This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-15-52 
entitled 'Consumer Product Safety Oversight: Opportunities Exist to 
Strengthen Coordination and Increase Efficiencies and Effectiveness' 
which was released on November 19, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

November 2014: 

Consumer Product Safety Oversight: 

Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Coordination and Increase 
Efficiencies and Effectiveness: 

GAO-15-52: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-15-52, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The oversight of consumer product safety is a complex system involving
many federal agencies. As part of a mandate that requires GAO to 
identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with 
duplicative goals or activities, GAO reviewed federal oversight of 
consumer product safety. 

This review examines (1) which federal agencies oversee consumer product
safety and their roles and responsibilities; (2) the extent and 
effects of any fragmentation or overlap in the oversight of consumer 
products; and (3) collaboration among agencies to address any negative 
effects of fragmentation or overlap. 

To assess the involvement of multiple agencies in the oversight of 
consumer product safety, GAO conducted a multiagency survey and 
reviewed laws and regulations, and past GAO work. GAO also interviewed 
federal agency officials and consumer and industry groups. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO identified eight agencies that have direct oversight 
responsibilities for consumer product safety: the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (CPSC), Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard (within the Department of 
Homeland Security). All eight agencies conduct regulatory activities 
to promote consumer product safety, such as rulemaking, standard
setting, risk assessment, enforcement, and product recalls. In 
addition, at least 12 other agencies play a support role in consumer 
product safety in various areas, such as public health and law 
enforcement. 

Oversight of consumer product safety is fragmented across agencies, and
jurisdiction overlaps or is unclear for certain products. In some 
cases, agencies regulate different components of or carry out 
different regulatory activities for the same product, or jurisdiction 
for a product can change depending on where or how it is used. For 
example, NHTSA regulates hand-held infant carriers when used as car 
seats, but CPSC regulates the carriers when used outside of motor
vehicles. Agencies reported that the involvement of multiple agencies 
with various expertise can help ensure more comprehensive oversight by 
addressing a range of safety concerns. However, agencies also noted 
some inefficiencies, including the challenges of sharing information 
across agencies and challenges related to jurisdiction. For example, 
GAO found that the jurisdiction for some recreational boating products 
can be unclear and the potential exists for confusion regarding agency 
responsibility for addressing product safety hazards. Coast Guard 
officials said they work informally with CPSC when the need arises
but that these interactions are infrequent. Without a more formal 
coordination mechanism to address jurisdictional uncertainties some 
potential safety hazards may go unregulated. In addition, the 
Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST) oversees the markings of toy and imitation firearms 
to distinguish them from real firearms, which may be an inefficient 
use of resources because it does not leverage NIST's primary expertise 
related to scientific measurement. According to NIST, this function
may be better administered by CPSC, which oversees the safety and
performance of toys. However, this would require a statutory change. 

Agencies reported that they collaborate to address specific consumer 
product safety topics, but GAO did not identify a formal mechanism for 
addressing such issues more comprehensively. Independent agencies, 
such as CPSC, are not subject to the Office of Management and Budget's 
planning and review process for executive agencies. Additionally, no 
single entity or mechanism exists to help the agencies that 
collectively oversee consumer product safety. GAO has identified 
issues for agencies to consider in collaborating, such as clarifying 
roles and including all relevant participants. Because no mechanism 
exists to help agencies collectively address crosscutting issues, 
agencies may miss opportunities to leverage resources and address 
challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap 
identified in this report. 

What GAO Recommends: 

Congress should consider (1) transferring oversight of the markings
of toy, look-alike, and imitation firearms from NIST to CPSC, and (2)
establishing a formal collaboration mechanism to address comprehensive
oversight and inefficiencies related to fragmentation and overlap. 
Also, GAO recommends that the Coast Guard and CPSC establish a formal 
coordination mechanism. CPSC, the Department of Homeland Security, and 
NIST agreed with GAO's matters and recommendation; other agencies
neither agreed nor disagreed. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-52]. For more 
information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley, 202-512-8678, 
cackleya@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Multiple Agencies Oversee Various Aspects of Consumer Product Safety: 

Fragmented and Overlapping Oversight Can Help Agencies Leverage 
Expertise but Also Creates Inefficiencies: 

Agencies Report Coordinating on Specific Activities but Lack a 
Mechanism to Facilitate Comprehensive Oversight: 

Conclusions: 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire: 

Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support Consumer Product Safety 
Oversight: 

Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2 Presentation of Examples of 
Consumer Products Regulated by More than One Agency: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Eight Agencies with a Direct Oversight Role for Consumer 
Product Safety: 

Table 2: Select Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Their 
Definitions: 

Table 3: Twelve Agencies with an Indirect Oversight Role for Consumer 
Product Safety: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: 

Figure 2: Examples of Consumer Products Regulated by More Than One 
Agency: 

Figure 3: Coordination between Eight Regulatory Agencies on Consumer 
Product Safety Activities: 

Figure 4: Drugs and Other Products with Child-Resistant Packaging: 

Figure 5: Soaps and Detergents: 

Figure 6: Toy Laser Guns: 

Figure 7: Consumer Fireworks: 

Figure 8: Mobile Phones and Other Wireless Devices: 

Figure 9: Adult Portable Bed Rails: 

Figure 10: Food Contact Articles: 

Figure 11: Lithium Batteries: 

Figure 12: Infant Car Seats/Hand-held Infant Carriers: 

Figure 13: Respirators: 

Abbreviations: 

ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CPSA: Consumer Product Safety Act: 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

CPSIA: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FAA: Federal Aviation Administration: 

FCC: Federal Communications Commission: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FTC: Federal Trade Commission: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

GPRAMA: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HRSA: Health Resources and Services Administration: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

MOA: memorandum of agreement: 

MOU: memorandum of understanding: 

NCHS: National Center for Health Statistics: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

NIEHS: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

NIOSH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: 

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology: 

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board: 

OIRA: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: 

PHMSA: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

November 19, 2014: 

Congressional Committees: 

The oversight of consumer product safety is a complex system that 
evolved over time and involves a number of federal agencies. Further, 
as globalization and technological advances expand the range of 
products available in U.S. markets, the challenge of regulating the 
thousands of product types has become increasingly complex. The 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is charged with protecting 
the public from unreasonable risk of injury or death associated with 
the use of thousands of types of consumer products. However, many 
other federal agencies also have various roles and responsibilities 
related to consumer product safety oversight. The National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), among others, have jurisdiction over products such as 
automobiles and other on-road vehicles and their equipment, including 
tires; boats; drugs; cosmetics; medical devices; and pesticides. These 
agencies conduct a wide range of regulatory activities to oversee 
these products, such as risk assessment, rulemaking, and enforcement. 

As the fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does the 
need for federal agencies and Congress to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of government programs and activities.[Footnote 1] 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. 

Background: 

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. 
[Footnote 2] 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.[Footnote 3] Under the current version 
of FIFRA, pesticides must generally be registered (licensed) by EPA 
before they may be sold or distributed in the United States. EPA may 
register a pesticide if it finds, among other things, that use of the 
pesticide will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the 
environment. When EPA registers a pesticide, it approves directions 
for use of the pesticide, which must appear on the product label and 
be followed by users of the pesticide. 

* The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 
established an agency which, under the Highway Safety Act of 1970, 
later became the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA).[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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.[Footnote 6] 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. 
[Footnote 7] Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 
Act (CPSIA) in 2008 to strengthen CPSC's authority to enforce safety 
standards and provide greater public access to product safety 
information.[Footnote 8] 

* The Toxic Substances Control Act, first enacted in 1976, authorizes 
EPA to obtain more information on chemicals and to regulate those 
chemicals that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks to human health 
or the environment.[Footnote 9] The act authorizes EPA to review 
chemicals already in commerce as well as chemicals yet to enter 
commerce.[Footnote 10] In addition, under the Toxic Substances Control 
Act, EPA can regulate the manufacture (including import), processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of "chemical substances" 
and "mixtures," including for use as or as part of a consumer product. 

Definition of a Consumer Product: 

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.[Footnote 11] By statute, certain categories of products 
that are regulated by other agencies are excluded from the definition 
of "consumer product," and therefore CPSC does not have jurisdiction 
over them.[Footnote 12] For purposes of our report, because we are 
looking at consumer products broadly rather than solely those in 
CPSC's jurisdiction, we use the broader definition of "consumer 
product," without the statutory exclusions. We include in our purview 
motor vehicles, pesticides, cosmetics, and some other products that 
CPSA excludes from its definition of a consumer product.[Footnote 13] 

Overview of GAO's Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication Work: 

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. 
[Footnote 14] Since March 2011, we have issued annual reports to 
Congress in response to this requirement.[Footnote 15] The annual 
reports describe areas in which we found evidence of fragmentation, 
overlap, or duplication among federal programs. The annual reports 
define fragmentation, overlap, and duplication as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Definitions of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than 
one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) 
is involved in the same broad area of national need and opportunities 
exist to improve service delivery. 

Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, 
engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target 
similar beneficiaries. 

Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged 
in the same activities or provide the same services to the same 
beneficiaries. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Multiple Agencies Oversee Various Aspects of Consumer Product Safety: 

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.[Footnote 
16] We distinguished agencies with direct versus indirect 
responsibility by whether they perform certain regulatory activities, 
as well as by how the agencies self-identified in their interviews. 

Eight Agencies Have Direct Oversight Responsibility for Consumer 
Product Safety: 

Eight agencies reported that they have direct oversight 
responsibilities for consumer product safety: the Coast Guard; CPSC; 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); EPA; FDA; NHTSA; 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). We considered an agency to 
have a direct oversight role if it met two criteria: (1) in its 
response to our questionnaire, the agency noted having statutory 
authority over consumer product safety through one or more of five 
regulatory activities--rulemaking, standard setting, enforcement, risk 
assessment, and product recalls; and (2) in subsequent interviews and 
follow-up discussions, the agency confirmed that it views itself as 
having a role in overseeing the safety of consumer products.[Footnote 
17] We describe the oversight roles of these agencies in table 1. Some 
of these agencies oversee products, whereas others oversee components 
that might be found within a product (e.g., chemical substances or 
radioactive materials). 

Table 1: Eight Agencies with a Direct Oversight Role for Consumer 
Product Safety: 

Agency: Coast Guard; 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: The Coast 
Guard regulates safety standards for recreational boats; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: All original 
equipment installed on boats; 
limited equipment installed after purchase (inboard engines, outboard 
engines, stern drive units, and inflatable life jackets). 

Agency: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: CPSC 
oversees consumer products produced or distributed in the United 
States for sale to, or use by, consumers in or around a residence or 
school or in recreation or otherwise; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Toys, cribs, 
power tools that are used by consumers, lighters, and household 
products. 

