This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-803 
entitled 'Consumer Safety: Better Information and Planning Would 
Strengthen CPSC's Oversight of Imported Products' which was released on 
August 14, 2009. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

August 2009: 

Consumer Safety: 

Better Information and Planning Would Strengthen CPSC's Oversight of 
Imported Products: 

GAO-09-803: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-803, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The growing volume of consumer products imported into the United States 
has strained the resources of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(CPSC), challenging the agency to find new ways to ensure the safety of 
these products. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) 
mandated that GAO assess the effectiveness of CPSC’s authorities over 
imported products. GAO’s objectives were to (1) determine what is known 
about CPSC’s effectiveness in using these authorities, (2) compare CPSC’
s authorities with those of selected U.S. agencies and international 
entities, and (3) evaluate CPSC’s plans to prevent the entry of unsafe 
consumer products. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed CPSC and 
other agencies’ and entities’ authorities, reviewed literature on 
consumer product safety, and compared CPSC’s planning efforts with 
criteria for effective planning practices. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO found broad consensus that CPSC’s authorities over imported 
consumer products have the potential to be effective. However, CPSC has 
made limited progress in measuring the effectiveness of its 
authorities, and CPSC’s ability to implement these authorities has been 
constrained by competing priorities and limited resources, as well as 
by delays in implementing key provisions of CPSIA. CPSC’s presence at 
U.S. ports is limited and, in order to identify potentially unsafe 
products, it must work closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), which faces pressure to quickly move shipments into commerce. 
CPSC does not have access to key CBP import data it could use to target 
incoming shipments for inspection, and it has not updated its 
agreements with CBP to clarify each agency’s roles and 
responsibilities. CPSC’s activities at U.S. ports could be strengthened 
by better targeting incoming shipments for inspection and by improving 
CPSC’s coordination with CBP. Otherwise, CPSC may not be able to carry 
out key inspection activities efficiently or to effectively leverage 
its enforcement priorities with CBP. 

Select federal agencies and foreign governments provide lessons for 
strengthening CPSC’s implementation of its authorities, particularly 
with respect to border surveillance and information sharing among 
countries. Both USDA and FDA have more robust border surveillance 
activities than CPSC because they obtain more data on incoming 
shipments, have more staff working at U.S. ports, use more developed 
programs to target risks, and use information technology systems that 
are integrated with other agency-based and CBP systems to effectively 
leverage their enforcement priorities with CBP. Other agencies have 
found that timely CBP import data integrated with other agency 
surveillance data is useful in screening incoming shipments for 
potential safety violations. In addition, officials at FDA and USDA 
have found that efforts to educate overseas industries and governments 
on U.S. safety standards could reduce the number of unsafe products 
that reach U.S. consumers. GAO also found broad consensus that 
continued coordination and information sharing among governments and 
multilateral organizations can improve the effectiveness of product 
safety frameworks. CPSC has increased its efforts to coordinate with 
these other entities, particularly China, but lacks a comprehensive 
plan for international engagement. 

CPSC has established annual plans, but lacks a long-term plan with key 
goals to prevent the entry of unsafe products. CPSC has not yet updated 
its agencywide Strategic Plan to reflect new authorities granted in 
CPSIA. This may inhibit CPSC’s ability to appropriately allocate any 
potential increases in agency resources or to address the safety of 
imported products through international means. An updated Strategic 
Plan may also help to ensure that CPSC has the requisite compliance and 
analytical staff to support the full range of CPSC’s international 
efforts. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that CPSC (1) ensure expeditious implementation of key 
CPSIA provisions; (2) take several actions to strengthen its ability to 
target shipments of unsafe consumer products, such as resolving issues 
with CBP for obtaining more data on incoming shipments; and (3) develop 
a long-term plan for ensuring the safety of consumer products entering 
the United States, including long-term plans for international 
engagement. CPSC agreed with these recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-803] or key 
components. For more information, contact Alicia Cackley at (202) 512-
8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

CPSC's Authorities Have the Potential to Be Effective, but 
Implementation Is Limited by Incomplete Information on Imported 
Products and Resource and Practical Constraints: 

Authorities of Select Agencies Are Comparable to CPSC's, but FDA and 
USDA's Border Surveillance Activities and Overseas Presence Provide 
Useful Information for Strengthening CPSC's Implementation of Its 
Authorities: 

Information Sharing and Cooperation among Countries Provide Way to 
Bridge Differences and Strengthen CPSC 's Implementation of Its 
Authorities, but CPSC Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Guide Its Work: 

CPSC Has Established Annual Goals and Short-term Plans to Prevent the 
Entry of Unsafe Products, but Lacks a Long-term Plan for the Future: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers for CPSC 
Enforcement Purposes: 

Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies: 

Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected International Entities:
Australia:
Canada:
European Union:
Japan:
China: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies for Preventing the 
Entry of Unsafe Imports: 

Figures: 

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

Figure 2: CPSC Surveillance Activity at Ports of Entry Compared to 
Imports of Consumer Goods, 1998-2008: 

Figure 3: Comparison of Selected International Entities' Authorities 
with CPSC's Authorities to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Consumer 
Products: 

Abbreviations: 

ACCC: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission: 

AIIS: Automated Import Information System: 

APEC: Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation: 

APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

AQSIQ: General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and 
Quarantine: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

CCC: China Compulsory Certification: 

CEN: European Committee for Standardization: 

CENELEC: European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization: 

CIQ: Customs, Inspection and Quarantine: 

CNCA: Certification and Accreditation Administration of China: 

CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

CPSIA: Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act: 

DG SANCO: Directorate General for Health and Consumers: 

ETSI: European Telecommunications Standards Institute: 

EC: European Commission: 

EU: European Union: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

FSIS: Food Safety and Inspection Service: 

GPSD: General Product Safety Directive: 

ICPHSO: International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization: 

ITDS: International Trade Data System: 

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

MOU: memorandum of understanding: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

OASIS: Operational and Administrative System for Import Support: 

OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 

PHIS: Public Health Information System: 

PREDICT: Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import Compliance 
Targeting: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USTR: Office of the United States Trade Representative: 

WTO: World Trade Organization: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 14, 2009: 

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Joe Barton: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives: 

The growing volume of consumer products--such as toys, household 
appliances, and children's apparel--imported into the United States has 
strained the resources of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 
and is challenging the agency to find new ways to ensure the safety of 
these products. From 1998 to 2007, the value of consumer products 
imported into the United States increased about 101 percent, with 
products from China (which includes Hong Kong) nearly quadrupling over 
that same period to constitute about 42 percent of all imported 
consumer goods. In addition to the growing value of imports, the number 
and variety of consumer products have been increasing. Consumer 
products are becoming more technically complex and sophisticated, and 
they increasingly are not "from" any one place but rather consist of 
parts and components from any number of countries. 

Increasing imports of consumer products gained national attention in 
2007. During that year, CPSC announced 473 recalls, the most in 10 
years, and 389 of the recalls (or about 82 percent) involved products 
imported into the country. As a result, 2007 became known to some as 
"the year of the recall." The number of product recalls in fiscal year 
2008 was even higher. These record numbers of recalls have raised the 
issue of whether CPSC can ensure the safety of products that are 
increasingly manufactured overseas. 

While the number of consumer products imported into the United States 
has been increasing, CPSC has become progressively smaller in terms of 
staff and resources. The commission has not had a full slate of five 
commissioners since 1986 and has not been authorized to fund more than 
three commissioner positions since 1993. In fiscal year 2008, CPSC had 
396 full-time employees, compared with 480 full-time employees in 
fiscal year 1997. CPSC's fiscal year 2008 appropriation totaled about 
$80 million, and CPSC's fiscal year 2009 appropriation was not passed 
until March 2009--about 6 months into the fiscal year 2008--due to a 
congressional continuing budget resolution. 

In response to the high-profile recalls of imported products in 2007, 
as well as concerns that CPSC was inadequately staffed and funded to 
enforce existing product safety laws, Congress passed the Consumer 
Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which became law on August 14, 
2008.[Footnote 1] CPSIA was intended to update and strengthen CPSC by 
authorizing expanded funding, mandating increased staffing subject to 
available appropriations, and enhancing existing CPSC authorities, 
including those regarding product safety standards, recalls, reporting, 
and administrative penalties. In addition, CPSIA introduced several new 
statutory tools to address the safety of imported products. Because 
Congress was concerned that there may be remaining gaps in U.S. product 
safety law or unforeseen consequences of CPSIA with respect to imported 
products, CPSIA mandated GAO to review a range of issues regarding 
CPSC's authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe products into the 
United States.[Footnote 2] Because CPSIA was recently passed, and CPSC 
has not had time to implement it fully, we responded to the mandate by 
(1) determining how CPSC assesses the effectiveness of its authorities 
in preventing the entry of unsafe consumer products and determining 
what is known about CPSC's effectiveness in using these authorities, 
(2) comparing certain aspects of CPSC's authorities with those of 
selected U.S. agencies, (3) comparing CPSC's authorities with those of 
selected international entities, and (4) evaluating CPSC's plans to 
prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products in the future. 

To determine the effectiveness of CPSC's import safety authorities, we 
examined CPSC data and interviewed CPSC officials to learn how the 
agency measures and assesses its own effectiveness. We conducted 
extensive document reviews on consumer product safety generally and 
import safety specifically. We interviewed legal professionals and 
consumer and industry representatives to obtain their perspectives on 
the effectiveness of CPSC's authorities. We also interviewed officials 
from other federal agencies involved in product safety at the 
international level, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), and 
the Departments of State and Commerce. We visited a U.S. port of entry 
to observe CPSC import surveillance activities and CPSC's interaction 
with CBP staff at the port. We also visited CPSC's Product Testing 
Laboratory in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to observe laboratory testing 
that supports import safety activities. Furthermore, we conducted a 
comparative analysis of CPSC's authorities to prevent the entry of 
unsafe consumer products to similar authorities of selected U.S. 
federal agencies and selected countries. For our comparative analysis 
of U.S. federal agencies, we selected agencies that regulate the safety 
of products used by consumers and that possess recent, relevant 
experience with import safety. Specifically, we selected the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Health and Human 
Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of 
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA). We conducted interviews with agency officials and reviewed 
agency statutes, regulations, and other documents. For our comparative 
analysis of other countries' product safety authorities, we selected 
Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), and Japan for 
review.[Footnote 3] We developed a set of questions concerning consumer 
product safety authorities, practices, and procedures and worked 
through the U.S. Department of State to distribute the questions to 
appropriate contacts at U.S. embassies overseas and, in some cases, to 
foreign embassies in Washington, D.C. We conducted interviews with 
product safety officials from Canada, the EU, and Japan, and with U.S. 
officials at the embassies in Australia, Canada, and China. We received 
written responses to our questions from the U.S. embassies in 
Australia, Canada, and China; from officials with the Embassy of Japan 
in Washington, D.C.; and from consumer product safety officials in the 
EU. We also reviewed documents regarding product safety in the selected 
countries and reports on consumer product safety prepared by the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). To 
evaluate CPSC's plans to prevent the entry of unsafe products in the 
future, we reviewed CPSC's 2010 Performance Budget Request and compared 
CPSC's planning efforts with guidance GAO has developed to assess 
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. Appendix 
I provides a more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and 
methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2008 to August 2009, 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

CPSC was created in 1972 under the Consumer Product Safety Act to 
regulate consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury; to 
assist consumers in using products safely; and to promote research and 
investigation into product-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. 
[Footnote 4] The Consumer Product Safety Act consolidated existing 
federal safety regulatory activity related to consumer products within 
CPSC. As a result, in addition to general responsibilities for 
protecting consumers against product hazards, the duties and functions 
under the following four statutes were transferred to CPSC.[Footnote 5] 

* the Flammable Fabrics Act, which among other things, authorizes CPSC 
to prescribe flammability standards for clothing, upholstery, and other 
fabrics;[Footnote 6] 

* the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which establishes the framework 
for the regulation of substances that are toxic, corrosive, 
combustible, or otherwise hazardous;[Footnote 7] 

* 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;[Footnote 8] and: 

* the Refrigerator Safety Act of 1956, which mandates CPSC to prescribe 
safety standards for household refrigerators to ensure that the doors 
thereof can be opened easily from the inside.[Footnote 9] 

CSPC has also subsequently been charged with administering the Virginia 
Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, which establishes mandatory 
safety standards for swimming pool and spa drain covers, as well as a 
grant program to provide states with incentives to adopt pool and spa 
safety standards.[Footnote 10] In addition, CPSC has been charged with 
administering the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, which 
establishes safety standards for child-resistant closures on all 
portable gasoline containers.[Footnote 11] 

Thus, CPSC's jurisdiction is extremely broad, covering thousands of 
types of products. According to CPSC, this jurisdiction covers over 
100,000 different manufacturers and generally includes all consumer 
products except food, drugs, and cosmetics, which are regulated by FDA; 
pesticides, which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency; 
automobiles and other on-road vehicles, which are regulated by the 
Department of Transportation; flotation devices, which are regulated by 
the Coast Guard; and firearms, tobacco, and alcohol, which are 
regulated by the Department of Justice. 

