through interviews with and  requests for written information from federal agency officials, as well as  by reviewing relevant laws, regulations, agency websites, and other  documentation. We also interviewed consumer groups and industry  representatives about potential examples of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication in oversight.
We used the following definitions to determine whether the examples  provided by the agencies constituted fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication:
Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more  than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad  area of national interest.
Overlap occurs when multiple programs have similar goals and  activities or offer similar services to similar target populations.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs engage in  the same activities or provide the same services to the same  beneficiaries.
We determined whether the broad policy area of consumer product safety  is fragmented based on more than one agency being directly involved in  regulations related to consumer product safety. To determine the extent  of regulatory overlap among the product or issue area examples provided  by federal agencies and other groups, we examined whether multiple  agencies share regulatory responsibility over the same product, including  having regulatory requirements for the same product.
In addition to identifying the examples above, we interviewed several of  the agencies about the potential advantages and challenges of having  fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative oversight for consumer product  safety. We also interviewed consumer groups and industry  representatives about the effects of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication on consumers and industry. Based on the discussions with  federal officials, consumer groups, and industry representatives, we  identified potential inefficiencies involving fragmented, overlapping, or  duplicative oversight.
section_title: Agency Collaboration and Negative Effects of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: We also used the questionnaire to address our third objective about how  consumer product safety agencies collaborate. For instance, in the  questionnaire, the agencies were asked whether they coordinate with  other agencies on consumer product safety oversight. The questionnaire  also asked agencies to identify what products or oversight areas they  coordinated on and which mechanisms their agencies used, including (1)  memorandums of understanding or agreement; (2) interagency  agreements; (3) working groups; and (4) other. Additionally, in the  questionnaire, we asked agencies to describe any specific interagency  initiatives their agency participates in related to consumer product safety  and what their agency’s roles are in these initiatives. We also obtained  additional agency information, where available, on examples of  interagency collaboration and reviewed documentation describing these  efforts and obtained input from agency staff.
To examine how consumer product safety oversight agencies collaborate  and the extent that addresses any negative effects of fragmentation,  overlap, or duplication, we reviewed our prior reports on interagency  collaboration and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),  as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) (see  bibliography). For example, we reviewed GAO’s interagency collaboration  reports, which discuss key practices and considerations for implementing  interagency collaborative mechanisms and the GPRAMA, which  establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and  integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government  performance. Additionally, we obtained information on challenges and  barriers to coordination through the questionnaire and agency  discussions. For instance, the questionnaire asked agencies to what  extent, if at all, specific barriers affected their ability to coordinate with  other agencies on consumer product safety oversight. Examples of  barriers include (1) unclear roles and responsibilities of participating  agencies, (2) lack of leadership, (3) lack of resources, (4) lack of statutory  authority, and (5) lack of written guidance and agreements. We also  obtained input from agencies on barriers associated with coordination  identified in the questionnaire.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to November 2014,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire
paragraphs: Below is a reprint of the questionnaire that we sent to 33 federal agencies  to identify agencies that have an oversight role in consumer product  safety and to examine the extent to which fragmentation, overlap or  potential duplication exists among their activities.
section_title: Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support Consumer Product Safety Oversight
paragraphs: We identified 12 agencies that indirectly support consumer product safety  oversight. Table 3 provides an overview of each agency and its  responsibilities. These agencies support product safety in areas such as  public health expertise, law enforcement, and workplace safety.
section_title: Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2 Presentation of Examples of Consumer Products Regulated by More Than One Agency
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer Product Safety Commission
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, Debra Johnson (Assistant  Director), Janet Fong (Analyst-in-Charge), Meghana Acharya, JoAnna  Berry, William Chatlos, David Dornisch, Catherine Hurley, Jill Lacey, Marc  Molino, Patricia Moye, Jennifer Schwartz, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar made  key contributions to this report. Other contributors include Timothy Bober,  Christine Broderick, Benjamin Licht, Steven Putansu, and Michelle Sager.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Consumer Product Safety Commission: Challenges and Options for  Responding to New and Emerging Risks. GAO-15-17. Washington, D.C.:  October 14, 2014.  2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation,  Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits.  GAO-14-343SP. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2014.
Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S.  Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. GAO-14-181SP.  Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2014.
Information on Defective Drywall. GAO-13-735R. Washington, D.C.: July  31, 2013.  2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,  and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-13-279SP.  Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Awareness, Use, and Usefulness  of SaferProducts.gov. GAO-13-306. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 2013.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in  Responding to New Product Risks. GAO-13-150. Washington D.C.:  December 20, 2012.
Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency  Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: September  27, 2012.
Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role in Voluntary  Standards Development Should Be Considered. GAO-12-582.  Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2012.  2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and  Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.  GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.
Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation  Provides Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges.  GAO-11-617T. Washington D.C.: May 10, 2011.
Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive  First Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address  Fragmentation. GAO-11-289. Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,  Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,  D.C.: March 1, 2011.
Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen  CPSC’s Oversight of Imported Products. GAO-09-803. Washington, D.C.:  August 14, 2009.
Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and  Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington,  D.C.: October 21, 2005.