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: HUD 
mitigates lead-based paint hazards in federally assisted housing. It 
also establishes federal standards for the design and construction of 
manufactured homes; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Structural 
materials in manufactured homes such as particle board, plywood, 
drywall, steel frames, and windows. 

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: EPA 
conducts risk assessments of pesticides and registers them for use in 
the United States. It also evaluates and manages risks of chemicals; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Insect 
repellents, toilet bowl sanitizers/disinfectants, ant traps, and flea 
powder. Some household products such as window cleaners; flame 
retardants used in furniture and electronics; and formaldehyde 
emissions from composite wood products (e.g., kitchen cabinets). 

Agency: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: FDA is 
responsible for ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human 
and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, and 
electronic products that emit radiation. FDA also ensures the safety 
of cosmetics. Additionally, FDA regulates food and tobacco products, 
but are outside the scope of this study; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Prescription 
drugs, over-the-counter drugs, contact lenses, breast pumps, cosmetics 
such as lipstick and eye liner, cell phones, and toy laser products. 

Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: NHTSA 
sets and enforces safety performance standards for motor vehicles and 
motor vehicle equipment; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Motor 
vehicles, motor vehicle equipment such as tires and motorcycle 
helmets, and child restraint systems (when sold for use in vehicles). 

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: NRC 
licenses and regulates civilian use of certain radioactive materials; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Consumer 
products that contain NRC-regulated materials such as tritium watches, 
smoke detectors, and electron tubes. 

Agency: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); 
Role of the agency as it relates to consumer product safety: PHMSA 
ensures that hazardous materials are packaged and handled safely 
during transportation; 
Examples of consumer products that the agency regulates: Hazardous 
materials (such as consumer fireworks, lithium batteries, and 
compressed gas) in transport. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. GAO 15-52. 

Note: Some agencies have broader responsibilities than those listed in 
the table, which focuses on aspects of each agency's work that relate 
to consumer product safety. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 18] CPSC issued the rule in response to a 
provision of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which 
required CPSC to promulgate consumer product safety standards for 
durable infant or toddler products.[Footnote 19] 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.[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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.[Footnote 22] 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. 

At Least 12 Agencies Play an Indirect Role in Consumer Product Safety 
Oversight: 

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.[Footnote 
23] 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. 

Fragmented and Overlapping Oversight Can Help Agencies Leverage 
Expertise but Also Creates Inefficiencies: 

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. 

Oversight Is Fragmented, and Jurisdictions Overlap When Multiple 
Agencies Regulate the Same Product, Its Components, or Its Uses: 

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.[Footnote 24] We 
did not find specific cases of duplication in oversight. Figure 2 
contains examples of consumer products regulated by more than one 
agency. (See appendix IV for a full-text presentation of the examples 
in figure 2). 

Figure 2: Examples of Consumer Products Regulated by More Than One 
Agency: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic] 

Directions: Hover over consumer products (in blue) or table text for 
additional information. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

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. [Footnote 25] In contrast, CPSC 
regulates the parts of food containers or preparation articles that do 
not come into contact with food, as well as certain chemical 
substances.[Footnote 26] 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. 

In 1976, CPSC and FDA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that 
outlines each agency's jurisdiction over food contact articles and 
equipment. According to FDA, the agency began working with CPSC in 
2012 to update the MOU to reflect the agency's current authorities but 
did not continue with this effort due to other priorities.[Footnote 
27] However, according to FDA, the lack of an updated MOU does not 
indicate any coverage gap in the regulatory oversight of food contact 
articles. CPSC staff also noted that while their overall authorities 
for consumer product safety have changed since the MOU was first 
signed--for example, CPSC received the authority in 2008 to limit the 
use of phthalates in children's products--the MOU still reflects 
CPSC's current jurisdiction over food contact articles.[Footnote 28] 

* Toy laser products (CPSC, FDA): FDA has jurisdiction over radiation-
emitting products, including oversight responsibilities for ensuring 
manufacturers' compliance with applicable safety performance standards 
and certification requirements.[Footnote 29] For example, FDA can 
require that manufacturers incorporate safety features, warnings, and 
instructions for safe use. FDA's jurisdiction potentially overlaps 
with CPSC's for toy laser products, as CPSC regulates safety standards 
and testing requirements for children's products, including toys. 
[Footnote 30] For example, CPSC regulates toys to ensure that they do 
not contain small parts children could swallow and that the lead 
content of the paint is below the required threshold.[Footnote 31] 
Examples of toy laser products include "light sabers," toy guns with 
mounted lasers for taking aim, and tops that project laser beams while 
they spin. In June 2013, FDA proposed laser safety regulations 
specific to toy laser products marketed to children that would 
restrict the amount of radiation emitted by toy lasers to the lowest 
laser class limits.[Footnote 32] FDA and CPSC indicated that they did 
not coordinate on the proposed rule for toy laser products, but 
according to FDA officials, the agencies collaborated on a draft 
guidance document concerning this rule that was issued in August 2013. 
[Footnote 33] 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.[Footnote 34] In December 2013, CPSC issued a 
final rule, which incorporated an existing voluntary standard for hand-
held infant carriers.[Footnote 35] 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.[Footnote 36] FDA has jurisdiction 
over adult portable bed rails considered to be medical devices, and 
CPSC regulates adult portable bed rails that do not meet the 
definition of such devices. FDA noted that for consumers, there is 
little difference between the adult portable bed rails regulated by 
FDA or CPSC in terms of the physical product. FDA and CPSC have been 
working with manufacturers, health care practitioners, and consumer 
representatives since 2013, to develop a voluntary consensus standard 
for adult portable bed rails through an organization that develops 
standards (ASTM International). This voluntary standard would apply to 
all portable adult bed rails whether they are regulated by FDA or CPSC 
and should help ensure that there are no gaps in oversight of the 
safety of portable bed rails for adult use. The effort to establish a 
voluntary standard for bed rails was ongoing as of September 2014. 
CPSC and FDA also noted that they maintain an interagency working 
group that addresses the issues associated with adult portable bed 
rails. While this working group's primary focus is the development of 
the voluntary standard, CPSC and FDA said the group also exchanges 
technical information and compliance challenges to improve regulatory 
oversight. 

* 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);[Footnote 37] and EPA regulates pesticides and certain 
chemicals that may also be contained in soaps, cleaners, and other 
household products.[Footnote 38] Body-cleansing products that do not 
meet FDA's definition of "soap" but contain detergents and are used 
for cosmetic purposes are typically considered cosmetics under FDA's 
jurisdiction. FDA considers antibacterial or antimicrobial cleansing 
products to be drugs under its jurisdiction, even though they contain 
the chemical Triclosan, which is also regulated by EPA when used as a 
pesticide in other products.[Footnote 39] 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.[Footnote 40] 

In addition, agencies can conduct different regulatory oversight 
activities for the same product, but requirements can overlap. 

* Fireworks (ATF, CPSC, PHMSA): CPSC oversees fireworks that are used 
by consumers, which includes examining the length of the fuse to 
determine how quickly and how long it will ignite, among other things. 
PHMSA regulates the approval, importation, and transport of fireworks 
based on its authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous 
materials. PHMSA staff noted that some overlap exists between CPSC's 
and PHMSA's manufacturing requirements for fireworks. They explained 
that both sets of requirements have been incorporated into industry 
standards (standard 87-1 of the American Pyrotechnic Association), 
which PHMSA in turn has incorporated into its regulations governing 
the approval and transport of fireworks. Additionally, ATF enforces 
explosives laws and licenses manufacturers to use explosives, 
including in consumer fireworks. 

* Mobile phones and other wireless devices (FCC, FDA): FCC and FDA 
share regulatory responsibilities for mobile phones and other wireless 
devices. Although FCC does not directly regulate the safety of mobile 
phones and wireless devices, it sets limits on the amount of 
radiofrequency energy these devices can emit and certifies that 
devices sold in the United States comply with FCC requirements. 
[Footnote 41] According to FDA, the agency, as part of its oversight 
of radiation-emitting products, ensures that mobile phones and other 
wireless devices do not emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is 
hazardous to the user. FDA also stated that as a health expert agency, 
its expertise was significant in developing the radiofrequency 
exposure limits from which the FCC radiofrequency emission limits are 
derived, and it is FDA that would have the jurisdiction to determine 
whether a product is unsafe.[Footnote 42] For example, while FDA does 
not review the safety of mobile phone devices before they are 
marketed, it can require manufacturers to replace or recall mobile 
phones that are shown to emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is 
hazardous. As we previously reported, FCC said it relies heavily on 
the guidance and recommendations of federal health and safety agencies 
when determining the appropriate exposure limit for radiofrequency 
energy.[Footnote 43] As we discuss in the next section of this report, 
FDA, FCC, and other agencies are part of the Radiofrequency 
Interagency Work Group, which works to share information and research 
on radiofrequency energy-related issues. 

Current Structure Helps Provide More Comprehensive Oversight but Also 
Creates Some Inefficiencies: 

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.[Footnote 44] 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. 

Communication and Coordination Can Be Difficult When Oversight 
Involves Multiple Agencies: 

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.[Footnote 45] 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).[Footnote 
46] This planning and review process can also be a way to resolve 
disputes among agencies. However, independent agencies, such as CPSC, 
are not subject to OIRA's interagency planning and review process. 
[Footnote 47] 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.[Footnote 48] 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. 