The Consumer Product Safety Act established CPSC as an independent 
regulatory commission. The rationale for establishing independent 
commissions such as CPSC includes these assumptions: (1) long-term 
appointment of commissioners would promote stability and develop 
expertise, (2) independent status would insulate the commissioners from 
undue economic and political pressures, and (3) commissioners with 
different political persuasions and interests would provide diverse 
viewpoints. The act provides for the appointment by the President of 
five commissioners for staggered 7-year terms. However, no more than 
three commissioners have served at one time since 1986, and the 
commission has been led by two commissioners since 2006.[Footnote 12] 
One of these commissioners is designated the Chairman, who directs all 
the executive and administrative functions of the agency. 

CPSC was designed as a complement to tort law, under which one may seek 
compensation for harm caused by another's wrongdoing. The threat of 
legal action under tort law plays an important role in assuring that 
companies produce safe products. However, tort law is primarily a 
postinjury mechanism, and foreign manufacturers are usually outside of 
the U.S. tort law system. Therefore, CPSC has certain authorities 
intended to prevent unsafe consumer products from entering the market 
in the first place. 

CPSC Protects Consumers Primarily through Product Safety Standards: 

Under several of the acts that it administers, CPSC primarily protects 
consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death by issuing 
regulations that establish performance or labeling standards for 
consumer products. These standards are often referred to as "mandatory 
standards."[Footnote 13] CPSC issued 38 mandatory standards between 
1990 and 2007. If CPSC determines that there is no feasible standard 
that would adequately protect the public from danger, CPSC may issue 
regulations to ban the manufacture and distribution of the product. 
[Footnote 14] 

Many consumer products are subject to voluntary standards. These 
voluntary standards, which are often established by private standard- 
setting groups, do not have the force of law.[Footnote 15] However, 
many voluntary standards are established with input from consumer 
groups and industry and, as a result, are often referred to as 
"consensus standards." In addition, the 1981 amendments to the Consumer 
Product Safety Act require CPSC to defer to a voluntary standard--
rather than issuing a mandatory regulation--if CPSC determines that the 
voluntary standard adequately addresses the hazard and that there is 
likely to be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. 
[Footnote 16]Between 1990 and 2007, CPSC worked with industry and 
others to develop 390 voluntary standards related to consumer products. 

Import Safety Responsibility within CPSC: 

CPSC's policy on imported products states that the commission will seek 
to ensure that importers and foreign manufacturers, as well as domestic 
manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, carry out their obligations 
and responsibilities under the five acts. The commission will also seek 
to establish, to the maximum extent possible, uniform import procedures 
for products subject to the acts the commission administers.[Footnote 
17] 

Two CPSC staff offices have primary responsibility for carrying out 
this policy: the Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental 
Affairs and the Office of Compliance and Field Operations. The Office 
of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs was created in 
2004 to provide CPSC with a more comprehensive and coordinated effort 
at the international, federal, state, and local levels in developing 
and implementing consumer product safety standards. The office conducts 
activities and creates strategies aimed at ensuring greater import 
compliance with recognized American safety standards. A major emphasis 
of this program is encouraging foreign manufacturers to establish 
product safety systems as an integral part of the manufacturing 
process. The office is also involved in coordinating international 
consumer product safety efforts with such U.S. federal agencies as the 
Departments of Commerce and State. It also ensures that CPSC regulatory 
efforts are consistent with U.S. international trade obligations by 
coordinating with the United States Trade Representative. As of July 
2009, the office was staffed by four full-time employees. 

The Import Surveillance Division within the Office of Compliance and 
Field Operations was created in March 2008 and has primary 
responsibility for CPSC's product surveillance program at ports of 
entry. CPSC, in cooperation with other appropriate federal agencies, is 
required to maintain a permanent product surveillance program for 
preventing the entry of unsafe consumer products into the commerce of 
the United States.[Footnote 18] Previously, CPSC operated the import 
surveillance program through product safety investigators staffed in 
multiple regions throughout the country who included among their 
investigative responsibilities ports of entry in their particular 
regions. Over the years, the numbers of CPSC regional offices and 
product safety investigators have been reduced. CPSC states that these 
product safety investigators continue to support the import 
surveillance program, operating in 48 locations throughout the country. 
The Import Surveillance Division marks the first permanent, full-time 
presence of CPSC investigators at key ports of entry, according to 
CPSC. As of July 2009, the division was staffed by 11 full-time 
employees--9 compliance investigators located at seven ports of entry 
and a Director and Supervisory Compliance Investigator located at CPSC 
headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. The compliance investigators are 
supported by compliance officers, technical staff, attorneys, and other 
staff at CPSC headquarters. There are over 300 ports of entry in the 
United States. 

CPSC Works Closely with CBP at Ports of Entry: 

CBP notifies CPSC and other regulatory agencies with import safety 
responsibilities of the arrival of imported products and provides 
information about those products. Under several of the acts that CPSC 
administers, CPSC identifies potentially unsafe products and requests 
that CBP set them aside for CPSC examination. CPSC has implemented 
programs at some ports for CBP to target certain categories of products 
based on their Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes.[Footnote 19] CBP 
has import specialists at major ports who specialize in certain 
commodities, including consumer products. They analyze manifest, entry, 
and other import data to identify shipments for CPSC review.[Footnote 
20] In some instances, CBP will independently identify shipments for 
CPSC examination. Once samples are delivered to or taken by CPSC for 
examination, CPSC may detain the shipment pending further examination 
and testing, conditionally release the shipment to the importer's 
premises pending examination and testing, or release the shipment to 
the importer outright. Compliance investigators examine the sample to 
determine whether it: 

* complies with the relevant mandatory standard(s); 

* is accompanied by a certification of compliance with the relevant 
product safety standard that is supported by testing, in some instances 
by a third party; 

* is or has been determined to be an imminently hazardous product; 
[Footnote 21] 

* has a product defect that presents a substantial product hazard; 
[Footnote 22] or: 

* is produced by a manufacturer who failed to comply with CPSC 
inspection and recordkeeping requirements. 

If compliance investigators decide that further testing of a sample is 
necessary, they will send the sample to the CPSC Product Testing 
Laboratory or to a CBP laboratory.[Footnote 23] If the sample is found 
to violate any of the above criteria, CPSC is authorized to refuse 
admission of the shipment. Consumer products that are refused admission 
will be destroyed unless the Secretary of the Treasury allows the 
product to be exported.[Footnote 24] CPSC may instead instruct CBP to 
seize shipments upon finding a prohibited act, which according to CPSC 
is the most common outcome when a violation is discovered. The importer 
may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.[Footnote 25] See figure 
1 for an overview of CBP and CPSC's current process for conducting 
inspections at ports of entry. 

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

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Arrival: 
Shipments arrive at U.S. ports. 

Targeting: 
* Computer-based targeting of manifest and/or entry data.
* Use of CBP officers’and/or import specialists’ knowledge of goods 
under CPSC regulations. 
* CPSC programs focus on certain products. 
* National targeting priorities through joint CBP-CPSC operations 
(e.g., Operation Guardian). 

Examination: 
* CBP notifies CPSC of potential violations. Merchandise set aside for 
examination. 
* CPSC examines merchandise. 
* If there is no violation, Release of cargo into commerce. 

Testing: 
* Tests sample at CPSC lab and recommends CBP detention of cargo. 
* Tests sample at CPSC lab and recommends conditional release of cargo 
into importer’s care. 
* If there is no violation, Release of cargo into commerce. 

Disposition of shipments: 
* CPSC recommends CBP seizure of noncompliant products. 
- Administrative process. (Treasury Forfeiture Fund used for storage 
and destruction of forfeited noncompliant products.) 

* CPSC refuses admission of merchandise; no immediate designated 
funding available for product destruction.
- Destruction, exportation, or liquidated damages for failure to export 
or destroy. 

* CPSC allows importer to recondition merchandise. 
* If there is no violation, Release of cargo into commerce. 
* Liquidated damages for failure to recondition. 

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

[End of figure] 

CPSC relies on CBP to carry out key import surveillance activities at 
ports of entry. In addition to its numerous antiterrorism and trade 
responsibilities, CBP faces pressure from the international trade 
community to quickly move compliant shipments into commerce. Factors 
such as the high volume of containers, financial incentives for 
longshoremen to unload ships quickly, and the limited amount of time 
CBP has to identify and examine cargo contribute to the challenges CBP 
faces in facilitating commerce.[Footnote 26] In addition, CBP enforces 
regulations for 45 other federal agencies. Importers place pressure on 
CBP to correctly identify violations because the cost of storing CBP-
detained products at privately run container examination stations is 
high. CPSC surveillance activity with CBP at ports of entry has 
fluctuated in recent years. For example, as shown in figure 2, the 
number of samples that CPSC collected for examination dropped from 
1,348 in fiscal year 1999 to 710 and 514 in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 
and has still not reached the 1999 level, despite an increase in 
imports of products under CPSC jurisdiction of about 101 percent. 

Figure 2: CPSC Surveillance Activity at Ports of Entry Compared to 
Imports of Consumer Goods, 1998-2008: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated horizontal bar graph] 

Year: 1998; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 1,222; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $318.3 (22.0%). 

Year: 1999; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 1,348; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $356.1 (22.5%). 

Year: 2000; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 870; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $413.1 (23.1%). 

Year: 2001; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 880; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $390.8 (24.8%). 

Year: 2002; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 710; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $410.8; (28.4%). 

Year: 2003; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 514; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $442.3 (31.8%). 

Year: 2004; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 888; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $510.1; (34.7%). 

Year: 2005; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 685; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $564.3 (38.0%). 

Year: 2006; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 616; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $603.9; (40.3%). 

Year: 2007; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 748; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $638.9; (42.1%). 

Year: 2008; 
Import samples collected by CPSC: 1,171; 
Total import dollars (in billions) under CPSC jurisdiction and 
percentage from China and Hong Kong: $638.7; (42.8%). 

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

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

[End of figure] 

CPSC's Authorities Have the Potential to Be Effective, but 
Implementation Is Limited by Incomplete Information on Imported 
Products and Resource and Practical Constraints: 

Consensus exists that CPSC's authorities have the potential to be 
effective in preventing the entry of unsafe products into the United 
States. Although CPSC has made limited progress in measuring the 
effectiveness of its authorities over imported products, the agency 
believes that new authorities granted in CPSIA should increase 
compliance with mandatory standards and enhance its ability to monitor 
compliance with voluntary standards at ports of entry. Private industry 
sources and others we interviewed generally said that CPSC's 
authorities are potentially effective but that implementation is 
limited by competing priorities and resource and practical constraints. 

Consensus Exists That CPSC Has Broad Authority over Imported Products, 
but CPSC's Assessment of Effectiveness Has Been Limited: 

There is consensus among those we interviewed that CPSC has broad 
authority to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products into the 
United States, particularly in light of new authorities that strengthen 
its ability to enforce mandatory standards and protect consumers from 
unsafe products subject to voluntary standards at ports of entry. As 
described above, CPSC primarily protects consumers from unreasonable 
risk of injury by promulgating mandatory standards and working with 
private standard-setting organizations to promulgate voluntary 
standards, and CPSC has broad authority to enforce those standards at 
ports of entry. In particular, CPSC and other product safety experts 
believe CPSC's enforcement of mandatory standards at ports of entry 
will be strengthened because now all products subject to a mandatory 
standard under any law administered by CPSC must be accompanied by a 
certification of compliance that is supported by product testing. 
[Footnote 27] In addition, every manufacturer or private labeler of a 
product subject to a children's product safety rule must have samples 
of the product tested by an accredited third-party laboratory for 
conformance with the applicable mandatory standard.[Footnote 28] For 
many years, CPSC focused import surveillance activities on enforcement 
of certain mandatory standards for consumer products, primarily toys, 
fireworks, and lighters.[Footnote 29] The new testing requirement puts 
greater burden on industry to ensure that products comply with 
mandatory standards. If implemented properly, CPSC should be able to 
use the testing and certification requirements to strengthen 
surveillance of regulated products at ports of entry. 