Fragmentation and Overlap Can Create Challenges Related to 
Jurisdiction: 

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).[Footnote 49] EPA regulates the child-resistant packaging of 
pesticides used in residential settings. EPA's standards for child-
resistant packaging are required by law to be consistent with CPSC's 
requirements under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act and according 
to EPA's website, EPA and CPSC worked together to develop reference 
guides for the public on their respective child-resistant packaging 
requirements.[Footnote 50] However, oversight over child-resistant 
packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body-cleansing products 
is unclear. EPA indicated that they do not regulate child-resistant 
packaging for antibacterial or antimicrobial body-cleansing products 
that contain the chemical Triclosan, which is also found in 
pesticides, because these products are regulated by FDA as over-the-
counter drugs and not as pesticides by EPA.[Footnote 51] 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.[Footnote 52] 
We also previously reported on nanotechnology as an emerging field and 
found that nanomaterials can be used in a wide range of consumer 
products that involve multiple agencies' jurisdictions.[Footnote 53] 
For example, we reported that consumer products that incorporate 
nanotechnology are as diverse as clothing, cosmetics, household 
appliances, and sporting goods.[Footnote 54] 

Multiple Standards May Create Inefficiencies for Industry and 
Confusion for Consumers: 

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).[Footnote 55] FDA regulation of surgical N95 respirators 
includes premarket clearance requirements. FDA indicated that its 
clearance involves two steps: (1) First, FDA recommends that 
respirators be certified by NIOSH for use in occupational settings. 
(2) Second, once NIOSH has certified the respirators, FDA then begins 
its process for clearing them to be marketed in the United States as 
surgical N95 respirators. According to NIOSH, the impact on 
manufacturers includes the delay for the introduction of new products 
intended to provide respiratory protection, as well as barrier 
protection for health care workers, due to the time involved to apply 
to NIOSH for certification and then to FDA for clearance. According to 
NIOSH, manufacturers also incur costs for each application submitted 
to FDA and NIOSH, which includes processing fees imposed by the 
agencies as well as the commitment of personnel and other resources to 
assemble and monitor the applications and interface with the agency 
reviewers. In a request for information, NIOSH stated that it is 
considering incorporating requirements from FDA's clearance process 
for respirators, such as those pertaining to fluid resistance and 
flammability, into the NIOSH certification process.[Footnote 56] 

In another example, program officials from EPA's Office of Pesticide 
Programs told us that a manufacturer approached the agency with 
concerns over having to sell two separate antimicrobial fruit and 
vegetable treatment products that met either EPA or FDA use 
requirements even though the product formula was the same.[Footnote 
57] EPA has 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.[Footnote 58] 

Multiple Agencies Purchase the Same Data but Are Considering Options 
to Improve Efficiency through Data Sharing: 

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.[Footnote 59] 

NCHS staff told us that they have been working with CPSC to identify 
ways to share information that do not compromise their contractual 
agreements. For example, NCHS told us that other agencies that examine 
cause-of-death narratives, such as NHTSA and FDA, have had staff work 
on-site at NCHS to review these data and develop programming that 
would allow NCHS to extract the information the agencies need. NCHS 
indicated they are considering development of a computer program that 
would automatically remove personally identifiable information from 
the death certificate records. CPSC suggested that it would be more 
efficient and cost-effective to have either a government-wide contract 
for purchasing these data or to have interagency agreements signed by 
other federal agencies with NCHS giving limited access to the full 
death certificate data. Additionally, they said that these agreements 
would have to contain strict data user clauses detailing restrictions 
on the use of the data containing personally identifiable information. 
[Footnote 60] 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.[Footnote 61] According to NCHS staff, its 
current contracts for death certificate data will expire in 2017; 
however, access to these data in any renegotiated agreements would 
still be determined by states and localities. 

NIST's Role as Regulator for the Markings of Toy and Imitation 
Firearms May Be an Inefficient Use of Resources: 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) currently 
regulates the markings of toy and imitation firearms to distinguish 
them from real firearms.[Footnote 62] However, during the course of 
our review, we found that NIST's oversight of toy and imitation 
firearm markings may not be efficient as it does not align with the 
agency's primary mission and area of expertise. According to NIST, 
this authority was delegated to NIST following the deauthorization of 
the Technology Administration of the Commerce Department under the 
America COMPETES Act of 2007.[Footnote 63] 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. 

Jurisdiction for the Regulation of Some Recreational Boating Equipment 
May Be Unclear: 

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).[Footnote 64] Coast Guard staff also stated that because 
of limited staff resources, the Coast Guard through regulation has 
chosen to limit the scope of its recall activities related to 
equipment not originally installed on boats (i.e., after-market 
equipment, or equipment not installed by the original equipment 
manufacturer) to four items: inboard engines, outboard engines, stern 
drive units, and inflatable life jackets.[Footnote 65] As a result, 
the Coast Guard relies on voluntary recalls from the manufacturer for 
all other associated equipment items other than the four types of 
items for which the Coast Guard has issued regulations. 

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.[Footnote 66] As excluded from 
CPSC's jurisdiction, associated equipment is defined by statute as a 
system, accessory, component, or appurtenance of a recreational vessel 
or a marine safety article intended for use on board a recreational 
vessel.[Footnote 67] 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.[Footnote 68] 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. 

Agencies Report Coordinating on Specific Activities but Lack a 
Mechanism to Facilitate Comprehensive Oversight: 

In responses to our questionnaires, all eight agencies that have 
direct oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety 
identified a number of mechanisms they use to coordinate with at least 
two other agencies on specific issues. However, no coordinating 
mechanism exists to address federal consumer product safety efforts 
comprehensively. Consumer product safety agencies have different areas 
of expertise and functions, and no single agency can address oversight 
alone. Moreover, some oversight agencies are independent and not 
subject to OMB's planning and review process for executive agencies. 
As a result, there is no single entity or mechanism to help the 
agencies that collectively oversee consumer product safety address the 
challenges raised in this report, such as staying informed of the 
regulatory activities of other agencies, jurisdictional issues related 
to multiple agencies overseeing the same product, or data sharing 
issues. In addition, agencies may be missing opportunities to better 
leverage resources and address challenges, including those related to 
fragmentation and overlap identified in this report. 

Agencies Report Coordinating through Various Mechanisms to Address 
Specific Activities: 

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.[Footnote 69] 
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 figure 3). 

Figure 3: Coordination between Eight Regulatory Agencies on Consumer 
Product Safety Activities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

CPSC: Connected to: EPA, HUD, DHHS-FDA, NRC, DOT-PHMSA, DHS-USCG, DOT-
NHTSA. 

EPA: Connected to: CPSC, HUD, DHHS-FDA, NRC, DOT-PHMSA, DHS-USCG, DOT-
NHTSA. 

DHHS-FDA: Connected to: CPSC, EPA, NRC. 

NRC: Connected to: CPSC, EPA, DHHS-FDA, DOT-PHMSA. 

DOT-PHMSA: Connected to: CPSC, EPA, NRC, DHS-USCG. 

DHS-USCG: Connected to: DOT-PHMSA, CPSC. 

DOT-NHTSA: Connected to: CPSC, EPA. 

HUD: Connected to: CPSC, EPA. 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission; 
DHS-USCG: Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard; 
DHHS-FDA: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration; 
DOT-NHTSA: Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration; 
DOT-PHMSA: Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration; 
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency; 
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development; 
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses. GAO-15-52. 

Note: CPSC noted that the size of each circle is not proportional to 
the size of each agency's budget. CPSC also stated that they interact 
with multiple centers within FDA and multiple offices and programs 
within EPA. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 70] Table 2 shows four mechanisms identified in our 
prior work.[Footnote 71] 

Table 2: Select Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Their 
Definitions: 

Collaboration mechanism: Collaboration structures within the Executive 
Office of the President; 
Definitions: Permanent or temporary groups that are sometimes referred 
to as task forces, councils, commissions, committees, or working 
groups. 

Collaboration mechanism: National strategies and initiatives; 
Definitions: A document or initiative that is national in scope and 
provides a broad framework for addressing issues that cut across 
federal agencies and often across other levels of government and 
sectors. 

Collaboration mechanism: Interagency groups led by agency and 
department heads or by component and program-level staff; 
Definitions: Groups led by agencies that are sometimes referred to as 
task forces, working groups, councils, or committees. 

Collaboration mechanism: Interagency agreements and memorandum of 
understanding; 
Definitions: A written agreement between more than one federal agency 
or department. 

Source: GAO. GAO-15-52. 

[End of table] 

More specifically, agencies reported participating in collaborative 
groups on specific topics. These collaborative groups are listed by 
the type of mechanisms for interagency collaboration: 

Collaborative Structure within the Executive Office of the President: 

* 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.[Footnote 
72] 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. 

National Strategies and Initiatives: 

* 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.[Footnote 73] 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. 

Interagency Group Led by Agency and Department Heads: 

* 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. 
[Footnote 74] The task force is composed of about a dozen agencies, 
including CPSC. According to the MOU, the work of the task force is 
complex and requires familiarity with health effects and exposure to 
lead and practical considerations including costs, implementation 
issues, and technical feasibility of abatement methodologies. The MOU 
states that in addition to HUD and EPA, necessary expertise resides in 
other federal agencies such as CDC, CPSC, OSHA, and NIEHS, as well as 
state and local governments and private organizations. According to 
the MOU, HUD and EPA will consult with these groups to ensure the 
broadest possible input into the lead hazard research process. 

Agencies Cite Challenges in Coordinating and Lack a Comprehensive 
Coordinating Mechanism for Product Safety Issues: 

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.[Footnote 
75] In October 2005, we identified practices that can help enhance and 
sustain collaboration among federal agencies, and in September 2012, 
we identified key considerations for implementing collaborative 
mechanisms.[Footnote 76] More specifically, we concluded that while 
collaborative mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they all 
benefit from certain key features such as having clear roles and 
responsibilities and involving all relevant participants.[Footnote 77] 
Additionally, our prior work found that agencies that articulate their 
agreements in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to 
working collaboratively and that written agreements are most effective 
when they are regularly updated and monitored.[Footnote 78] 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. 
[Footnote 79] While agencies are required to work with OMB to develop 
such goals every 4 years, elements of this framework could be useful 
for oversight agencies in collaborating more comprehensively.[Footnote 
80] For instance, federal agencies can use their strategic and annual 
performance plans as tools to drive collaboration with other agencies 
and other partners and establish complementary goals and strategies 
for achieving results. Moreover, there are requirements that agencies 
discuss collaborative efforts in their strategic and performance 
plans. In both documents, agencies must describe how they are working 
with other agencies to achieve their own goals as well as cross-agency 
priority goals. Additionally, in the performance plan, agencies are to 
identify the various organizations, program activities, regulations, 
policies, and other activities that contribute to each of their goals, 
both within and external to the agencies. Agencies' priority goals and 
agency involvement in federal government priority goals provide 
additional opportunities to articulate the goals of collaborative 
efforts. [Footnote 81] 

While we identified a number of collaborative efforts among agencies 
aimed at addressing specific issues, we did not identify a 
collaborative effort aimed at facilitating comprehensive coordination 
among the many agencies with responsibility for consumer product 
safety oversight. A number of agencies have an oversight role, but no 
single entity has the expertise or authority to address the full scope 
of product safety activities. Although we previously noted that OMB's 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has an interagency 
process for planning and reviewing draft rules within the executive 
branch, this process does not include independent regulatory agencies 
such as CPSC. Moreover, some independent regulatory agencies have 
stated their opposition to greater involvement by the President in 
setting their rulemaking requirements, such as the preparation of cost-
benefit analyses and submission of rulemakings to OIRA for prior 
review.[Footnote 82] 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. 

Conclusions: 

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. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

* 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. 

Recommendation: 

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. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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 [hyperlink, 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. 

Signed by: 

Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 

List of Congressional Addressees: 

The Honorable Barbara Mikulski: 
Chairwoman: 
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby: 
Vice Chairman: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Patty Murray: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Jeff Sessions: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on the Budget: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Claire McCaskill: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner: 
Chairman: 
Task Force on Government Performance: 
Senate Committee on the Budget: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Harold Rogers: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Fred Upton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Henry Waxman: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Elijah Cummings: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

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. 

Inventory of Agencies That Conduct Consumer Product Safety Oversight 
Activities: 

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.[Footnote 83] 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.[Footnote 84] 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. 

Examining the Extent of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: 

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:[Footnote 85] 

* 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. 

Agency Collaboration and Negative Effects of Fragmentation, Overlap, 
and Duplication: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire: 

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. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire: 

Introduction: 

GAO is conducting a study to identify federal agencies that have an 
oversight role in the safety of consumer products and to examine the 
extent to which overlap or potential duplication exist among their 
activities. As part of our study, we are seeking information from 
federal departments and agencies that will enable GAO to assemble a 
government-wide inventory of federal consumer product safety oversight 
agencies and their responsibilities. The following survey is intended 
to help us identify these agencies and describe their specific roles 
and responsibilities in overseeing consumer product safety and to 
identify instances of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in the 
oversight of consumer products.[Footnote 1] 

To identify agencies with consumer product oversight responsibilities 
such as risk assessment, rulemaking, enforcement, and recall, we 
reviewed the following sources: 

* laws and regulations related to consumer product safety, as well as 
Federal Register notices for proposed and final rulemaking; 

* agency websites and policy documents (e.g., Consumer Product Safety 
Commission's web link to federal agencies with jurisdiction over 
consumer products; federal agency budget and performance plans); 

* past GAO reports and ongoing work on consumer product safety issues; 
and; 

* interviews with agency officials on which federal agencies have 
oversight responsibility for consumer product safety and discussions 
with consumer groups and industry groups. 

The term "consumer product" as defined by statute (15 U.S.C. § 
2052(a)(5)), means 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. 
Consumer products include tangible products used by consumers but 
exclude financial products, alcohol, tobacco and food but not the food 
packaging. In addition, we are interested in a range of activities 
that impact consumer product safety such as testing, labeling, 
enforcement, research, regulation of product components e.g. 
chemicals, and consumer products used in workplace and other settings. 
The examples we have provided are not exhaustive, and we are hoping to 
spur your thoughts on what, if any, role your agency might have in 
consumer product. 

We estimate that this questionnaire will take at least 30-45 minutes 
to complete. You may need to consult with other staff in your agency 
to answer some of the questions in the questionnaire. You may include 
additional information or supporting documentation as an attachment to 
your agency response. Please return this questionnaire via email to 
CPS@gao.gov by March 7, 2014. 

If you have any questions, please contact Meghana Acharya at 
acharyam@gao.gov; (415) 904-2158 or Srinidhi Vijaykumar at 
vijaykumars@gao.gov; (415) 904-2191 or Janet Fong at fongjl@gao.gov; 
(415) 904-2166. 

Thank you for your time and assistance. 

Instructions for Completing the Questionnaire: 

* Please use your mouse to navigate, clicking on the field or check 
box you wish to answer. 

* To select a check box or a button, click on the center of the box. 

* To change or deselect a check box response, click on the check box 
and the ‘X' will disappear. 

* To answer a question that requires that you write a comment, click 
on the answer box and begin typing. The box will expand to accommodate 
your answer. 

Start Here: 

Section I: Agency Contact and Verification of Agency Roles and 
Responsibilities: 

1) Please provide the following information for the contact within 
your agency, office, or component responsible for filling out this 
questionnaire, in case we need clarification of a response. 
Name: 
Title: 
Email: 
Phone: 
Agency, Office, or Component: 

2) We have identified your agency as potentially having a role in 
consumer product safety. Please see the following list of laws that we 
have identified which provide your agency with oversight authority. 
Below that please see the initial list of products, product categories 
or areas that we have identified for which your agency conducts 
oversight activities. Please then answer questions (2a) and (2b) to 
verify whether or not this is an accurate and complete list of laws 
and products or areas that pertain to your agency's consumer product 
safety oversight activities. 

List of Relevant Public Laws: 

Examples of Consumer Products, Product Categories or Oversight Areas: 

2a). Are the laws and examples provided generally accurate and 
complete? (Check only one box): 
Yes: Skip to Question 3; 
Partial: Continue to Question 2b; 
No: Continue to Question 2b. 

2b). If ‘Partial' or ‘No' to question 2a, please elaborate or provide 
correct information in the space below. If there are other major laws 
or oversight areas that we may have overlooked, please provide more 
detail below. 

3) Does your agency have statutory authority for consumer product 
safety in any of the following areas? If yes, please enter the 
citation in the last column. 

Regulatory Activities: a. Risk Assessment; 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

Regulatory Activities: b. Rule Making; 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

Regulatory Activities: c. Standard Setting; 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

Regulatory Activities: d. Enforcement; 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

Regulatory Activities: e. Product Recalls; 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

Regulatory Activities: f. Other (please specify); 
Does your agency/entity have statutory authority in this area? (Check 
only one box): 
Yes: 
No: 
Unclear: 
If yes, what is the citation? 

4) Please provide the mission statement for your agency that is 
primarily responsible for carrying out consumer product safety 
responsibilities, or provide a link to the statement if available. 
(Note: Select the mission statement that most closely aligns with the 
consumer product safety responsibilities, specifically.) 

Section II: Coordination with Other Agencies Potentially Involved in 
Oversight of Consumer Product Safety: 

5) Below we list agencies that we have identified as potentially 
having statutory authority over some aspect of consumer product 
safety. Please complete column 2. If you answered “Yes” then also 
complete columns 3 through 6. 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 1 - Chemical Safety Board (CSB): Chemical safety 
related to consumer products.
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 2 - Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): 
Consumer products used in and around the home and for recreation 
(e.g., helmets, multi-level bunks and bunk beds, fire pots used with 
gel fuels, polyurethane foam, glazing materials, lithium cells and 
batteries, car seats, bed rails, and swimming pools). This excludes 
medical devices, automobiles and auto parts, and other product 
categories. CPSC sets requirements for the accreditation of testing 
laboratories or other third-party conformity assessment bodies; 
regulation of certain chemicals; fireworks (construction, performance, 
and labeling); indoor air quality; chemical testing; nanomaterials. 
CPSC collects data on consumer product-related injuries and 
maintenance of National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 
emergency room data. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 3 - Department of Agriculture (USDA): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 3a) Department of Agriculture (USDA) Chemical 
testing. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 3b) Rural Housing Service (RHS): Quality and 
condition of rural housing; Healthy Homes activities: outreach and 
training to address housing deficiencies and hazards; incentives for 
participation in green building programs including indoor air quality 
and healthy building materials criteria. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 3c) National Institute of Food and Agriculture 
(NIFA): Nanotechnology; Healthy Homes activities: outreach education 
programs to address housing deficiencies and reduce risks to prevent 
childhood injuries and diseases from housing-related hazards.
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 4 - Department of Commerce: 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 4a) National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST): Research services on standards, technical regulations, 
conformity assessment procedures; accreditation of testing 
laboratories for CPSC, Department of Health and Human Services, and 
Federal Communications Commission; research on nanomaterials; chemical 
testing; safety markings on toy guns and imitation firearms; 
information on voluntary standards. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 4b) National Technical Information Service (NTIS): 
Maintains government-funded scientific, technical, engineering, and 
business-related reports and other information related to consumer 
product safety. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 5 - Department of Defense (DOD): Consumer products 
used in military settings; chemical testing; lasers. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 6 - Department of Education: Consumer products used 
in school settings; asthma prevention in schools. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 7 - Department of Energy (DOE): Energy efficiency of 
consumer products (e.g., light bulbs); indoor air quality; Healthy 
Homes activities (e.g., weatherization); asthma prevention in homes. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8 - Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8a) Administration for Children and Families (ACF); 
Programs and services for children and families. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8b) Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Cosmetics, 
drugs; medical devices; electronic product radiation (e.g., mobile 
phones); laser products (including laser toys); setting testing 
standards; chemical testing. (We are excluding tobacco and food, but 
not food packaging.) 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8c) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC): National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Injury 
prevention research and coordination; research on preventing workplace 
illnesses and injuries (NIOSH); indoor air quality (NIOSH); Healthy 
Homes activities: childhood lead poisoning prevention (paint); smoke-
free multifamily housing; radon exposure; chemical testing (NIOSH); 
asbestos (NIOSH); asthma prevention in homes and schools; pool 
chemicals. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8d) Indian Health Service (IHS): Finance of public 
health services and injury prevention programs. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8e) Health Resources and Services Administration 
(HRSA): Finance of public health services and injury prevention 
programs; asthma prevention in homes and schools. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 8f) National Institutes of Health (NIH): Injury 
prevention research; chemical testing (NCI); nanotechnology; Healthy 
Homes activities; asthma prevention in homes and schools. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 9 - Department of Homeland Security: 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 9a) Coast Guard (USCG): Boats (e.g., consumer 
products used on boats; consumer products related to boats; and 
privately-owned boats); flotation devices; explosives (storage, 
transport, loading and unloading in maritime settings); polyurethane 
foam. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 9b) Customs and Border Protection (CBP): Enforcement 
of consumer product safety laws at U.S. ports of entry (e.g., analysis 
of import data). 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 9c) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – 
U.S. Fire Administration; Fire safety associated with consumer 
products. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 10 - Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD): Construction and safety of manufactured homes, including 
particle board emissions; Healthy Homes activities: lead-based paint 
regulations covering HUD assistance programs, housing codes, 
multifamily housing and public housing radon policies; asthma 
prevention in homes. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 11 - Department of Justice (DOJ): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 11a) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives (ATF): Ammunition; firearms; consumer explosives (including 
those used in hobby rockets). (We are excluding alcohol and tobacco.) 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 12 - Department of Labor (DOL): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 12a) Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA): Consumer product safety in workplace settings; industrial, 
commercial, and farm products; regulation and accreditation of testing 
laboratories; communication of hazards to employers or employees; 
regulation of hazardous materials in the workplace, e.g., explosives 
and flammable liquids; setting standards for sanitation and temporary 
labor camps; formaldehyde emissions; indoor air quality; chemical 
testing; asbestos; polyurethane foam. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 12b) Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA): 
Asbestos. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 13 - Department of Transportation (DOT): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 13a) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Consumer 
products used on aircraft (e.g., consumer electronics) or related to 
aircraft (e.g., seat belts); transportation of lithium cells and 
batteries aboard aircraft; privately owned aircraft. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 13b) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): Consumer 
products used in camp cars (e.g., bunk beds). 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 13c) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA): Automobiles; motorcycles; car seats (when used in cars); 
tires; trucks; on-road motorcycle helmets. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 13d) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration (PHMSA): Transportation of hazardous materials (e.g., 
lighters and defective and recalled lithium cell batteries); fireworks 
(approval and classification for the importation and transportation of 
consumer fireworks); approval of third-party fireworks certification 
agencies; regulation of chemicals in transport including storage and 
transportation of Class I flammable liquids (49 CFR parts 172 through 
177); polyurethane foam. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 14 - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Chemical 
safety of consumer products; setting testing standards; study and 
classification of chemical substances or mixtures, including cadmium 
and cadmium compounds; labeling and testing of chemicals; 
accreditation of lead-testing laboratories; review required industry 
studies on use of chemicals in consumer products; pesticides 
(including antimicrobial pesticides), fungicides; explosives (disposal 
and waste); formaldehyde emissions; indoor-air quality; lead; asthma 
prevention in homes and schools; Healthy Homes activities such as lead 
standards, indoor air quality, and energy standards. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 15 - Federal Communications Commission (FCC): 
Oversees third-party accreditation of laboratories that test devices 
for harmful interference; setting certification requirements for 
mobile phone radio-frequency energy. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 16 - Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Textile 
composition labeling; consumer dissatisfaction with business practices. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 17 - National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): 
Investigation of safety incidents (e.g., re: batteries on aircraft); 
issuing safety recommendations. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 18 - Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 18a) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): 
Radioactive materials in consumer products. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