Furthermore, CPSC believes its ability to monitor compliance with 
voluntary standards at ports of entry will be strengthened by new 
authority to create a "substantial product hazard list."[Footnote 30] 
As described above, many consumer products are produced according to 
voluntary standards. In addition, many products are subject to no 
standards. CPSC primarily protects consumers from unsafe products 
subject to voluntary or no standards by declaring them "substantial 
product hazards" when the products have a defect that creates a 
substantial risk of injury. However, CPSC faces difficulty at ports of 
entry identifying defects in products subject to voluntary or no 
standards because defects are not always apparent until the product has 
been used by the public.[Footnote 31] With implementation of the 
substantial product hazard list, CPSC will be able to target new 
shipments and refuse admission of products subject to voluntary 
standards that it has already determined have a defect constituting a 
substantial risk of injury.[Footnote 32] 

Despite this broad authority, CPSC has made limited progress in 
measuring the effectiveness of its authorities to prevent the entry of 
unsafe consumer products. CPSC measures the performance of its import 
surveillance program by the number of product samples collected and by 
the number of samples ultimately found to be unsafe and therefore 
seized. CPSC is now considering altering this metric so that it will 
track all shipments that CPSC investigators examine, rather than just 
those samples collected and tested. Furthermore, CPSC measures the 
performance of its Office of International Programs and 
Intergovernmental Affairs by the number of outreach events conducted. 
These metrics provide measures of the output of program staff but do 
not necessarily provide accurate measures of the effectiveness of the 
programs. In the 1990s, CPSC used industry compliance with mandatory 
standards as an alternative basis for measuring the agency's 
effectiveness, what it termed the Comprehensive Plan. The plan was 
designed to examine the compliance of these products with mandatory 
standards on a periodic basis and then identify problem areas for 
focusing limited agency resources. CPSC did not continue the 
Comprehensive Plan after the mid-1990s because the data indicated that 
compliance was high, and CPSC believed that the plan did not help it 
address problems with noncompliant products. CPSC sought information 
from the public in 2008 to develop a new methodology that would replace 
the Comprehensive Plan. CPSC reported receiving two responses, but 
commission staff stated that they did not pursue further work because 
the responses did not address their needs for developing new 
performance measures. While CPSC recognizes the need for outcome- 
oriented performance measures and has taken steps to develop new 
measures, without these measures, CPSC may not be able to determine how 
effective its authorities are for preventing the entry of unsafe 
products. 

Implementation of CPSC's New Authorities to Prevent Entry of Unsafe 
Products into the United States Has Been Delayed: 

While CPSC has broad authority to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 
products into the United States, there have been delays in implementing 
new authorities CPSC received in CPSIA. According to CPSC, the agency 
has more than 40 rulemakings to conduct under CPSIA, including 
approximately 20 rulemakings to initiate or complete by August 2010, 
which has contributed to the delay in implementing the act. In 
particular, the two new authorities discussed above--certain testing 
and certification requirements and the substantial product hazard list-
-have not been implemented. CPSC issued a stay of enforcement of 
certain testing and certification requirements until February 10, 2010, 
delaying implementation of these standards and raising questions among 
manufacturers subject to this requirement.[Footnote 33] CPSC stated 
that it did not complete the rulemaking process because it was unable 
to respond to innumerable inquiries from industry seeking relief from 
the testing requirement at a time when the agency faced severe resource 
limitations because it was operating under the prior year's budget. In 
addition, to date CPSC has not conducted rulemaking to implement the 
substantial product hazard list. The effectiveness of CPSC's new 
authorities will not be clear until CPSC completes its rulemaking and 
demonstrates the ability to enforce these regulations. 

Another factor contributing to delays in implementation of new 
authorities is the need for CPSC to balance its mission to protect 
consumers with industry interests. CPSC's mission is to protect the 
public from unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer 
products, and CPSC is also required to work with industry to develop 
product safety standards, collect information about unsafe products, 
and conduct recalls. Private companies have expressed concerns about 
CPSC's implementation of CPSIA, particularly the expanded testing and 
certification requirements, which, as noted earlier, helped contribute 
to CPSC's decision to delay enforcement of these provisions. In public 
comments on CPSIA, several industry representatives commented that the 
certification requirements are duplicative and could cause them to 
incur tremendous costs due to the complexity of their business 
operations. For example, industry representatives stated that large 
manufacturers produce hundreds of thousands of variations of their 
products that may require testing and certification, while small 
manufacturers may have limited product lines across which to spread 
costs. 

In addition to industry concerns, CPSC has also faced concerns from 
consumers that CPSC's implementation of CPSIA has not, at times, 
fulfilled the consumer protection goals of the act. In one recent 
example, consumer groups challenged CPSC's advisory opinion that 
CPSIA's provisions prohibiting the sale of children's products that 
contain certain chemicals called phthalates did not apply retroactively 
to inventories existing prior to the effective date of the 
prohibitions. These groups were concerned that if the phthalate 
prohibitions were not applied retroactively, consumers would continue 
to be exposed to unsafe products in the marketplace. The consumer 
groups filed suit in a federal district court seeking a declaratory 
judgment that CPSC's advisory opinion, which was issued at the request 
of certain wholesale and retail entities, was contrary to CPSIA, and 
thus violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court held 
that the phthalate prohibitions in CSPIA unambiguously applied to 
existing inventory and set aside CPSC's opinion.[Footnote 34] 

According to some industry representatives we interviewed, retailers 
are taking the lead in product testing and certification in response to 
industry's uncertainty over how CPSC will enforce CPSIA provisions. 
These representatives believed that retailers are ahead of CPSC in this 
regard. For example, one industry group said that although CPSC has 
stayed enforcement of many of its certification requirements, retailers 
still require suppliers to provide certifications, and some retailers 
had more stringent lead standards than CPSIA. According to industry 
groups, U.S. companies, particularly retailers, have an incentive to 
institute and enforce stringent product safety standards because 
selling products that cause injury or death can have negative impacts 
on their brands. The U.S. tort system that exposes companies selling 
unsafe products to lawsuits also helps to ensure that companies comply 
with product safety standards. To respond to industry concerns about 
how to comply with safety standards under current and prior consumer 
product safety laws, some industry groups have also developed or are 
developing their own testing and certification programs.[Footnote 35] 
CPSC indicated that while these types of programs can help improve 
compliance with safety standards, there are limits to how well this 
type of industry self-regulation can be used to protect consumers. They 
indicated that there is a trade-off between consumer protection and 
industry cooperation; if the requirements are too onerous, companies 
might not participate in these voluntary programs. Balancing the 
interests of both consumer and industry participants adds complexity in 
completing CPSC's implementation of CPSIA. 

CPSC Needs Better Targeting Information to Strengthen Enforcement with 
CBP at Ports of Entry: 

CPSC needs better targeting information to strengthen its ability to 
identify risks from imported products and communicate inspection 
priorities to CBP. CPSC and CBP have a cooperative relationship at 
ports of entry. That is, while CPSC relies on CBP to carry out key 
import surveillance and targeting activities at ports, CBP relies on 
CPSC to communicate the greatest risks and its inspection priorities 
among consumer products. However, CPSC has not developed formal systems 
for assessing risks and focusing inspection activities with CBP. 
Furthermore, CPSC does not have access to information that would enable 
the agency to effectively target potentially unsafe imported products 
for inspection. 

Updated MOU with CBP Would Be Useful as CPSC Develops Its Risk 
Assessment Methodology: 

In the past, CPSC has generally used informal systems to target risks 
from imported products and to conduct operations with CBP at ports of 
entry with some positive results. CPSC has generally been effective 
using its informal systems to target certain products for inspection, 
according to several product safety experts we interviewed. For 
instance, CPSC has targeted imported fireworks for increased 
inspections during the summer months. CPSC has also had positive 
results from its participation in Operation Guardian, a multiagency 
effort to combat the increasing importation of substandard, tainted, 
and counterfeit products that pose a health and safety risk to 
consumers.[Footnote 36] Another program that CPSC stated has produced 
positive results is an expansion of the CBP Importer Self-Assessment 
Program that was initiated in October 2008. The expansion, known as the 
Importer Self-Assessment Product Safety Pilot, aims to prevent unsafe 
imports from entering the United States by requiring volunteer 
companies to meet specified internal monitoring criteria in exchange 
for priority in testing, reductions in the testing conducted, and 
access to CPSC training programs.[Footnote 37] However, as discussed 
above, CPSC targeted relatively few imported consumer products for 
inspection under its informal system. 

CPSIA requires CPSC to establish a formal risk assessment methodology 
that will require updating the terms of the relationship between the 
agencies. CPSC and the former U.S. Customs Service (now CBP) 
established a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 1990 that serves as 
the foundation for the working relationship of the agencies for 
enforcement of CPSC's authorities over imported products. For example, 
the MOU provides for "the joint conduct of a mutually agreed number of 
high-visibility, intensive inspection operations annually." This 
provision is consistent with CPSC's informal system for targeting 
risks. The MOU is now out of date and does not reflect anticipated 
changes to CPSC's relationship with CBP required under CPSIA. CPSIA 
requires CPSC, by August 2010, to develop a methodology for identifying 
shipments of imported consumer products that are likely to violate 
import provisions enforced by CPSC.[Footnote 38] A CPSC official told 
us that, as part of the agency's work to develop this risk assessment 
methodology, CPSC plans to create a flowchart of the current product-
entry process to identify gaps in any current CPSC authorities to stop 
unsafe products at the ports. The official noted that CPSC anticipates 
completing the flowchart later this year. Updating the 1990 MOU between 
CPSC and CBP and thereby revisiting the roles and responsibilities of 
each agency would be a useful way for CPSC to identify gaps in the 
current product entry process and speed completion of its risk 
assessment methodology.[Footnote 39] 

Better Advance Shipment Data Would Strengthen CPSC's Targeting Efforts: 

During interviews with CPSC staff and our visit to a U.S. port of entry 
to determine how CPSC prevents the entry of unsafe products into the 
United States, we found that CPSC does not have access to CBP data that 
would provide CPSC with information about products in a shipment before 
it arrives in the United States. CPSC has access to entry summary data, 
which CBP generally receives shortly before a shipment enters the 
United States or, in some cases, as many as 10 days after the shipment 
has been released into commerce. However, CPSC does not have access to 
manifest data, which is provided to CBP 24 hours before a shipping 
vessel bound for the United States is loaded at a foreign port. 
[Footnote 40] CPSC and CBP established a second MOU in 2002, which 
superseded the 1990 MOU, specifying procedures and guidelines for 
information sharing between the agencies with a particular focus on 
CPSC access to CBP data systems. The 2002 MOU was intended to allow 
CPSC access to both entry summary and manifest data. According to a 
CPSC official, CBP has not provided CPSC with access to manifest data 
because it believed the data were not specific enough for CPSC 
purposes. For instance, the manifest data generally do not include the 
name of the importer and may not have specific Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule codes to help CPSC identify the merchandise in the shipment. 
However, CPSC still believes that manifest data will help the agency 
improve its targeting, as it will give CPSC more timely information on 
shipments and potentially more specific information as CPSC seeks to 
revise the Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes to better align them with 
the categories of products they regulate. CBP also acknowledged that, 
while CPSC can use the entry summary data to target future shipments 
for inspection, CPSC cannot place inspection holds on shipments that 
are about to depart for or are in transit to the United States without 
the manifest data. In comparing CPSC border surveillance activities 
with those of other federal agencies that regulate the safety of 
products used by consumers, we found that FDA has a stronger capability 
to target imports using CBP data (discussed further below). FDA 
receives advance shipment data from CBP of all entries containing food 
under FDA jurisdiction that arrive at ports, which FDA then screens 
electronically against criteria it developed to detect potential 
violations. 

CPSC and CBP state that they have been working together to resolve 
information-sharing issues. Specifically, in February 2007, CPSC 
applied for access to the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which 
CBP intends to be a single source for import and export documentation 
that is to provide participating agencies quicker access to data and 
improved ability to identify potentially unsafe shipments of consumer 
products.[Footnote 41] As part of the application process, CPSC has 
submitted to CBP for review an operations plan (a "Concept of 
Operations" or "ConOps") and an update to the 2002 MOU with guidelines 
for the exchange of information.[Footnote 42] The agencies have had 
follow-up discussions on these plans; however, CBP has reported that 
implementation of ITDS has been delayed. As a result, CPSC's efforts to 
access more complete import data to help it better target incoming 
shipments have also been delayed.CPSC staff said that they anticipate 
this work will not be completed until at least 2011. 