If you are aware of other agencies that are not listed but have 
oversight responsibilities for consumer product safety, please list 
them below and complete column 2. If you answered “Yes” then also 
complete columns 3 through 6. 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 19. Other Agency: 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 20. Other Agency: 
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

1. Agency (examples of relevant products, product categories, or 
oversight areas): 21. Other Agency:
2. Does your agency coordinate with this agency on consumer product 
safety? (Check only one box): 
Yes; 
No: 
This is our agency: 
Go to next agency: 
3. Over what major products, categories or oversight areas does your 
agency coordinate with this agency? (List products you know): 
4. Which mechanisms does your agency use to coordinate with this agency?
(Check all that apply): 
MOU or MOA: 
Interagency Agreement: 
Working group: 
Other (please specify): 
5. Point of contact for the agency you coordinate with
(Name, Office, Phone, Email): 
6. Other comments: 

6) Please name and describe any specific interagency initiatives your 
agency participates in related to consumer product safety, and what 
your agency's roles are in these initiatives. 

7) To what extent, if at all, have the following barriers affected 
your agency's ability to coordinate with other agencies on consumer 
product safety oversight? (Check one box per row) 

Barriers: a. Unclear roles and responsibilities of participating 
agencies; 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: b. Difficulty bridging organizational cultures (e.g. lack of 
common terminology and definitions); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: c. Lack of leadership (e.g. lack of long-term leadership or 
agreed upon roles and responsibilities if leadership is shared); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: d. Difficulty with establishing clear outcomes and 
accountability (e.g. lack of clearly defined short-term and long-term 
outcomes and a way to track and monitor their progress); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: e. Difficulty garnering participation (e.g. all relevant 
agencies may not have been included and they may not have the ability 
to commit resources); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: f. Lack of resources (e.g. lack of funding and staff for the 
collaborative mechanism); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: g. Lack of statutory authority; 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: h. Lack of written guidance and agreements (e.g. 
participating agencies have not documented their agreement, if 
appropriate, and have not developed ways to continually update and 
monitor these agreements); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Barriers: i. Other (please specify); 
Great extent: 
Moderate extent: 
Small extent: 
No extent: 
Don't Know/No Basis to Judge: 

Section III: Potential Fragmentation, Overlap, or Duplication for 
Consumer Product Safety Activities: 

The next question (#8) asks about fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication, the following describes these terms. 

Fragmentation generally refers to those circumstances in which more 
than one agency or organization within an agency is involved in the 
same broad area. 

Overlap generally occurs when multiple agencies have similar goals and 
engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them (or target 
similar beneficiaries). 

Duplication generally occurs when two or more programs are engaged in 
the same activities or strategies to meet a need, or provide the same 
services to the same targeted recipients or individuals. 

8) Are you aware of any potential examples of consumer products, 
product categories, or other areas of oversight where there may be 
fragmentation, overlap, or duplication in oversight across federal 
agencies? If so, please describe below. 

Issue: 8a. Fragmentation; 
Example: (consumer products, product categories, or oversight areas 
involved); 
Agencies involved in oversight: 

Issue: 8b. Overlap; 
Example: (consumer products, product categories, or oversight areas 
involved); 
Agencies involved in oversight: 

Issue: 8c. Duplication; 
Example: (consumer products, product categories, or oversight areas 
involved); 
Agencies involved in oversight: 

9) Are there any potential regulatory or jurisdictional gaps in 
federal oversight of consumer products? Any areas you consider to be 
unclear? 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Please return this questionnaire via email to CPS@gao.gov by March 7, 
2014. 

Consumer Product Safety Oversight Questionnaire Footnote: 

[1] For more information on GAO's work on fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication in the federal government, see the following reports: GAO, 
2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, 
and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-12-279SP 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013); GAO, 2012 Annual Report: 
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and Fragmentation, 
Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 28, 2012); and GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication 
in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-
318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Agencies That Indirectly Support Consumer Product Safety 
Oversight: 

We identified 12 agencies that indirectly support consumer product 
safety oversight. Table 3 provides an overview of each agency and its 
responsibilities. These agencies support product safety in areas such 
as public health expertise, law enforcement, and workplace safety. 

Table 3: Twelve Agencies with an Indirect Oversight Role for Consumer 
Product Safety: 

Department of Commerce: 

Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); 
About the agency: NIST is one of the nation's oldest physical science 
laboratories. It supports U.S. industrial competitiveness by advancing 
measurement science and technology; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: NIST 
conducts research for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) on 
product measurement in areas such as carbon monoxide emissions from 
portable generators and release of nanoparticles from flooring 
finishes and interior paints. NIST also coordinates federal, state, 
and local conformity assessment activities with private sector 
technical standards and conformity assessment activities. Finally, 
NIST plays a regulatory role in the markings of toy, look-alike, and 
imitation firearms. 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 
About the agency: CDC is the nation's health protection agency. It 
conducts critical science and provides health information to fight 
disease; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: CDC 
provides public health expertise to CPSC and other agencies on issues 
such as drywall, lead poisoning, and portable generators. It also 
conducts research and makes recommendations to prevent worker injury 
and illness. For example, it has conducted research on the 
occupational hazards associated with the use of tools (such as nail 
guns and ladders) that may be used by consumers. Finally, CDC collects 
and maintains mortality statistics from states, which can potentially 
be used to support consumer product safety research. 

Agency: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); 
About the agency: HRSA works to improve access to health care by 
strengthening the health care workforce, building healthy communities, 
and achieving health equity; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: HRSA 
administers the Poison Control Program, which provides grants to the 
nation's poison centers; maintains a nationwide, toll-free number to 
ensure access to poison center services; and implements media outreach. 

Agency: National Institutes of Health (NIH); 
About the agency: NIH is the nation's medical research agency and 
funds medical research around the world; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: The 
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), within 
NIH, has a research program that focuses on the health effects of 
exposure to substances that may occur in consumer products. Examples 
of such substances include flame retardants, bisphenol A (BPA), 
dioxins, lead, and other heavy metals. Results from NIEHS research are 
published in the Open literature and are used by regulatory agencies 
as part of their decision making. NIEHS also manages the National 
Toxicology Program, which studies substances in the environment, 
including substances used in personal care products, household 
products, foods, and dietary supplements, to identify any potential 
harm they might cause to human health. 

Department of Homeland Security: 

Agency: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); 
About the agency: CBP is a law enforcement organization that 
facilitates lawful trade; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: CBP 
promotes import safety among other things. It seizes and forfeits 
merchandise in conjunction with other agencies (such as CPSC). 

Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 
About the agency: FEMA's U.S. Fire Administration works to prevent 
fire-related deaths and losses; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: FEMA 
gathers raw fire incident data that provide information on products 
involved in fires. It is also involved in regular coordination of data 
collection and analysis and occasional research initiatives. 

Department of Justice: 

Agency: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); 
About the agency: ATF is a law enforcement agency that protects 
communities from violent crime through the enforcement of laws 
regarding the criminal use and trafficking of firearms and explosives, 
acts of arson, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco 
products. ATF also regulates the firearms and explosives industries 
through the enforcement of federal licensing laws relating to the 
manufacture and distribution of firearms and explosives, and the 
storage of explosive materials; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: ATF 
enforces explosives laws and regulates the explosive materials used to 
manufacture consumer fireworks. 

Department of Labor: 

Agency: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); 
About the agency: OSHA's mission is to ensure safe and healthful 
working conditions for working men and women by setting and enforcing 
standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and 
assistance; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: OSHA sets 
standards for products such as ladders, safety glasses, and electrical 
products for use in the workplace. Consumers may benefit from guidance 
OSHA publishes on abating workplace hazards. 

Department of Transportation: 

Agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); 
About the agency: FAA's primary mission is to ensure the safety, 
security, and efficiency of the National Airspace System; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: FAA 
responsibilities include the certification, production approval, and 
continued airworthiness of aircraft as well as the certification of 
pilots, mechanics, and others in safety-related positions. 

Federal Communications Commission: 

Agency: Federal Communications Commission (FCC); 
About the agency: FCC regulates interstate and international 
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 
50 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. territories; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: FCC 
requires that all wireless communications devices--such as cell 
phones, notebooks, and wireless routers--sold in the United States 
meet its requirements regarding human exposure to radiofrequency 
energy. 

Federal Trade Commission: 

Agency: Federal Trade Commission (FTC); 
About the agency: FTC works to protect consumers by preventing fraud, 
deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: FTC 
investigates and takes legal or other actions against companies that 
engage in deceptive or unfair practices, including making deceptive 
safety claims. FTC also educates consumers about product safety 
through its website and a consumer blog. 

National Transportation Safety Board: 

Agency: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB); 
About the agency: NTSB's mission is to independently advance 
transportation safety. It investigates every civil aviation accident 
in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of 
transportation, including railroad, highway, marine, and pipeline; 
Agency's support role in consumer product safety oversight: As part of 
its investigations, NTSB makes safety recommendations to other federal 
agencies on a variety of topics, including their oversight of any 
specific consumer products involved in the accidents. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. GAO 15-52. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Full Text for Figure 2 Presentation of Examples of 
Consumer Products Regulated by More Than One Agency: 

This appendix provides the full text for the examples of consumer 
products regulated by more than one agency that are depicted in figure 
2: 

Figure 4: Drugs and Other Products with Child-Resistant Packaging: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Drugs and other products with child-resistant packaging: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Regulates the child-resistant 
packaging for certain household substances, as well as drugs and 
cosmetics, but not pesticides. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Regulates the child-resistant 
packaging of pesticides. 

Food and Drug Administration: Regulates cosmetics and drugs, but does 
not regulate child-resistant packaging for those items. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: Soaps and Detergents: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Soaps and detergents: 

Food and Drug Administration: Regulates body-cleansing products that 
have detergents and are used for cosmetic purposes, as well as 
antibacterial cleansers. 