In addition to this effort, CPSIA requires CPSC and CBP to improve 
information sharing and coordination. Specifically, CPSIA requires CPSC 
to develop, by August 2009, a plan for sharing information and 
coordinating with CBP.[Footnote 43] According to CPSIA, the proposed 
plan is to consider, at a minimum, the number of CPSC staff that should 
be stationed at U.S. ports and the nature and extent of cooperation 
between CPSC and CBP at the ports. The plan is also to discuss the 
nature and extent of cooperation between CPSC and CBP at the National 
Targeting Center or its equivalent.[Footnote 44] CPSC has not completed 
this plan, and it is unlikely to do so until it updates information-
sharing agreements with CBP. 

A CPSC official told us that as part of developing this plan for 
sharing information with CBP, CPSC is seeking to assign a staff member 
to a planned CBP targeting center that would focus on health and safety 
issues. This targeting center, which would be equivalent to the 
National Targeting Center, would seek to identify shipments of imported 
products that should be stopped at the ports for further screening and 
review. A CPSC official said that, in assigning a staff person to this 
targeting center, the agency would have access to CBP's Automated 
Targeting System.[Footnote 45] However, creation of the health and 
safety planned targeting center has been delayed, so CPSC has not been 
able to place staff at the center or access CBP targeting information, 
delaying its ability to better target imported products. A CPSC 
official explained that the analytical approach that FDA took by 
creating its own system for analyzing data would require a considerable 
investment of both time and money. CPSC prefers the option of working 
with CBP through the planned targeting center to leverage this 
analytical capability. CPSC believes this option would be more 
efficient than developing its own system to analyze data. 

CPSC's Enforcement of Import Safety Authorities Is Limited by Resource 
and Practical Constraints: 

CPSC's enforcement of its authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe 
products into the United States is limited by resource and practical 
constraints. Specifically, CPSC has few staff at ports of entry and 
limited analytical and laboratory support. Furthermore, although CPSC 
has authority to destroy products refused admission, it lacks a source 
of funding to immediately pay for the costs of destruction. In 
addition, while CPSC has authority to condition the importation of 
consumer products based on compliance with CPSC inspection 
requirements, there are practical constraints on the agency's ability 
to conduct inspections of foreign manufacturing plants. 

CPSC's ability to inspect shipments for potential violations at ports 
of entry is limited by resource constraints, such as few staff at ports 
and limited analytical and laboratory support. In passing CPSIA, 
Congress recognized the need to strengthen CPSC's resources, including 
requirements that CPSC increase the number of full-time employees to at 
least 500 by fiscal year 2013 and that CPSC hire additional personnel 
to be assigned to U.S. ports of entry.[Footnote 46] As noted above, 
CPSC had 9 compliance investigators stationed at 7 ports as of July 
2009, as well as 100 product safety investigators in 48 other locations 
across that country that may help to conduct periodic inspections at 
ports of entry. CBP staff indicated that having a CPSC compliance 
investigator collocated at ports has been useful, and during our visit 
to a U.S. port of entry we saw the cooperative relationship between 
agency officials. Furthermore, a CPSC official said that currently 
there is limited analytical support at CPSC headquarters to assist in 
import surveillance work. According to CPSC, the agency cannot 
establish a greater presence at U.S. ports without having the requisite 
analytical support. CPSC also has limited laboratory support for 
testing potentially unsafe products and has faced significant backlogs 
at various times. As of April 2009, CPSC had 28 engineers and 
scientists at its laboratory. CPSC's laboratory facility is located 
across the country from where a large percentage of imported goods 
enter the United States. Moreover, fireworks, which are heavily 
targeted for inspection, must be tested at a separate facility under 
current procedures. As a result of these conditions, testing backlogs 
have inhibited import surveillance efforts. In May 2009, CPSC announced 
that it had secured and was in the process of outfitting a new 
laboratory with enhanced testing facilities. CPSC also announced that 
certain support staff from CPSC headquarters would be collocated at the 
lab to assist the laboratory staff. However, the new facilities still 
cannot accommodate fireworks testing. Moreover, the new facility does 
not provide CPSC with a presence on the West Coast, where many consumer 
products enter the United States. As discussed below, in comparing 
CPSC's resources supporting border surveillance with those of other 
federal agencies that regulate the safety of products used by 
consumers, particularly FDA and USDA, we found that CPSC's resources 
are much less than those of these other agencies. 

According to CPSC and CBP, CPSC can refuse entry for products that 
violate U.S. laws, but CPSC does not have immediate funding available 
to subsequently destroy these products if the importers do not destroy 
or export these products at their own expense. Instead, CPSC generally 
asks CBP to seize unsafe products, and CBP is authorized to access the 
U.S. Department of the Treasury's Forfeiture Fund to cover the cost of 
product destruction. The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is also available to 
CBP for other enforcement purposes, so that any money CBP uses for 
destroying seized products reduces the amount of money available to CBP 
for other purposes. Moreover, CBP is concerned that the costs of 
product destruction are likely to increase as CPSC fully implements 
CPSIA. Although CBP requires that formal entries be covered by a bond, 
which is another funding source that may be used to cover the cost of 
product destruction, we found that CBP has not pursued bonds for that 
purpose because they may not cover the full cost of destruction. CPSC 
officials also noted that bonds are not immediately available for 
product destruction but may only be recovered to reimburse destruction 
costs. However, a new mandate in CPSIA requires CPSC to work with CBP 
to set bond amounts sufficient to cover these costs.[Footnote 47] CBP 
and CPSC's efforts to implement this requirement are still in process. 
Given the limited resources immediately available for product 
destruction, CBP indicated that CPSC and other federal agencies might 
explore other funding sources for this purpose. However, we previously 
found that estimating the cost of destroying consumer products is 
difficult given the wide range of products CPSC oversees, making it 
challenging to determine the appropriate size of a dedicated fund. In 
addition to setting aside enough funds for product destruction, CPSC 
would have to consider establishing parameters on the use of any 
funding source it administers.[Footnote 48] 

While CPSC has broad authority to conduct inspections of manufacturers 
and importers, significant resource and practical constraints limit its 
ability to conduct traditional inspections of foreign manufacturing 
plants. CPSC is required by rule to condition the import of a consumer 
product on the product manufacturer's compliance with CPSC inspection 
and recordkeeping requirements.[Footnote 49] CPSC does not conduct 
inspections in foreign countries, and CPSC and many product safety and 
international trade experts cite several constraints on its ability to 
do so. Specifically, these parties state that U.S. inspectors would 
likely need the consent of both the foreign manufacturer and the 
foreign government to conduct an inspection. Other experts stated that 
such consent from a foreign government, if granted, may be accompanied 
by a request for the same rights to inspect U.S. manufacturing plants. 
Another constraint on inspections of foreign manufacturers is that such 
a program would need to be prohibitively large in order to be 
effective, perhaps larger than CPSC's domestic inspection program. As 
noted earlier, CPSC had about 100 product safety investigators in 48 
locations to conduct its domestic inspections as of July 2009. Also, it 
is not clear what CPSC would look for when inspecting foreign 
manufacturing plants given that CPSC evaluates the final product for 
compliance with product safety regulations rather than the production 
process. As noted above, CPSC may condition the import of consumer 
products on cooperation with inspections. However, ensuring that the 
specific manufacturer's products do not enter the United States would 
be difficult without detailed knowledge of individual companies' supply 
chains, which could be gained through inspection of the manufacturer's 
records.[Footnote 50] Due to these legal and practical constraints, 
CPSC stated that expanding its international education and outreach 
activities rather than conducting inspections of foreign manufacturing 
plants would more effectively prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 
products. 

Authorities of Select Agencies Are Comparable to CPSC's, but FDA and 
USDA's Border Surveillance Activities and Overseas Presence Provide 
Useful Information for Strengthening CPSC's Implementation of Its 
Authorities: 

CPSC's regulatory authority to prevent the entry of unsafe imports is 
generally comparable to that of certain other federal agencies with 
substantial responsibility over the safety of products entering the 
United States. However, various border surveillance activities of FDA 
and USDA--particularly with respect to obtaining advance shipment data, 
allocating staff resources to border operations, and targeting 
capabilities, as well as efforts to work with foreign governments to 
educate foreign manufacturers about U.S. safety standards--provide 
useful information for strengthening CPSC's efforts to prevent the 
entry of unsafe products. 

CPSC's Authorities to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Products Are 
Generally Comparable to Those of Other Federal Agencies: 

CPSC's authorities to prevent the entry of unsafe products are 
generally comparable to the authorities of four other federal agencies: 
FDA, which oversees, among other things, food, drugs, and medical 
devices; NHTSA, which, through delegated authority of the Secretary of 
Transportation, oversees motor vehicles and equipment; Food Safety and 
Inspection Service (FSIS), an agency of USDA that oversees egg 
products, poultry, and meat; and Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS), an agency of USDA that oversees plants and animals. 
CPSC's authorities provide it with similar or stronger authority to 
require or engage in certain activities compared with the authorities 
of the other agencies we studied. 

* Safety standards: All of these agencies have authority to regulate 
and enforce product safety standards or bans relevant to products under 
their jurisdiction.[Footnote 51] 

* Border surveillance: All of these agencies except NHTSA appear to 
have specific authority to conduct border surveillance activities and 
broad authority to refuse entry to items that fail to comply with 
relevant standards, among other things.[Footnote 52] NHTSA officials 
told us that, like CPSC, NHTSA requests that CBP detain and seize 
products at the border on its behalf. 

* Product certification/testing: Similar to FDA, manufacturers must 
certify to CPSC that their products comply with relevant standards, and 
this certification must be based on a reasonable testing program or, in 
the case of certain children's products, the tests must be performed by 
third parties.[Footnote 53] Under FSIS, containers of eggs, egg 
products, poultry, and meat must be labeled as having passed 
inspection. Although NHTSA authorities require manufacturers of 
vehicles and equipment to certify that products comply with applicable 
federal safety standards, these certifications are not required to be 
based on testing. 

* Temporary hold at ports: CPSC, FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have the 
authority to temporarily hold shipments at U.S. ports for inspection. 

* Foreign inspection: Like FDA and FSIS, CPSC is not expressly 
prohibited from requesting consent to inspect foreign facilities. 
Specifically, CPSC may request inspection of foreign manufacturing or 
distribution facilities, third-party testing laboratories, or 
conveyances used to transport consumer products in commerce.[Footnote 
54] As discussed above, CPSC does not conduct foreign inspections. Both 
FSIS and FDA have been successful in obtaining access to foreign 
facilities for the purpose of inspections or audits where incentives 
are strong for foreign entities to grant this access. For example, 
access is generally provided for requests that are tied to applications 
or audits before products may be eligible for import into the United 
States.[Footnote 55] FDA officials told us that in practice, if a 
foreign firm refuses to permit such an inspection, FDA can sometimes 
refuse admission of products offered for import into the U.S. For 
example, the refusal to permit an inspection could lead to a product 
not receiving a required pre-market approval or the refusal to permit 
an inspection, combined with other information, could support a 
determination of the appearance of a violation. According to NHTSA, it 
does not have the authority to inspect foreign facilities for the 
manufacture of vehicles and vehicle equipment imported into the United 
States. 

* Consent to local court jurisdiction: Based on our interviews with 
officials at the federal agencies we studied, none of the agencies 
requires foreign manufacturers to consent to the jurisdiction of local 
courts with respect to enforcement actions. Some agencies, including 
CPSC, told us they do not see a need for this requirement, as they have 
been able to effectively carry out their enforcement duties under 
existing authorities. For example, foreign manufacturers seeking to 
offer motor vehicles for import into the United States are required by 
statute to designate a U.S. resident or firm as its agent to receive 
service of notices and process in administrative and judicial 
proceedings, and service on the agent is deemed to be service on the 
foreign manufacturer or importer.[Footnote 56] Also, FSIS told us that 
they expect foreign governments to carry out enforcement actions for 
their manufacturers that are certified to export to the United States. 
CPSC noted that it has satisfied its enforcement objectives by pursuing 
the domestic partners--manufacturers, importers, and retailers--of the 
foreign manufacturer without needing to resort to adjudicative 
proceedings. For example, in June 2009, CPSC reached a $2.3 million 
settlement with Mattel, Inc., regarding the importation of toys made in 
China that violated a federal ban on paint containing lead. [Footnote 
57] Furthermore, CPSC also has the ability to settle enforcement 
actions with foreign parties. For example, in July 2009, CPSC reached a 
$50,000 settlement with a Hong Kong corporation with offices in the 
United States regarding the importation of toys manufactured in China 
that also violated the commission's lead paint ban.[Footnote 58] 
Finally, CPSC staff we interviewed stated that the agency prefers to 
expand its international education and outreach programs rather than 
require foreign manufacturers to consent to U.S. jurisdiction to 
effectively prevent the entry of unsafe products, although they 
acknowledged that consent to jurisdiction or a requirement of a U.S. 
agent for service of process would be helpful.[Footnote 59] Appendix II 
contains a more detailed discussion of the elements of establishing 
personal jurisdiction in U.S. courts. 

The requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act appear to demand 
more from manufacturers than NHTSA with respect to preventing the entry 
of unsafe imports. NHTSA's key authorities to ensure the safety of 
imported goods are to prescribe mandatory vehicle safety standards and 
to require foreign and domestic manufacturers to certify compliance 
with these standards. However, these certifications are not required to 
be based on a testing program, unlike CPSC's new certification 
requirements for children's products, nor are the results of any 
testing required to be reported to NHTSA as a condition to entry. 
Appendix III contains a more detailed description of the agencies' key 
authorities for preventing the entry of unsafe products. 

Where key differences exist in these agencies' authorities, they appear 
to be due to differences in the types of products under an agency's 
jurisdiction and the particular risks that are presented. As such, 
these differences are not directly applicable to CPSC as it improves 
its ability to ensure the safety of imported goods. 

* FSIS's foreign country equivalency: A major feature of FSIS's 
framework for ensuring the safety of imported meat, poultry, and egg 
products is a requirement that foreign countries have a certified food 
safety system equivalent to that of the United States. As of fiscal 
year 2008, 34 foreign countries were eligible to import these products 
into the United States. According to an FSIS budget document, the 
United States invests substantial resources, over $800 million in 
fiscal year 2008, in the inspection of domestic products.[Footnote 60] 
The amount of funds spent on domestic inspection is relevant given that 
the concept of foreign equivalency is predicated on there being a 
domestic inspection program. As such, it is unclear how FSIS's country 
equivalency program could be adapted for CPSC given that CPSC does not 
have comparable resources for the inspection of domestic products, with 
a budget of about $80 million in fiscal year 2008 for all of its 
activities. Furthermore, the concept of equivalency for meat, poultry, 
and egg products is established in a 1994 multilateral trade agreement, 
to which the United States is a signatory.[Footnote 61] According to 
the United States Trade Representative, it is not clear whether any WTO 
Agreement to which the United States is a party specifically precludes 
application of an equivalency requirement to consumer products. 

* FDA's preapproval of certain drugs and medical devices: In addition, 
FDA requires drug manufacturers to obtain prior approval for marketing 
certain drugs in the United States and for selling certain medical 
devices.[Footnote 62] However, FDA's prior approval requirement would 
be inefficient for CPSC given the diversity of products it oversees and 
the frequency with which these products change or are updated. CPSC 
oversees thousands of types of consumer products, and many of the 
products it oversees, especially toys, change or are updated every 
year. 

Other key statutory differences across agency authorities need not be 
addressed by providing CPSC with new authorities because CPSC officials 
have told us they already consider CPSC to have similar authorities. 

* Agreements with foreign governments and overseas presence: FDA is 
authorized to participate through appropriate processes with 
representatives of other foreign countries to reduce the burden of 
regulation, harmonize regulatory requirements, and achieve appropriate 
reciprocal arrangements, including international agreements such as 
mutual recognition agreements, agreements to facilitate commerce in 
devices, and memorandums of understanding, among other things.[Footnote 
63] As discussed below, CPSC already has MOUs with foreign governments, 
including China and the EU, and is finalizing plans for its first 
overseas office in Beijing, China, in 2010. 

Other Federal Agencies' Border Surveillance and Overseas Activities to 
Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Products May Be Useful for CPSC to 
Consider: 

As CPSC considers ways to improve its ability to prevent the entry of 
unsafe imports, various agencies' border surveillance and outreach 
activities to foreign governments and industry provide useful 
information. FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have expansive border surveillance 
activities based on the amount of data obtained on incoming shipments, 
number of staff supporting border surveillance operations, and 
targeting programs and information technology systems that help to 
integrate data from various sources for use in making border entry 
decisions. These capabilities enable these agencies to screen incoming 
shipments for a greater number of risks than CPSC does. According to 
data provided by CPSC, the agency has generally focused on relatively 
few categories of consumer products since 2001, specifically toys, 
fireworks, lighters, and electrical products (such as holiday lights 
and extension cords). 

* FDA and FSIS have better access to data for screening incoming 
shipments than CPSC. FDA receives shipment data from CBP for all 
entries under FDA jurisdiction that are imported or offered for import, 
which FDA then screens electronically against criteria it developed to 
detect potential violations, including information from domestic 
surveillance and outreach to foreign governments. In addition, the 
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 
of 2002 requires that FDA be given advance notice on shipments of 
imported food. FDA allows importers to provide this data no more than 
30 days in advance of the date of arrival. This advance information 
helps FDA determine whether the food potentially poses a bioterrorism 
or other significant health risk such that FDA should deploy resources 
to the port of arrival so that an inspection can be conducted before 
the product enters the United States. FDA officials told us that this 
information has been so important in screening food shipments for 
potential violations that they are considering expanding prior 
notification requirements to all products the agency oversees. FSIS 
requires by regulation that various information accompany shipments of 
meat, poultry, and egg products in order to be considered for admission 
into the United States, including a foreign health certificate. As 
discussed earlier, while CPSC receives entry summary data regarding 
shipments already released into commerce, CPSC does not receive data on 
incoming shipments prior to their arrival at U.S. ports of entry, 
though CBP receives such data as much as 24 hours before the shipment 
is loaded in the foreign port. Without advance shipment data, CPSC 
lacks information that other agencies have found useful in screening 
incoming shipments for potential safety violations. 

* FDA and USDA have significantly more staff supporting border 
operations than CPSC. Federal agencies assign staff resources to border 
operations to identify and refuse admission to potentially unsafe 
imported products. NHTSA has no staff dedicated to border operations, 
but instead relies on CBP to screen incoming shipments and third-party 
laboratories to test pulled shipments. However, FDA, FSIS, and APHIS 
assign significantly more staff resources to border operations. 
According to FSIS officials, the agency physically examines 100 percent 
of meat, poultry, and egg product shipments presented for import with 
about 75 inspectors located at approximately 150 facilities near 35 
border entry points. In addition, FSIS employed 20 import surveillance 
officers as of fiscal year 2009. APHIS officials told us 100 percent of 
plants and animals are inspected in cooperation with CBP. Because of 
the high percentage of shipments that are inspected, staff resources 
are accordingly greater. For example, about 1,800 port staff had been 
assigned to inspect fruit and plants at 139 ports of entry as of 2003. 
FDA examines approximately 1 percent of food presented for import and 
has requested about $382 million for fiscal year 2010 for activities 
that support import safety. This amount would fund approximately 700 
staff supporting import examinations alone, including port operations, 
of which 78 percent would be field based. FDA personnel cover most 
ports of entry into the United States, including 297 ports in fiscal 
year 2008, but for the ports where FDA does not maintain a normal 
presence, it coordinates with CBP to ensure it is notified of relevant 
incoming shipments for which examination and/or sampling may take 
place. FDA's border inspection activities are supported by compliance 
programs for agency field staff to use in carrying out inspections, 
sample collections, and analyses, among other things. For food safety 
alone, there are approximately 25 compliance programs and 12 that cover 
different imported foods.[Footnote 64] While FDA, FSIS, and APHIS have 
significant resources devoted to the port and overseas activities, they 
still face significant challenges in ensuring that products entering 
the United States are safe for consumers. As discussed earlier, CPSC 
has 9 compliance investigators at seven ports of entry, as well as 
about 100 product safety investigators located across the United States 
who work episodically to support the import surveillance program. 
Although the missions of FDA, USDA, and CPSC differ, CPSC's staff 
resources supporting border surveillance are much less than the staff 
resources of these other agencies and may not be adequate to prevent 
unsafe products from entering the United States. 

* FDA and USDA have more sophisticated information technology systems 
and analytical support to target potential risks at border entry 
points. FDA, FSIS, and APHIS invest significant resources in 
information technology systems that support border surveillance 
efforts. To oversee inspection of plants and animals, CBP created 
positions in each of its 20 district offices for agriculture liaisons. 
These liaisons not only advise CBP on border surveillance operations 
but also report back to APHIS on risks detected at the border for the 
purpose of expanding targeting operations. These liaisons have access 
to CBP's Automated Targeting System, a computer system that stores 
detailed information from cargo manifests and other documents that 
shipping companies are required to provide before shipments arrive at 
ports for inspection.[Footnote 65] This system allows border staff to 
focus inspections on higher risk cargo. FSIS invests substantially--
nearly $1 billion--in data infrastructure systems to assist its border 
inspections by linking inspection data with other public health 
information that is designed for FSIS to quickly and accurately 
identify trends and vulnerabilities affecting meat, poultry, and egg 
products. In addition, FSIS has developed a centralized computer 
system--the Automated Import Information System (AIIS)--that links all 
ports and tracks prior inspection results from each country and each 
foreign establishment for use in generating the type of inspection 
required on incoming shipments.[Footnote 66] FDA also uses an 
electronic environment--Operational and Administrative System for 
Import Support (OASIS)--to screen shipments presented for entry for 
relative risks and for making entry or inspection decisions.[Footnote 
67] OASIS links with other data systems within FDA to leverage the 
latest information relating to public health. Also, FDA staff manually 
enter criteria into OASIS from sources such as import alert documents 
so that products can be flagged as they enter U.S. customs territory 
for the appearance of violations. According to FDA officials, there are 
currently about 270 import alerts in effect.[Footnote 68] FDA officials 
also told us that the overseas audits and direct communication with 
foreign governments provide useful information in helping border 
surveillance agents make entry determination decisions. As discussed 
earlier, CPSC targets few products for border inspections and has not 
developed formal systems for assessing risks and providing port staff 
with risk management tools. 

Whereas border surveillance efforts are geared toward intercepting 
potentially unsafe products at U.S. borders, outreach activities 
focused overseas may prevent potentially unsafe products from being 
shipped to U.S. ports. To this end, FDA and USDA assign staff to 
permanent positions in foreign countries and send staff overseas on a 
temporary basis to conduct educational workshops, as well as to conduct 
audits and inspections. Furthermore, some agencies have established 
cooperative agreements with foreign agencies to facilitate product 
safety. 

* FDA and APHIS overseas outreach efforts help inform agencies about 
unsafe products. APHIS has more than 80 people around the world working 
with foreign embassies on plant and animal health issues. FDA announced 
the opening of offices in three cities in China in November 2008, and 
it has also announced plans to place technical experts and inspectors 
in four other regions, including Europe, India, Latin America, and the 
Middle East.[Footnote 69] These staff would be supported by 
approximately 8 staff in FDA headquarters in the United States. In 
addition, FDA has plans to hire 20 locally employed staff. FDA staff 
told us that an in-country presence is useful in preventing the entry 
of unsafe products because it improves the information border agents 
have to make entry decisions and allows the agency to train foreign 
establishments about compliance requirements. As discussed in more 
detail later, CPSC states that, with increased resources, it plans to 
open its first overseas office in Beijing, China, to facilitate safety 
efforts with one of the largest exporters of consumer products to the 
United States. 

* FDA and FSIS conduct temporary visits, audits, or investigations in 
foreign countries that help to build foreign awareness of U.S. product 
safety laws. FSIS conducts on-site audits of foreign manufacturers as 
part of its systems equivalence determinations of foreign countries' 
food safety systems. FDA officials told us that the audits and 
announced inspections it conducts of overseas manufacturers are very 
useful in training these manufacturers about U.S. standards. 
Furthermore, FDA has reported that it has engaged in a variety of 
efforts with foreign governments to build foreign capacity and provide 
technical assistance. For example, they report holding regional 
workshops in Peru and China, participating in a multilateral food 
safety meeting geared toward developing a rapid alert system, and 
auditing Chinese government inspectors during their review of 13 
Chinese firms to detect drug residues in aquaculture products. As 
discussed earlier, CPSC does not conduct foreign inspections. However, 
CPSC staff have conducted visits to foreign manufacturing plants with 
the permission of the foreign government. CPSC also has plans for 
conducting three outreach and training events each for foreign 
government officials and foreign manufacturers in fiscal year 2010, but 
the agency is limited in its outreach efforts due to limited numbers of 
staff. 