Environmental Protection Agency: Regulates the use of pesticides and 
certain chemicals, including those that may be used in soaps, among 
other products. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Has authority over soap products 
that are not cosmetics or pesticides, such as laundry or dishwashing 
detergents. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 6: Toy Laser Guns: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Toy laser guns: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Sets safety standards and testing 
requirements for children's products, including toys. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology: Regulates the markings 
of toy and imitation firearms to distinguish them from real firearms. 

Food and Drug Administration: Regulates products that emit radiation, 
including laser products, by ensuring manufacturers' compliance with 
applicable safety performance standards and certification requirements. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 7: Consumer Fireworks: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Consumer fireworks: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: 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. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: oversees the 
approval, importation, and transport of fireworks. PHMSA also oversees 
certain manufacturing requirements. 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: Enforces 
explosives laws and licenses manufacturers to use explosives, 
including in consumer fireworks. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 8: Mobile Phones and Other Wireless Devices: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Mobile phones and other wireless devices: 

Federal Communications Commission: Sets and ensures compliance with 
limits on the amount of radiofrequency energy mobile phones and other 
wireless devices can emit. 

Food and Drug Administration: Ensures that mobile phones and other 
wireless devices do not emit radiofrequency energy at a level that is 
hazardous to the user as part of their oversight of radiation-emitting 
products. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Regulates hazards associated with 
the chargers for these devices, such as to ensure that they do not 
catch fire. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 9: Adult Portable Bed Rails: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Adult portable bed rails: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Regulates adult portable bed rails 
that do not meet the definition of a medical device. 

Food and Drug Administration: Has jurisdiction over adult portable bed 
rails that are considered to be medical devices. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 10: Food Contact Articles: 

Food contact articles (e.g., infant/toddler spoon, drinking cup, and 
lunch box): 

Food and Drug Administration: Regulates the substances making up the 
surfaces of food articles that come into direct contact with the food 
(e.g., head of a spoon; the inside of a lunch box or cup). 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Regulates the parts of food 
containers or preparation articles that do not come into contact with 
the food (e.g., plastic coating of a spoon; the outside of a lunch box 
or cup). 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 11: Lithium Batteries: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Lithium batteries: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Oversees lithium batteries used in 
consumer products such as cameras, mobile phones, and notebook 
computers, including issuing product recalls. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: Oversees the 
transportation of lithium batteries as hazardous materials. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 12: Infant Car Seats/Hand-held Infant Carriers: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Infant car seats/hand-held infant carriers: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Regulates the safety 
of hand-held infant carriers when used as car seats inside of a motor 
vehicle. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Regulates the safety of hand-held 
infant carriers when used to carry infants outside of a motor vehicle 
(e.g., in a stroller). 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 13: Respirators: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Respirators: 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health: Certifies respirators as meeting 
certain requirements for use in workplace settings; these respirators 
can also be sold to consumers. 

Food and Drug Administration: Has a clearance process for marketing a 
certain type of respirator in the United States for use as a medical 
device. 

Source: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images). GAO-15-52. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission: 
4330 East West Highway: 
Bethesda, MD 20814: 
CPSC Hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772): 
CPSC's Web Site: [hyperlink, http://www.cpsc.gov] 

October 23, 2014: 

Ms. Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
411 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Cackley: 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) appreciates the 
opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft U.S. 
Government Accountability Office report "Consumer Product Safety 
Oversight: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Coordination and Increase 
Efficiencies and Effectiveness." The Commission has the following 
comments on GAO's specific recommendations: 

First, with respect to the recommendation regarding imitation 
firearms, we think it would be preferable to state the recommendation 
in terms of 15 U.S.C. § 5001, rather than in terms of "markings" 
generically. (The Commission already exercises jurisdiction relating 
to marking and labeling of toys, which would include many imitation 
firearms.) We would be willing to accept responsibility for 
administering 15 U.S.C. § 5001 provided that the transfer of authority 
from NIST includes a corresponding increase in appropriations. 

Second, with respect to the recommendation regarding a formal 
collaboration mechanism to address oversight in areas of shared or 
fragmented jurisdiction, the Commission would be comfortable with such 
an approach provided that it does not compromise the agency's 
independence. 

Third, we also support, and plan to pursue, the recommendation that 
the U.S. Coast Guard and CPSC establish a formal coordination 
mechanism. 

Thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to comment on 
the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Robert S. Adler: 
Commissioner: 

Signed by: 

Elliot F. Kaye: 
Chairman: 

Signed by: 

Marietta S. Robinson: 
Commissioner: 

Signed by: 

Ann Marie Berkle: 
Commissioner: 

Signed by: 

Joseph P. Mohorovic: 
Commissioner: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

October 23, 2014: 

Alicia Puente Cackley: 
Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: GAO Draft Report GAO-15-52: "Consumer Product Safety Oversight:
Opportunities Exit to Strengthen Coordination and Increase 
Efficiencies and Effectiveness" 

Dear Ms. Cackley: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft 
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the 
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and 
conducting its review and issuing this report. 

The Department appreciates GAO's inclusion of the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) as part of this audit and recognition of its efforts related to 
regulating safety standards for recreational boats. The USCG is 
committed to ensuring the public has a safe, secure and enjoyable 
recreational boating experience by implementing programs that minimize 
the loss of life, personal injury, and property damage while 
cooperating with environmental and national security efforts. 

The draft report contained one recommendation with which the 
Department concurs. Specifically, GAO recommended that the U.S. Coast 
Guard and Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

Recommendation: Establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a 
Memorandum of Understanding) to facilitate information sharing, and 
better leveraging of resources. 

Response: Concur. The U.S. Coast Guard's Boating Safety Division, 
Recreational Boating Product Assurance Branch, will work with the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop a formal Memorandum of 
Understanding to facilitate communication between agencies on 
oversight of items of associated equipment installed on recreational 
boats. Estimated Completion Date: April 30, 2015. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
draft report. Technical comments were previously provided under 
separate cover. Please feel free to contact me if you have any 
questions. We look forward to working with you in the future. 

Sincerely, 

Jim H. Crumpacker, CIA, CFE: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO-OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Challenges and Options for 
Responding to New and Emerging Risks. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP]. Washington, 
D.C.: April 8, 2014. 

Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. 
Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-181SP]. Washington, D.C.: January 
31, 2014. 

Information on Defective Drywall. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP]. Washington, D.C.: April 9, 
2013. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Awareness, Use, and Usefulness of 
SaferProducts.gov. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-306]. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 
2013. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in 
Responding to New Product Risks. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-150]. Washington D.C.: December 20, 
2012. 

Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. Washington, D.C.: September 
27, 2012. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role in Voluntary 
Standards Development Should Be Considered. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-582]. Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2012. 

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 
Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP]. Washington, D.C.: February 
28, 2012. 

Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides 
Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-289]. 
Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2011. 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, 
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 
2011. 

Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen 
CPSC's Oversight of Imported Products. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803]. Washington, D.C.: August 14, 
2009. 

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 
Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. Washington, D.C.: October 21, 
2005. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce 
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial 
Benefits, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2014). 

[2] Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040 
(1938); Pure Food and Drugs Act, ch. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 (1906). The 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has been amended and expanded 
multiple times since 1938. 

[3] Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Pub. L. No. 
92-516, 86 Stat. 998 (1972). The general definition of pesticide in 
the statute includes "any substance or mixture of substances intended 
for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest." 7 
U.S.C. § 136(u). 

[4] Highway Safety Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-605, 84 Stat. 1713 
(1970); National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 89-
563, 80 Stat. 718 (1966). 

[5] Federal Boat Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 92-75, 85 Stat. 213 (1971). 

[6] Consumer Product Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 
(1972). CPSA explicitly excludes from CPSC's jurisdiction various 
products that are covered by other agencies under other laws. See 
footnote 12 for more detail. 

[7] These additional laws include: (1) the Flammable Fabrics Act, 
which among other things, authorizes CPSC to prescribe flammability 
standards for clothing, upholstery, and other fabrics (Act of June 30, 
1953, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 111 (1953)); (2) the Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act, which establishes the framework for the regulation of 
substances that are toxic, corrosive, combustible, or otherwise 
hazardous (Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372 (1960)); (3) the Poison 
Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, which authorizes CPSC to prescribe 
special packaging requirements to protect children from injury 
resulting from handling, using, or ingesting certain drugs and other 
household substances (Pub. L. No. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (1970)); (4) 
the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956, which mandates CPSC to prescribe 
safety standards for household refrigerators to ensure that the doors 
can be opened easily from the inside (Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 
70 Stat. 953); (5) the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act 
of 2007, which establishes mandatory safety standards for swimming 
pool and spa drain covers, as well as a grant program to provide 
states with incentives to adopt pool and spa safety standards (Pub. L. 
No. 110-140, Tit. XIV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1794 (2007)); (6) the 
Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act of 2008, which establishes 
safety standards for child-resistant closures on all portable gasoline 
containers (Pub. L. No. 110-278, 122 Stat. 2602 (2008)); and (7) the 
Child Safety Protection Act of 1994, which requires the banning or 
labeling of toys that pose a choking risk to small children and the 
reporting of certain choking incidents to CPSC (Pub. L. No. 103-267, 
108 Stat. 722 (1994)). 

[8] Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 
Stat. 3016 (2008). CPSA was further amended in 2011 to provide CPSC 
with greater authority and discretion in enforcing current consumer 
product safety laws. Pub. L. No. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (2011). 

[9] Toxic Substances Control Act, Pub. L. No. 94-469, 90 Stat. 2003 
(1976). 

[10] Existing chemicals are composed of those that were in commerce in 
1979 when EPA began reviewing chemicals, as well as those listed for 
commercial use after that time. 

[11] Pub. L. No. 92-573, § 3(a)(1), 86 Stat. at 1208 (codified as 
amended at 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)). 

[12] CPSA excludes from the definition of "consumer product" certain 
items, including any article which is not customarily produced or 
distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a 
consumer; tobacco and tobacco products; motor vehicles or motor 
vehicle equipment; pesticides as defined by the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; any article which if sold would be 
subject to the firearm tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 4181, or any 
component of such article; aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or 
appliances; boats and certain related equipment subject to Coast Guard 
regulation; drugs, devices, or cosmetics under the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act; and food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5). 

[13] Our broad definition of "consumer product" does not include 
financial products, alcohol, tobacco, and food. We have conducted 
prior work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal food 
safety oversight. See, for example, GAO, Federal Food Safety 
Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive First Step but 
Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address Fragmentation, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-289] (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 18, 2011). We have a forthcoming report on fragmentation, 
overlap, and duplication in the financial regulatory system. We 
excluded tobacco and alcohol because of the unique regulatory 
structure for these products. 

[14] Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29 (2010) (codified at 31 
U.S.C. § 712 note). 