* FDA and FSIS have actively engaged with foreign governments on food 
safety. FDA has actively engaged with foreign governments to develop 
cooperative arrangements and agreements, including a substantial number 
of international government-to-government agreements. FDA's Web site 
indicates a total of 63 MOUs or other cooperative agreements with about 
25 different foreign countries.[Footnote 70] FSIS has also negotiated 
government-to-government agreements as part of the food safety system 
equivalency determination process. Specifically, some countries have 
negotiated alternative sanitary measures to obtain this certification. 
As of July 2009, CPSC has established MOUs for the purpose of consumer 
product safety with 16 foreign agencies, as discussed later, but this 
activity has occurred fairly recently and over the last few years. 

Information Sharing and Cooperation among Countries Provide Way to 
Bridge Differences and Strengthen CPSC's Implementation of Its 
Authorities, but CPSC Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Guide Its Work: 

Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and the United States have some 
similar authorities for consumer product safety, but institutional 
structures to implement these authorities vary from country to country, 
reflecting unique national approaches. Countries also share similar 
challenges--such as inconsistent laws and standards and ineffective 
cooperation and liaison among agencies involved in consumer product 
safety--and national governments' efforts to address import safety 
challenges have intensified in light of the growing volume of imports 
and recent consumer safety incidents. Among officials we interviewed, 
there is broad consensus that continued cooperation among governments, 
regulators and multilateral organizations can improve consumer product 
safety policy and enforcement consistency and, ultimately, the 
effectiveness of import safety frameworks. CPSC's Office of 
International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs participates in 
numerous activities with other countries and multilateral 
organizations. However, CPSC does not have comprehensive plans to guide 
its work with these countries and multilateral organizations due to 
resource constraints and other priorities, according to CPSC officials. 

While Similarities in Import Safety Authorities and Challenges Exist 
among Certain Countries, Their Institutional Structures and 
Implementation Reflect Unique National Approaches: 

Import safety authorities in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, and the 
United States reflect certain shared values and experiences. According 
to the OECD, a fundamental objective of consumer product safety policy 
is to prevent consumers from suffering harm as a consequence of using 
products that present an unreasonable risk of injury. While these 
countries have similar authorities, however, the implementation of 
those authorities may be different. For example, all the countries 
monitor both domestically manufactured and imported products, and all 
conduct some type of product testing and/or sampling. However, some of 
the countries monitor goods on their own initiative, while others 
operate on the basis of complaints that they receive about particular 
goods and products. 

According to the officials representing the countries we reviewed, none 
of those countries has the authority to conduct an extraterritorial 
inspection of the facilities of a foreign manufacturer that exports 
products to that country. In most cases, these officials stated that 
the countries have been more successful in working with the exporting 
country and its manufacturers in order to correct problems that may 
arise. These officials also stated that none of the countries we 
reviewed has the authority to require foreign manufacturers to consent 
to local jurisdiction. U.S. Embassy and Australian government officials 
indicated that, under current law, Australia could ask foreign 
jurisdictions to enforce Australian consumer product safety laws; 
however, the Australian government prefers other methods, such as 
approaching manufacturers directly to raise safety concerns. 

The approach countries take to consumer product safety begins 
fundamentally with how they define "safe" and "unsafe" products. The 
definitions vary considerably from country to country, as indicated in 
appendix IV. According to a report by the OECD, most countries apply 
broad principles to determine whether a product can be defined as safe. 
[Footnote 71] For example, according to this report, in some countries 
(Japan, the United States, and the EU) all products must meet a 
positive standard--that is, they should be safe for consumers to use or 
consume prior to market distribution. Businesses selling unsafe goods 
may be subject to regulatory action, regardless of whether the product 
has caused a specific accident, injury, or harm to a consumer. In other 
countries (Australia and Canada), according to the OECD report, 
products must not breach a negative standard--that is, once the goods 
are placed on the market they should not carry an unreasonable risk of 
injury or death. The report notes that producers are held liable for 
the negative effects of their products once placed on the market. 

According to officials, some variations exist with other authorities. 
They noted that in most of the countries we reviewed only a relatively 
small number of imported consumer products are subject to mandatory 
standards. However, according to a senior representative of an 
industrial association in Europe, the wide variety of product standards 
among countries, combined with variable concepts and legal 
interpretations applied by governments makes it difficult for industry 
to ensure safety and for countries to coordinate enforcement efforts. 
There are also differences in the case of product certification. 
Officials stated that neither Australia nor Canada requires 
certification for imported products. According to Japanese government 
officials, certain imported and domestic products in Japan are subject 
to product testing and cannot be sold in Japan without certification to 
prescribed standards. In the EU, according to official documentation, 
businesses must carry out conformity and safety assessments of their 
products in accordance with the General Product Safety Directive 
(GPSD),[Footnote 72] and businesses are required to certify that their 
products are safe, as defined under GPSD. The documentation indicates 
that for some products self-declaration is sufficient, but other 
products require third-party verification. 

According to the OECD report on consumer product safety, institutional 
structures for product safety can also vary from country to country, 
which can sometimes create challenges for coordination within and among 
countries and, in many cases, accounts for differences in enforcement 
and implementation of authorities. The report states that in Canada, 
consumer product safety policy, development, enforcement, information, 
and education functions are in one organization, Health Canada, with 
the provinces retaining some enforcement responsibilities. In the 
United States, CPSC is the primary agency responsible for implementing 
and enforcing federal consumer product safety laws and establishing 
consumer product safety policy. The OECD report further notes that some 
countries have institutional arrangements that separate policy and 
enforcement functions. In Japan, for example, policy responsibility is 
spread across the government in a range of departments, with a central 
coordinating function in a central policy agency (the Cabinet Office). 
Certain other countries, such as Australia, have regionally focused 
policy and enforcement structures for consumer product safety that 
reflect a division of powers and responsibilities between the national 
government and states, provinces or regions. In the EU, policy 
responsibilities lie with the European Commission, the executive arm of 
the EU responsible for defining and implementing its policies and 
running its programs. However, individual EU member countries are 
responsible in their respective territories for enforcement--market 
surveillance, product monitoring and testing, and possible restrictive 
or corrective actions. 

Countries also share similar challenges as they respond to changing 
demands in the international market place. Similar to the United 
States, national governments' efforts to address import safety problems 
have intensified in light of the growing volume of imports entering 
each country and recent consumer safety incidents. According to the 
OECD report, many countries face enforcement challenges at both 
domestic and international levels, including: 

* finite resources; 

* inconsistent laws, regulations, standards, and sanctions within 
countries and across borders; 

* ineffective cooperation and liaison among agencies involved in 
consumer product safety enforcement; and: 

* insufficient sharing of injury information across borders. 

Governments have taken a variety of actions to address these 
challenges, including enacting new laws and regulations and, in some 
cases, they have created new organizations to address new consumer 
safety challenges. See appendix IV for more information. 

Engagement among Countries Provides Ways to Address Shared Import 
Safety Challenges: 

Officials in Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan and the United States 
indicate that a mix of bilateral (country-to-country) and multilateral 
(involving multiple countries) exchanges and agreements among importing 
and exporting countries has been useful in addressing import safety 
challenges. The CPSC and its counterparts in other countries have taken 
a particularly active role in engaging China on consumer safety issues 
to create more transparent and cooperative relationships. 

According to the OECD's 2008 Report on Consumer Product Safety, 
bilateral engagement helps facilitate an exchange of information 
regarding consumer product safety issues and provides a mechanism for 
coordinated action against unsafe products. In the United States, 
CPSC's Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs 
administers MOUs between CPSC and consumer product safety entities in 
other countries, maintains regular contact with key exporting 
countries, and attends meetings and discussions sponsored by 
multilateral organizations. According to CPSC, as of June 2009, the 
office had established MOUs for the purpose of consumer product safety 
with 16 foreign agencies in Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Israel, 
South Korea, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, India, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, 
Egypt, Columbia, and Vietnam. CPSC's Office of International Programs 
also conducts training sessions in various countries to explain U.S. 
import safety processes and procedures. According to CPSC, staff hold 
monthly teleconferences with the agency's counterparts in Canada, 
China, and the EU, and every two months CPSC holds a three-way 
teleconference with Mexico and China to provide additional 
opportunities for engagement. In 2008, CPSC created a Chinese-language 
page on the CPSC Web site and, not long after, a Vietnamese-language 
page to help facilitate information sharing. The pages provide 
information about U.S. product safety requirements, including relevant 
regulations and standards for products bound for the U.S. market, as 
well as information about the new CPSIA. 

Over the last few years, CPSC has increased its bilateral engagement 
with China. According to CPSC, the first U.S.-China Product Safety 
Summit was held in Beijing in 2005 and culminated in a joint Action 
Plan on Consumer Product Safety. CPSC and its counterpart in China, the 
General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ), established four working groups focused on 
fireworks, toys, lighters, and electrical products. According to CPSC, 
a third summit will be held in October 2009 and will build on the 
previous two, with the goal of institutionalizing a culture of product 
safety among Chinese consumer product manufacturers and exporters. In 
2005, CPSC established a China Program Plan as a way of managing CPSC's 
various China-related activities and as the basis for an overall 
strategy to promote the safety and compliance of Chinese consumer 
products exported to the United States. Although the plan is to be 
updated on an annual basis to account for changing conditions and new 
opportunities for progress, CPSC has not updated the China Program Plan 
since 2007. According to a senior CPSC official, the fiscal year 2008 
and 2009 plans were essentially the same as the 2007 plan. He stated, 
however, that a revised China Program Plan for 2010 will be submitted 
to the reconstituted commission and will be published when approved. 

Other countries have also established bilateral agreements with China. 
The European Commission engages in international contacts and 
cooperation and has, for instance, agreed on a Memorandum of 
Understanding with China's AQSIQ.[Footnote 73] According to the EU, one 
of the key initiatives launched by the EU and China has involved the 
RAPEX system, the EU's Rapid Alert System for nonfood consumer 
products.[Footnote 74] In May 2006, according to EU documentation, the 
European Commission decided to provide China's AQSIQ with access to the 
RAPEX system--specifically its notifications on products coming from 
China. EU officials report that China agreed to investigate all 
reported cases of dangerous products of Chinese origin and report back 
to the EU on the results, including withdrawals of export license and 
other corrective actions.[Footnote 75] Also, EU officials state that 
certain individual EU Member States have established limited bilateral 
contacts with China. According to Health Canada, Canada signed an 
agreement with China on import safety in 2007. A summit between China, 
the EU, and the United States occurred in November 2008 to strengthen 
consumer product safety trilateral cooperation, according to U.S. and 
EU documents. As a key exporting nation, China has revised some of its 
own laws, regulations, and procedures in response to high-profile 
recalls of Chinese-made goods and the consequent international 
engagement on these issues, according to a senior CPSC official. He 
indicated that an example of such a change occurred in March 2009, when 
the Chinese National Institute of Standardization approved 
Administrative Guidelines for Safe Consumer Product Manufacturing that 
emphasizes the role of manufacturers in ensuring consumer product 
safety. In addition, the CPSC official stated that China's AQSIQ had 
reported to CPSC that it has increased significantly the inspection of 
paint on export toys and closed down many factories that failed to 
implement a government requirement of selecting paint suppliers for 
toys only from a government-approved list. 

Multilateral engagement on consumer product safety issues provides 
other ways to encourage sharing of information and lessons learned on 
consumer product safety among a larger group of nations. Organizations 
such as OECD, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), and the 
International Consumer Product Safety Caucus provide additional 
frameworks for cooperation. U.S. and other officials believe that 
continued cooperation and coordination among governments and regulators 
can improve policy consistency and enforcement and, ultimately, the 
effectiveness of consumer product safety frameworks, particularly since 
consumer safety enforcement challenges are shared by most nations. 

On October 23, 2008, the OECD's Committee on Consumer Policy hosted its 
first Roundtable on International Consumer Product Safety, with an aim 
to examine consumer product safety trends and challenges at both 
domestic and international levels. The Director of CPSC's Office of 
International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs attended this 
meeting, as did other OECD member nation representatives. The final 
report identified a number of key issues shared by member nations and 
initiatives for the future.[Footnote 76] CPSC representatives have also 
participated in APEC discussions concerning consumer product safety. In 
2007, APEC leaders agreed on the need to develop a more robust approach 
to strengthening food and consumer product safety standards and 
practices in the region, using scientific, risk-based approaches and 
without creating unnecessary impediments to trade, according to APEC 
documents. APEC members reconvened in 2009 to determine future work on 
consumer product safety. CPSC's Chairman and three staff participated 
in an APEC regulators' dialogue on toy safety in August 2009 in 
Singapore aimed at strengthening information exchange among APEC 
members' product safety officials. 

The International Consumer Product Safety Caucus is another platform 
that facilitates the exchange of information on consumer product safety 
issues in the area of governmental policy, legislation and market 
surveillance, with a view to strengthening collaboration and 
cooperation among governments and regulatory agencies around the world. 
Current active members include Australia, Canada, China, the EU, Korea, 
Japan, and the United States (represented by CPSC). The caucus meets at 
least twice a year. 

CPSC Has Not Developed Long-term Plans for International Activities: 

While CPSC participates in numerous activities with other countries and 
multilateral organizations to establish and strengthen coordinated 
actions against unsafe consumer products, and has established MOUs with 
16 foreign agencies for this purpose, CPSC does not have plans covering 
its work with these countries and multilateral organizations--except 
for China. According to CPSC, this is due to resource limitations in 
CPSC's Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs 
(as discussed earlier, the office has four staff) and because of its 
focus on China as the single largest source of foreign-made products. A 
senior CPSC official stated that with the creation of an additional 
staff position in the Office of International Programs, the office 
plans to expand its program planning to better address other countries. 
However, without a long-term plan that incorporates all the office's 
activities, it is difficult to accurately assess current and future 
resource needs and take best advantage of opportunities for future 
coordination and cooperation among importing and exporting nations that 
CPSC considers integral to preventing the entry of unsafe products. 
Long-term planning is particularly important for CPSC's Office of 
International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs because of the 
diverse nature of its responsibilities and to ensure consistency in 
CPSC's policies. 

CPSC Has Established Annual Goals and Short-term Plans to Prevent the 
Entry of Unsafe Products, but Lacks a Long-term Plan for the Future: 

CPSC has established annual goals and short-term plans to prevent the 
entry of unsafe products but lacks a long-term plan to address the 
agency's growing role in import safety. Without a long-term plan, CPSC 
is not fully prepared to use new authorities granted in CPSIA, nor is 
it able to effectively address the safety of imported products through 
international means or to appropriately allocate any potential 
increases in agency resources. 

CPSC Has Established Short-term Plans and Annual Goals for Import 
Safety: 

In May 2009, CPSC submitted a 2010 Performance Budget Request to 
Congress, which contains a section called the Import Safety Initiative. 
This initiative has three key principles: (1) assure that product 
safety is built into manufacturing and distribution processes from the 
start, (2) increase enforcement at the border to stop dangerous goods 
from entering the country, and (3) enhance surveillance of the 
marketplace to remove unsafe products from store shelves. These three 
principles are consistent with principles established on a 
governmentwide basis in 2007. In particular, the principles are 
consistent with those established by the Interagency Working Group on 
Import Safety, of which CPSC was a part.[Footnote 77] The working group 
issued an Action Plan for Import Safety in November 2007 that 
established three organizing principles: (1) prevention, which means to 
prevent harm in the first place by working with the private sector and 
foreign governments to adopt an approach to import safety that builds 
safety into manufacturing and distribution processes; (2) intervention, 
which means to act swiftly and in a coordinated manner when problems 
are discovered to seize, destroy, or otherwise prevent dangerous goods 
from advancing beyond the point of entry; and (3) response, which means 
to take swift action to limit potential exposure and harm to the 
American public in the event an unsafe import makes its way into 
domestic commerce. 

As part of the governmentwide strategy, CPSC developed its Import 
Safety Initiative, which contains annual goals that are consistent with 
the initiative's key principles, but it is a short-term plan. For 
example, to help assure that product safety is built into manufacturing 
and distribution processes from the start, CSPC states that it plans to 
conduct three outreach and training events for foreign government 
officials in 2010 and three outreach and training events for foreign 
manufacturers. CPSC also has a short-term plan for how it will manage 
its various China-related activities and states that, for 2010, staff 
will review and update this plan. To increase enforcement at the 
border, CPSC states that it plans to increase the number of full-time 
staff working at U.S. ports and to increase the number of sample 
products screened at the ports. CPSC's Import Safety Initiative also 
links goals to requests for increased resources. For example, CPSC 
states that, with increased resources, it plans to increase its 
presence at U.S. ports of entry and open its first overseas office in 
Beijing, China. 

CPSC officials have described to us other short-term plans that they 
developed to respond to requirements and authorizations in CPSIA. For 
example, as discussed earlier in this report, CPSC's decision to assign 
additional full-time staff to ports responds to Section 202 of CPSIA, 
which requires CPSC to hire personnel to be assigned to duty stations 
at U.S. ports of entry, or to inspect overseas manufacturing 
facilities, subject to the availability of appropriations. In its 
Import Safety Initiative, CPSC requests funding for 10 additional staff 
to be assigned to ports in 2010. A CPSC official with whom we spoke 
said that he expects the number of staff assigned to ports to grow from 
its current level of 9 to about 50 over the next few years. However, 
CPSC has conducted limited analyses of how it plans to assign 
additional staff to ports in the coming years, and standard operating 
procedures that describe compliance investigators' roles and 
responsibilities at ports of entry have not been updated since 1989. 
CPSC officials acknowledged the need to update these procedures. CPSIA 
also requires CPSC, as discussed earlier in this report, to develop a 
methodology for identifying shipments of imported consumer products 
that are likely to violate import provisions enforced by CPSC due by 
August 2010. CPSC, as noted earlier, has taken steps to develop a plan 
for sharing information and coordinating with CBP, but it is unlikely 
that CPSC will complete this plan by August 2009, as required under 
CPSIA, because of delays in updating its agreements with CBP. 

CPSC Has Recognized the Need for U.S. Consumer Product Safety Policy to 
Comply with WTO Obligations and International Trade Agreements: 

In undertaking its planning efforts, CPSC has recognized the need for 
U.S. consumer product safety policy to comply with World Trade 
Organization (WTO) obligations and international trade agreements--a 
positive recognition on CPSC's part. A CPSC official involved in 
international education and outreach activities said that, in working 
to address U.S. concerns about the safety of imported products, it is 
also critical to comply with WTO rules. The official said there are 
statutory requirements--namely, the Trade Act of 1979--mandating U.S. 
standards for complying with international trade agreements. He said 
that CPSC has had a productive working relationship with USTR in the 
past, and that CPSC is looking to formalize its working relationship 
with USTR in the future by developing internal standard operating 
procedures for consulting with USTR. The official said that the 
procedures would be useful to CPSC in identifying issues that should 
have USTR's input before they are finalized. CPSC has also recognized 
the importance of international trade agreements through its work with 
international groups, such as OECD, as discussed previously in this 
report. In particular, CPSC has recognized that the WTO Agreements on 
Technical Barriers to Trade--which establishes rules for preparing, 
adopting, and applying technical regulations, standards, and conformity 
assessment procedures--serves to encourage uniformity and 
predictability in national consumer product safety regimes. 

CPSC Lacks a Long-term Plan to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Products: 

Although CPSC has established short-term plans and annual goals to 
prevent the entry of unsafe products, the agency has not developed a 
long-term plan for addressing its import safety work. In particular, 
CPSC has not updated its agencywide Strategic Plan, which was issued in 
2003 and was due for revision in 2006. According to the Government 
Performance and Results Act, strategic plans help agencies establish 
long-term goals, including identifying the resources needed to 
accomplish these goals. The act calls for federal agencies to develop 
multiyear strategic plans and update them at least every 3 years. 
CPSC's Strategic Plan does not reflect its import safety work, its 
plans for international education and outreach activities, its plans to 
use new authorities granted in CPSIA to prevent the entry of unsafe 
products, or its plans to respond to mandates in CPSIA to improve its 
risk assessment and coordination with CBP. CPSC has recently begun 
efforts to update its Strategic Plan by requesting public comments on 
revisions to the plan.[Footnote 78] 

In addition to lacking a long-term plan to prevent the entry of unsafe 
products, CPSC does not have outcome-oriented performance measures to 
assess the effectiveness of its import safety work. One of CPSC's goals 
for 2010 is to develop measures of import safety success, according to 
CPSC's Import Safety Initiative. CPSC reports that, in 2008, staff 
researched and evaluated information for an enhanced surveillance 
system, making contact with FDA, CBP, and Internal Revenue Service 
staff to discuss methods and requirements of their systems. As 
discussed earlier in this report, CPSC has also requested public input 
concerning the development of consumer product safety metrics, but it 
received only two responses, neither of which addressed CPSC's need for 
developing new performance measures.[Footnote 79] 

CPSC has established short-terms plans and annual goals for its import 
safety work, but it does not have goals for these activities beyond 
2010. Without a long-term plan for import safety that contains key 
goals and performance measures, CPSC may be unable to replicate or 
enhance its short-term efforts over the longer term. For example, CPSC 
may find insufficient staff to cover meetings and seminars needed to 
work with foreign governments and foreign manufacturers over the long- 
term to build product safety into manufacturing and distribution 
processes from the start. CPSC may also find it difficult to analyze 
any data it collects through surveillance of the marketplace to 
strengthen and improve its targeting decisions at the ports. Finally, 
CPSC may face challenges in ensuring that any further resources it 
devotes to increasing its port staff and operations are also 
accompanied by appropriate growth in its analytical and other support 
staff to help ensure a comprehensive and balanced approach to product 
safety. 

Conclusions: 

Broad agreement exists among CPSC staff, legal experts, industry 
representatives, and consumer advocates that CPSC's authorities to 
prevent the entry of unsafe products into the United States have the 
potential to be effective, but only if they are implemented more fully. 
With delays in some rulemakings, such as testing and certification 
requirements, it remains unclear whether CPSC will be able to implement 
its authorities effectively. Furthermore, CPSC faces significant 
challenges due to competing priorities and resource constraints. CPSC 
has taken positive steps to shift its approach to import product safety 
from one focused on responding to problems after products have entered 
the marketplace to an approach focused on preventing harmful products 
from ever reaching consumers. To implement this preventive approach, 
CPSC states that it is taking steps to enhance surveillance activities, 
increase enforcement at the ports, engage foreign governments, and 
educate foreign manufacturers on U.S. standards for consumer product 
safety. 

Our work demonstrates that CPSC needs to strengthen its surveillance 
activities, particularly its ability to target potentially unsafe 
products for further screening and review at U.S. ports. CPSC has yet 
to obtain access to advance shipment data, which FDA's experience 
suggests could be useful in targeting incoming shipments. In addition, 
CPSC's agreements with CBP are outdated, which hinders CPSC and CBP's 
ability to target imports under CPSC's jurisdiction. CPSIA requires 
that CPSC and CBP work together to develop a methodology to assess the 
risks of various imported products and to cooperate on CPSC's 
participation in a CBP targeting center. These joint efforts are a key 
element for improving CPSC's ability to target shipments for screening 
and review at the ports and to ensuring consistent enforcement of 
CPSC's authorities across the United States. Because CPSC relies 
heavily on CBP for enforcement at the ports, it is imperative for CPSC 
and CBP to resolve issues concerning their agreements for sharing 
information and update their procedures for operating at the port. 
CPSC's targeting efforts could be strengthened further through expanded 
engagement with foreign governments and education of foreign 
manufacturers on U.S. consumer product safety standards. Such outreach 
could inform industry of its responsibility for the safety of consumer 
products entering the United States and provide CPSC with information 
on manufacturing in the respective countries to assist the agency's 
development of a risk assessment methodology for imported products. 
Without improving its ability to target potential risks across a broad 
range of product categories, it is unclear how CPSC will succeed in 
preventing unsafe consumer products from entering the United States. 

CPSC's inspection of foreign manufacturing plants faces practical 
constraints and would likely require tremendous resources to implement. 
CPSC believes strong cooperative relationships between countries to 
build strong frameworks for consumer product safety are a more 
effective approach for the United States. As part of its approach, CPSC 
is in the process of developing such relationships, and current MOUs 
between CPSC and certain foreign countries primarily address 
information sharing. CPSC officials state that expanding CPSC's 
education and outreach rather than inspection of foreign plants could 
serve to more effectively prevent the entry of unsafe consumer 
products. Similarly, officials from the U.S. agencies, with the 
exception of FDA, and countries we reviewed, stated that they do not 
conduct inspections of foreign manufacturing plants. In most cases, 
officials we interviewed stated that the countries have been more 
successful in working with exporters in order to correct problems that 
may arise. Therefore, we are not recommending any additional 
authorities be granted to CPSC at this time. 