[15] For more information on GAO's work on fragmentation, overlap, and 
duplication in the federal government, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP]; GAO, 2013 Annual Report: 
Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and 
Achieve Other Financial Benefits, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-279SP] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 
2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential 
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

[16] In addition, the remaining agencies (13 of the 33) were 
characterized as not having a role in consumer product safety 
oversight. 

[17] We used the information from the interviews, in addition to the 
questionnaires, as criteria for categorizing an agency as having a 
direct role because several agencies told us in interviews that they 
are not consumer product safety oversight agencies, even though they 
initially noted having regulatory authority for consumer product 
safety in their questionnaire responses. 

[18] Safety Standard for Carriages and Strollers, 79 Fed. Reg. 13,208 
(Mar. 10, 2014). 

[19] Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 104, 122 Stat. at 3028 (codified as 
amended at 15 U.S.C. § 2056a). 

[20] CPSC provided additional information on its risk assessment 
authorities, which it approaches in two ways. First, the agency noted 
that it is inferred that it would assess the risks associated with 
consumer products in order to implement the CPSA. For CPSC to issue a 
consumer product safety rule under section 7 of CPSA, CPSC must 
determine that the rule is reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce 
an unreasonable risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. § 2056(a). CPSC also 
conducts traditional chemical risk assessments under the Federal 
Hazardous Substances Act to determine whether a substance meets the 
definition of a "hazardous substance." See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261, 1262. We 
have done prior work on CPSC's ability to stay generally informed 
about new risks associated with consumer products and use available 
information to identify product hazards. See GAO, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges in Responding to New 
Product Risks, GAO 13-150 (Washington D.C.: Dec. 20, 2012). 

[21] Under the cancellation agreement, manufacturers are allowed to 
produce the pet collars until April 1, 2015, and will not be allowed 
to distribute the products after April 1, 2016. The agency determined 
that this agreement, which phases out use of the product, would be the 
best way to remove the product from the market expeditiously. 

[22] 46 U.S.C. § 4310; 33 C.F.R. pt. 179. 

[23] For example, although the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
initially noted regulatory authorities in their questionnaire 
responses, the agencies specified in interviews that they regulate the 
safety of products used in the workplace, and as such did not see 
their role as pertaining to consumer products but rather employee 
safety. The Federal Communications Commission noted a role regulating 
maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions from radio devices, but 
considered its role to be one of measurement expertise, not product 
safety. In addition, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology noted a regulatory role over one item, toy guns, but 
primarily considered itself a nonregulatory agency. Thus we 
categorized these agencies as having an indirect rather than direct 
role. 

[24] In addition to the examples included in this section of the 
report, agencies provided other examples of potential fragmentation or 
overlap in the oversight of consumer product safety in their 
questionnaire responses. For example, HUD noted in its questionnaire 
response that while it oversees manufactured--or factory-built--homes, 
FEMA orders large quantities of manufactured homes. In an interview, 
HUD said that FEMA orders these homes for use in areas affected by 
disasters and that FEMA may set additional requirements for their use. 
CPSC officials noted overlap in their questionnaire response in the 
area of chemical regulation and that this regulation in general 
involves several different agencies because chemicals, such as flame 
retardants, are used in a wide range of products and in different 
settings. 

[25] Articles classified as "food" under the Federal Food, Drug and 
Cosmetic Act are excluded from the definition of "consumer products" 
under CPSA and are therefore excluded from CPSC's jurisdiction. 15 
U.S.C. § 2052(a)(5)(I) (CPSA definition of "consumer product," 
excluding "food"); 21 U.S.C. § 321(f) (the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act definition of "food"). According to FDA, articles having 
food contact surfaces, such as food containers, and products used for 
eating, cooking, and preparing food, from which there is migration of 
a substance from the contact surface to the food, are considered food 
"components" and thus "food" within the meaning of the Federal Food, 
Drug and Cosmetic Act and subject to regulation by FDA. See 21 U.S.C. 
§ 321(f). 

[26] CPSC also regulates mechanical hazards (e.g., a broken pan 
handle) and the proper functioning of a product to prevent 
contaminated or spoiled food (e.g., slow cookers or refrigerators that 
fail to perform at proper temperatures). 

[27] Both CPSA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act have been 
amended since 1976, when the MOU was signed, resulting in changes and 
additional authority. For example, the Food and Drug Administration 
Modernization Act of 1997 provided FDA with the authority to establish 
a food contact notification process, which according to FDA, is the 
primary means by which FDA regulates food additives that are also food 
contact substances. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 
1997, Pub. L. No. 105-115, § 309, 111 Stat. 2296, 2354 (1997) 
(amending 21 U.S.C. § 348). 

[28] Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 108, 122 Stat. at 3036 (codified as 
amended at 15 U.S.C. § 2057c). 

[29] 21 U.S.C. §§ 360hh-360ss. 

[30] See 15 U.S.C. § 2056b. However, CPSC does not have the authority 
to regulate a risk of injury associated with electronic product 
radiation emitted from an electronic product. 15 U.S.C. § 2080(a). 
Thus, FDA has authority over a toy laser product that presents a 
radiation hazard. According to FDA, LASER stands for Light 
Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. One type of 
laser consists of a sealed tube, containing a pair of mirrors, and a 
laser medium that is excited by some form of energy to produce visible 
light or invisible ultraviolet or infrared radiation. Other examples 
of products that incorporate lasers are compact disc and DVD players, 
fax machines, laser pointers, bar code scanners, cutting and welding 
tools, and laser speed detectors. 

[31] CPSC regulations ban any toy or other article intended for use by 
children under 3 years of age that presents a choking, aspiration, or 
ingestion hazard because of small parts. 16 C.F.R. § 1500.18(a)(9). 
Additionally, all children's products, including toys, must not 
contain a concentration of lead greater than 0.009 percent (90 parts 
per million) in paint or any similar surface coatings. CPSIA mandated 
CPSC to modify its regulations to lower the concentration of lead in 
paint that is permissible from 0.06 percent (600 ppm) to 0.009 percent 
(90 ppm), effective August 14, 2009, and this limit is subject to 
periodic ongoing review by CPSC. Pub. L. No. 110-314, § 101(f), 122 
Stat. at 3020 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1278a(f)); 16 C.F.R. § 1303.1. 

[32] Laser Products; Proposed Amendment to Performance Standard, 78 
Fed. Reg. 37,723 (June 24, 2013). FDA is proposing to amend 21 C.F.R. 
§ 1040.11 by adding a new paragraph which would restrict to Class 1 
under any conditions of operation, maintenance, service, or failure, 
any laser products that are made or promoted as children's toys for 
use by children under 14 years of age. FDA is proposing this amendment 
to ensure children will not be harmed by laser radiation under any 
conditions including disassembly or breakage. Because the class of the 
laser within the toy could be higher than the class of the toy product 
itself, the amendment aims to protect children from unanticipated 
harmful exposure. 

[33] In this guidance issued to the industry in August 2013, FDA 
indicated that the whole toy needs to be certified as a laser product, 
unless the part of the toy that can emit laser light is removable and 
can emit laser light independently when separated from the other parts 
of the toy, in which case only that laser-emitting part would need to 
be certified. Minimizing Risk for Children's Toy Laser Products; Draft 
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; 
Availability, 78 Fed. Reg. 48,172 (Aug. 7, 2013). 

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

[35] 78 Fed. Reg. 73,415 (Dec. 6, 2013) (codified at 16 C.F.R. pt. 
1225). Under Section 104 of CPSIA, CPSC is required to issue mandatory 
standards based on voluntary standards for certain durable infant and 
toddler products, including infant carriers. 15 U.S.C. § 2056a. 
Voluntary standards are generally determined by standard-setting 
organizations, with input from government representatives and industry 
groups, and are also referred to as "consensus standards." Under 
CPSIA, CPSC is required to work with various stakeholders and experts 
to examine and assess the effectiveness of existing voluntary 
standards for durable infant or toddler products and establish 
mandatory standards that are substantially the same as or more 
stringent than the voluntary standards for such products. In 2012, GAO 
reported on manufacturers' compliance with voluntary industry 
standards, including CPSC's ability to encourage compliance with 
voluntary standards and other authorities in this regard. See GAO, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission: A More Active Role in Voluntary 
Standards Development Should Be Considered, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-582] (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2012). 

[36] Section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
defines a device, in part, as an instrument intended for use in the 
diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, 
treatment, or prevention of disease, or intended to affect the 
structure or function of the body. 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). 

[37] FDA defines "soap" to mean articles that meet the following 
conditions: (1) the bulk of the nonvolatile matter in the product 
consists of an alkali salt of fatty acids and the product's detergent 
properties are due to the alkali-fatty acid compounds, and (2) the 
product is labeled, sold, and represented only as soap. 21 C.F.R. § 
701.20. Products that meet this definition of soap are excluded from 
the definition of "cosmetic" in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act and are regulated by CPSC. 21 U.S.C. § 321(i) (excluding soap from 
the definition of "cosmetic" under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act). The CPSA excludes "cosmetics," as that term is defined 
in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, from the definition of a 
"consumer product" under CPSC's jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. § 
2052(a)(5)(H). However, according to CPSC officials, the agency could 
use its authorities under the CPSA and the Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act to address any hazards associated with soaps that do 
not meet the definition of a cosmetic. 

[38] In addition to regulating pesticides under the Federal 
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, EPA, under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, regulates "chemical substances" and "mixtures" 
of chemical substances. Certain items are excluded from the Toxic 
Substances Control Act's definition of "chemical substance," including 
but not limited to pesticides, foods, drugs, and cosmetics. 15 U.S.C. 
§ 2602(2)(B). According to EPA, soaps, cleaners, and other household 
products may consist of or contain chemical substances and mixtures 
that are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 
Additionally, as noted above, EPA said that under the Toxic Substances 
Control Act, it can regulate the manufacture (including import), 
processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of chemical 
substances and mixtures, including for use as or as part of a consumer 
product. Such consumer products could include the items described in 
this section (toy laser products, infant car seats, bed rails, 
fireworks, and wireless devices), except food contact articles, which 
are excluded from the Toxic Substances Control Act's definition of 
chemical substance. See 15 U.S.C. § 2602(2)(B)(vi). 

[39] Triclosan is an antimicrobial active ingredient contained in a 
variety of products where it acts to slow or stop the growth of 
bacteria, fungi, and mildew. There are currently 20 antimicrobial 
registrations, which EPA regulates under the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Triclosan is also an active ingredient 
in antibacterial hand soaps, and toothpastes and as such, is 
considered by FDA to be an over-the-counter drug under regulation by 
FDA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

[40] EPA officials noted that the agency receives notification under 
the Toxic Substances Control Act from potential manufacturers when 
they plan to begin manufacture of a new chemical substance (i.e., 
those substances that are not already on the list of chemicals 
included in the Toxic Substances Control Act), including when such 
chemical substance may be used in consumer products. EPA can take 
action to prevent any unreasonable risks from consumer uses. 
Additionally, the Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes EPA to work 
with a federal agency with overlapping jurisdiction to determine 
whether an unreasonable risk "may be prevented or reduced to a 
sufficient extent" by action taken under the other agency's laws. 15 
U.S.C. § 2608(a). 

[41] According to FCC, the agency specifically certifies that devices 
sold in the United States comply with FCC requirements regarding 
maximum Specific Absorption Rates (SAR) to which humans can be exposed 
by devices that emit radiofrequency energy. 

[42] We previously noted that at high power levels, radiofrequency 
energy can heat biological tissue and cause damage. Though mobile 
phones operate at power levels well below the level at which this 
thermal effect occurs, the question of whether long-term exposure to 
radiofrequency energy emitted from mobile phones can cause other types 
of adverse health effects, such as cancer, has been the subject of 
research and debate. GAO, Telecommunications: Exposure and Testing 
Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771] (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2012). 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-771]. 

[44] GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Agency Faces Challenges 
in Responding to New Product Risks, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-150] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 
2012). Additionally, in 2013, we reported on federal and other efforts 
to assist home owners who have experienced damage associated with 
defective drywall. See GAO, Information on Defective Drywall, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-735R] (Washington, 
D.C.: July 31, 2013). 

[45] Requirements for Child-Resistant Packaging: Products Containing 
Imidazolines Equivalent to 0.08 Milligrams or More, 77 Fed. Reg. 
73,294 (Dec. 10, 2012). 

[46] The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 established OIRA to provide 
central agency leadership and oversight of government-wide efforts to 
reduce unnecessary paperwork burden and manage information resources. 
Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (1980) (codified as amended at 44 
U.S.C. §§ 3501-3521). In 1981, Executive Order 12291 authorized OIRA 
to review all proposed and final regulations from entities other than 
independent regulatory agencies (i.e., cabinet departments, as well as 
agencies that report directly to the President). 

[47] Executive Order 12866 establishes the process for centralized 
regulatory review and planning. Further, Executive Order 13579 states 
that independent regulatory agencies should follow the regulatory 
planning and review process but that these agencies are not required 
to comply. 

[48] 75 Fed. Reg. 81,766 (Dec. 28, 2010). 

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

[50] 7 U.S.C. § 136w(c)(3). EPA is authorized to establish standards, 
which shall be consistent with those established under the authority 
of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, with respect to the package, 
container, or wrapping in which a pesticide or device is enclosed for 
use or consumption in order to protect children and adults from 
serious injury or illness resulting from accidental ingestion or 
contact with pesticides. 

[51] According to FDA, while the agency does not review child-
resistant packaging for cosmetics, drugs, and other household 
substances, it does review the packaging of drugs and cosmetics for 
other purposes, such as to ensure the packaging of certain cosmetics 
is tamper resistant and to ensure the packaging of drugs is sterile 
and meets FDA's quality standards. 

[52] According to OSHA, while the agency has standards with 
requirements for some products, such as safety glasses, the standards 
are intended to ensure workers are using the proper equipment to 
protect them against hazards in the workplace, not hazards from the 
product itself. 

[53] GAO, Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. 
Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-181SP] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 
2014). 

[54] GAO, Nanotechnology: Improved Performance Information Needed for 
Environmental, Health, and Safety Research, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-427] (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 
2012). 

[55] A surgical N95 respirator is a NIOSH-approved respirator that has 
also been cleared by FDA as a medical "device." According to FDA's 
website, the "N95" designation means that when subjected to careful 
testing, the respirator blocks at least 95 percent of very small test 
particles. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act generally defines 
a "device" as an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, 
contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related 
article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is (1) 
recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States 
Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them; (2) intended for use in the 
diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, 
treatment, or prevention of disease; or (3) intended to affect the 
structure or any function of the body. 21 U.S.C. § 321(h). 

[56] Respiratory Protective Devices Used in Healthcare, Notice of 
request for information and comment, 79 Fed. Reg. 14,515 (Mar. 14, 
2014). 

[57] An antimicrobial fruit and vegetable treatment product is a 
chemical solution that is added to water used for washing fruits and 
vegetables to reduce the presence of bacterial pathogens. 

[58] GAO, Consumer Product Safety Commission: Awareness, Use, and 
Usefulness of SaferProducts.gov, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-306] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 
2013). 

[59] We previously reported that CPSC collects, reviews, and analyzes 
mortality data through contracts with each state as part of its hazard 
identification efforts. For example, in fiscal year 2011, CPSC 
received about 8,000 death certificates covering unintentional product-
related deaths. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-150]. 

[60] In 2011, we reported on the need for agencies to apply strategic 
sourcing best practices throughout the federal procurement system. We 
suggested that acquisition leaders across the government more fully 
embrace the strategic sourcing initiative, beginning with collecting, 
maintaining, and analyzing data on current procurement spending. We 
also suggested that agencies conduct assessments of acquisition and 
supply chain functions to initiate enterprise-wide transformation. 
GAO, 2011 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication 
in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). In addition, we reported in 2013 that selected 
agencies could better leverage their buying power and achieve 
additional savings by directing more procurement spending to existing 
strategically sourced contracts and further expanding strategic 
sourcing practices to their highest spending procurement categories. 
GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, 
Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013). 

[61] We previously reported that federal agencies can face statutory 
restrictions on sharing administrative data. See GAO, Federal 
Statistical System: Agencies Can Make Greater Use of Existing Data, 
but Continued Progress is Needed on Access and Quality Issues, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-54] (Washington, D.C.: 
Feb. 24, 2012). 

[62] Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 5001 makes it unlawful to manufacture, 
enter into commerce, ship, transport, or receive any toy, look-alike, 
or imitation firearm unless it has a marking approved by the Secretary 
of Commerce. The section further provides that each toy, look-alike, 
or imitation firearm shall have permanently affixed a blaze orange 
plug inserted into its barrel which shall be recessed no more than 6 
millimeters from the muzzle end of the barrel, and gives the Secretary 
of Commerce the authority to provide for alternate markings or make 
adjustments to the marking system in certain situations. Under this 
authority, which was delegated to NIST, NIST regulations specify that 
approved markings include: (i) a permanent orange solid plug 
permanently affixed to the muzzle end and recessed no more than 6 
millimeters from the muzzle end, (ii) an orange marking permanently 
affixed to the exterior of the barrel, covering the circumference of 
the barrel from the muzzle end for a depth of at least 6 millimeters, 
(iii) construction of the device entirely of transparent or 
translucent materials, (iv) coloration of the entire exterior surface 
of the device in white or certain bright colors. 15 C.F.R. § 272.3. 

[63] Pub. L. No. 110-69, 121 Stat. 572 (2007). The responsibility for 
the promulgation of regulations for the markings of toy, look-alike, 
and imitation firearms was provided to the Secretary of Commerce in 
1988. Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 
100-615, § 4, 102 Stat. 3185, 3190 (1988). That authority was then 
transferred to NIST in 2007. 

[64] Coast Guard staff told us it oversees recreational boats that are 
up to 20 feet in length. Larger recreational boats are generally 
subject to international standards and those set by the American 
Bureau of Shipping, such as licensing and insurance requirements. The 
Coast Guard also enforces standards for larger boats that enter U.S. 
ports, as well as commercial boats. 

[65] For the purposes of defect notification, by statute, the term 
"associated equipment" includes only items or classes of associated 
equipment that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall prescribe by 
regulation. 46 U.S.C. § 4310(a). Coast Guard regulations define 
"associated equipment" for defect notification as "the following 
equipment as shipped, transferred, or sold from the place of 
manufacture and includes all attached parts and accessories: (1) an 
inboard engine, (2) an outboard engine, (3) a stern drive unit, and 
(4) an approved personal flotation device." 33 C.F.R. § 179.03. 

[66] Specifically, CPSA excludes from the definition of a "consumer 
product," and therefore excludes from CPSC's jurisdiction, "boats 
which could be subjected to safety regulation under chapter 43 of 
Title 46; vessels, and appurtenances to vessels (other than such 
boats), which could be subjected to safety regulation under title 52 
of the Revised Statutes or other marine safety statutes administered 
by the department in which the Coast Guard is operating; and equipment 
(including associated equipment, as defined in section 2101(1) of 
Title 46) to the extent that a risk of injury associated with the use 
of such equipment on boats or vessels could be eliminated or reduced 
by actions taken under any statute [mentioned above]." 15 U.S.C. § 
2052(a)(5)(G). 

[67] 46 U.S.C. § 2101(1). The definition of "associated equipment" 
excludes most radio equipment. 

[68] GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012). 

[69] In the questionnaire, we asked respondents to specify which 
formal mechanisms they use to coordinate such as an MOU or MOA, 
interagency agreements, working groups or other types of coordination. 
Some agencies responded that they had other interactions and indicated 
that they were informal arrangements. 

[70] As we noted in a September 2012 report, experts defined an 
interagency mechanism for collaboration as any arrangement or 
application that can facilitate collaboration between agencies. GAO, 
Managing For Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012). 

[71] In [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022], we 
identify 12 mechanisms for interagency collaboration. 

[72] According to EPA's website, task force members include: CPSC; 
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Energy, 
HHS, Homeland Security, Justice, Labor, Education, and Transportation; 
EPA, OMB, Council on Environmental Quality, Assistant to the President 
for Economic Policy, Assistant to the President on Domestic Policy, 
and the Council of Economic Advisors. 

[73] In January 2014, we reported on the results of a forum we 
convened on the future of nanomanufacturing and the environmental and 
health implications of nanomanufacturing. See [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-181SP]. 

[74] Memorandum of Understanding on Lead-Based Paint between the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, April 3, 1989. 

[75] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] and GAO, 
Managing For Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides 
Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-617T] (Washington D.C.: May 10, 
2011). 

[76] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005) and [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. We 
broadly defined collaboration as any joint activity that is intended 
to produce more public value than could be produced when the agencies 
act alone. 

[77] These key features include (1) outcomes and accountability; (2) 
bridging organizational cultures; (3) leadership; (4) clarity of roles 
and responsibilities; (5) participants; (6) resources; and (7) written 
guidance and agreements. 

[78] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. 

[79] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the 
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 
107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

[80] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-617T]. 

[81] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. 

[82] In an October 2012 letter, the heads of six independent 
regulatory agencies wrote to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
expressing their concerns about pending legislation (at that time) 
that would authorize the President to require the agencies to prepare 
cost-benefit analyses for their economically significant rules. The 
six independent regulatory agencies were the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union 
Administration. 

[83] Please see appendix II for the questionnaire. 

[84] We aggregated according to the U.S. Government Manual for all 
agencies except the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). For DHS, we 
reported out for the separate components because they have different 
levels of involvement. The Coast Guard has a direct oversight role, 
whereas CBP and FEMA play indirect roles. 

[85] GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce 
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial 
Benefits, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2014). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]