Efforts to expand U.S. jurisdiction to foreign manufacturers for 
purposes of enforcement action also present unique practical 
considerations. It may be argued that if foreign manufacturers were 
required to consent to U.S. jurisdiction, CPSC's enforcement ability 
would be strengthened because CPSC would have one less hurdle to 
overcome in pursuing enforcement actions. Nevertheless, CPSC staff 
stated that, at this time, CPSC does not see the need for this 
requirement in order to effectively carry out its enforcement duties. 
To date, CPSC has been able to satisfy its enforcement objectives by 
pursuing the domestic partners--broadly defined to include those 
companies along the supply chain to the retailer--associated with the 
foreign manufacturer. CPSC also has the ability to settle enforcement 
actions with foreign parties. FDA and USDA officials have found that 
their efforts to educate overseas industry and governments on U.S. 
safety standards and the particular risks being screened for at the 
border could reduce the number of unsafe products that reach U.S. 
consumers. Similarly, CPSC staff we interviewed stated that expanded 
international education and outreach, rather than expanded enforcement 
jurisdiction, would more effectively prevent the entry of unsafe 
products, although they acknowledged that consent to jurisdiction or a 
requirement of a U.S. agent for service of process would be helpful. 
Due to the practical considerations associated with requiring foreign 
manufacturers to consent to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of CPSC 
enforcement actions, we make no recommendations for additional CPSC 
authorities at this time. 

CPSC's short-term plans to prevent the entry of unsafe products are 
consistent with a governmentwide approach taken by the Interagency 
Working Group on Import Safety in 2007. That group, of which CPSC was a 
part, established three organizing principles--prevention, 
intervention, and response--that represent, in our view, a 
comprehensive approach to import safety. However, CPSC lacks a long- 
term plan to prevent the entry of unsafe products. CPSC has not updated 
its September 2003 Strategic Plan, even though the Government 
Performance and Results Act requires this plan to be updated at least 
every 3 years. Although CPSC has initiated steps to update its 
Strategic Plan by requesting public comments, it is important for CPSC 
to work expeditiously to follow through on its efforts. In addition, 
while CPSC recognizes the need for outcome-oriented performance 
measures and has taken steps to develop new measures, it does not 
currently have such measures in place for its import safety work. 
Without a long-term plan that contains key goals and measures, CPSC may 
find it difficult to address its challenges in implementing the new 
authorities granted in CPSIA to prevent the entry of unsafe products, 
such as decisions about where and how to allocate any future increases 
in agency resources. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

First, to ensure that CPSC is able to exercise its full authority to 
prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products into the United States, 
we recommend that CPSC ensure expeditious implementation of key 
provisions of CPSIA, including establishing the substantial product 
hazard list and implementing testing and certification requirements 
that are subject to stay of enforcement until February 2010, and 
complete its rulemaking as required under the act. 

Second, to strengthen CPSC's ability to prevent the entry of unsafe 
products into the United States, we recommend that the Chairman and 
commissioners of CPSC take several actions to improve the agency's 
ability to target shipments for further screening and review at U.S. 
ports of entry as follows: 

1. To ensure that it has appropriate data and procedures to prevent 
entry of unsafe products into the United States, we recommend that CPSC 
update agreements with CBP to clarify each agency's roles and to 
resolve issues for obtaining access to advance shipment data; and: 

2. To improve its targeting decisions and build its risk-analysis 
capability, we recommend that CPSC: 

a. work with CBP, as directed under CPSIA through the planned targeting 
center for health and safety issues, to develop the capacity to analyze 
advance shipment data; and: 

b. link data CPSC gathers from surveillance activities and from 
international education and outreach activities to further target 
incoming shipments. 

Third, to provide better long-term planning for its import safety work 
and to account for new authorities granted in CPSIA, we recommend that 
CPSC expeditiously update its agencywide Strategic Plan. In updating 
its Strategic Plan, we recommend that CPSC consider the impact of its 
enhanced surveillance of the marketplace and at U.S. ports as discussed 
above and determine whether requisite analytical and laboratory staff 
are in place to support any increased activity that may occur at U.S. 
ports. Furthermore, we recommend that CPSC's Strategic Plan include a 
comprehensive plan for the Office of International Programs and 
Intergovernmental Affairs to work with foreign governments in bilateral 
and multilateral environments to: 

1. educate foreign manufacturers about U.S. product safety standards 
and best practices, and: 

2. coordinate on development of effective international frameworks for 
consumer product safety. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to CPSC, CBP, USTR, and the 
Departments of Agriculture; Commerce; Health and Human Services; State; 
and Transportation; and to EU and Canadian officials for review and 
comment. CPSC, CBP, USTR, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, 
Transportation, and EU and Canadian officials provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. CPSC stated that it 
concurs with our recommendations. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Chairman and commissioners of CPSC. We are also 
sending copies to the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland 
Security, Health and Human Services, State, and Transportation, the 
United States Trade Representative, and other interested parties. The 
report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

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

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

To determine the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission’s (CPSC) import safety authorities, we examined CPSC data 
and interviewed CPSC officials to learn how the agency measures and 
assesses its own effectiveness. We also conducted extensive document 
reviews on consumer product safety generally and import safety 
specifically. We interviewed legal professionals and consumer and 
industry representatives to obtain their perspective on the 
effectiveness of CPSC’s authorities. We also interviewed officials from 
other federal agencies involved in imported product safety, including 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Office of the United 
States Trade Representative (USTR), and the Departments of State and 
Commerce. We visited a U.S. port of entry to observe CPSC import 
surveillance activities and CPSC’s interaction with staff from CBP. We 
also visited CPSC’s Product Testing Laboratory in Gaithersburg, 
Maryland, to observe laboratory testing that supports import safety 
activities. 

To compare CPSC’s authorities with respect to the safety of imported 
products with the authorities of select federal agencies, we identified 
key federal agencies with import regulatory authority over other types 
of consumer goods. These agencies are the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA), which oversees the safety of imported food, drugs, cosmetics, 
and medical devices; the United States Department of Agriculture’s 
(USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which oversees the 
safety of imported egg products, meat and poultry; USDA’s Animal Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which oversees the safety of 
imported plants and animals; and the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), which oversees the safety of imported motor 
vehicles and equipment. We interviewed officials from each of these 
agencies, had them identify the primary statutory authorities for 
ensuring the safety of imports under their jurisdiction, and discussed 
various agency activities supporting import safety. For FDA, the 
primary statutory authority is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act. For USDA, the primary statutory authorities are the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Egg Products 
Inspection Act, the Animal Health Protection Act, and the Plant 
Protection Act. For NHTSA, the primary statutory authority is the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been 
classified, as amended, at Subtitle VI of Title 49 of the U.S. Code. 

For our comparative analysis of the product safety authorities of 
foreign countries, we selected countries that are members of the 
International Consumer Product Safety Caucus, which is an international 
forum consisting of product safety officials from member governments to 
facilitate the exchange of information on consumer product safety. 
Specifically, we selected Australia, Canada, China, the European Union 
(EU), and Japan.1 We developed a set of questions concerning consumer 
product safety authorities, practices, and procedures and worked 
through the U.S. Department of State to distribute the questions to 
appropriate contacts at U.S. embassies overseas and, in some cases, to 
foreign embassies in Washington, D.C. We interviewed desk officers for 
the selected countries from the Departments of State and Commerce in 
Washington, D.C., and relied on the Department of State to advise us on 
the recommended approach to take with each country. We reviewed foreign 
laws and regulations, as well as other documents regarding product 
safety, provided by U.S. Embassy officials in the selected countries. 
We did not independently analyze the laws, regulations, or procedures 
of these countries; instead, we relied on third-party assessments of 
each country’s consumer product safety framework. We received written 
responses to our questions from and conducted interviews with the U.S. 
embassies in Australia, Canada, and China. U.S. embassy officials told 
us that their responses were coordinated with country officials 
knowledgeable of the respective country’s laws, regulations, and 
procedures. We received written responses to our questions from 
officials with the Embassy of Japan in Washington, D.C. We received 
written answers to our questions from consumer product safety officials 
in the EU. We also received information from the supreme audit 
institutions in these countries regarding their work on consumer 
product safety. We conducted interviews with consumer product safety 
officials from Canada, the EU, and Japan at a conference of the 
International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization (ICPHSO) 
in Orlando, Florida. We reviewed publicly available documents on the 
Web sites of consumer product safety agencies in each country. We also 
reviewed and utilized documents provided by the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including OECD member 
country responses to a 2008 questionnaire concerning consumer product 
safety. Department of State officials reviewed a draft of our country 
summaries and provided comments, which we incorporated. 

To evaluate CPSC’s plans to prevent the entry of unsafe products in the 
future, we reviewed CPSC’s 2010 Performance Budget Request and compared 
CPSC’s planning efforts to guidance GAO has developed for 
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. We 
examined other CPSC data and interviewed CPSC officials to learn about 
CPSC’s future plans. We also interviewed legal professionals and 
consumer and industry representatives to obtain their perspectives on 
CPSC’s future plans. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to August 2009, 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Personal Jurisdiction Over Foreign Manufacturers for CPSC 
Enforcement Purposes: 

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act contained a mandate 
requiring that GAO make a recommendation as to whether foreign 
manufacturers should be required to consent to the jurisdiction of U.S. 
courts with respect to enforcement actions by the commission. We raised 
this issue in our interviews with officials at the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (CPSC), the United States Department of Agriculture, 
the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, as well as officials representing most of the 
international entities we selected for study—Australia, Canada, the 
European Union, and Japan. CPSC staff stated that, at this time, CPSC 
does not see the need for this requirement in order to effectively 
carry out its enforcement duties. 

CPSC has authority to institute administrative or civil enforcement 
actions against manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers. 
CPSC may opt to negotiate a settlement or consent agreement rather than 
instituting an adjudicative proceeding in a federal or administrative 
court. Enforcing product safety standards on foreign manufacturers 
through an adjudicative proceeding could theoretically pose practical 
challenges. For example, one important prerequisite to maintaining an 
action against any defendant in a U.S. state, federal, or 
administrative court is that the court must have the ability to exert 
personal jurisdiction over that party.[Footnote 81] A court’s exercise 
of personal jurisdiction over a party must satisfy the fundamental 
notions of fairness mandated by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or 
Fourteenth Amendments. In the case of a defendant physically located 
outside the territorial jurisdiction, such as a foreign manufacturer, 
personal jurisdiction can be established if sufficient contacts exist 
between a defendant and the territorial jurisdiction where the court 
sits, and the defendant receives fair notice of the suit. Both 
requirements are fact-specific and must ultimately be decided by a 
court, if challenged by the defendant. By requiring foreign 
manufacturers to consent to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of CPSC 
enforcement actions, CPSC’s enforcement process could possibly be 
expedited in that it would eliminate a personal jurisdictional 
challenge to the enforcement action. 

However, as noted above, CSPC did not see a need to take such action at 
this time. 

CPSC noted that it can pursue each of the actors in the supply chain, 
from the manufacturer to the retailer, foreign or domestic. Despite the 
challenges that could theoretically arise in instituting an enforcement 
action against a foreign actor, to date, pursuing the domestic partners 
of such actors has satisfied CPSC’s enforcement objectives.[Footnote 
82] Further, CSPC has the ability to settle enforcement actions with 
foreign parties. In the event a settlement cannot be reached 
voluntarily, any formal action against a foreign corporation must be 
served following the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 
Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Convention”). 
[Footnote 83] CPSC also has the authority to file suit against a 
foreign manufacturer for civil penalties for violations of certain 
provisions of its statutes, if it can effect service by the Convention 
or otherwise, and establish that the court has jurisdiction. For 
example, the Department of Justice on behalf of CPSC recently filed 
suit against a foreign manufacturer in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Minnesota, which was settled in July 2009.[Footnote 84] 
CPSC staff we interviewed believe that expanded international education 
and outreach programs, as opposed to requiring foreign manufacturers to 
consent to jurisdiction, are preferable tools to effectively prevent 
the entry of unsafe consumer products, although they acknowledged that 
consent to jurisdiction or a requirement of a U.S. agent for service of 
process would be helpful. In addition, each of the U.S. federal 
agencies and international entities that we interviewed stated that 
they do not require consent by foreign manufacturers to local 
jurisdiction with respect to enforcement actions. Therefore, we are not 
recommending any action at this time. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies: 
We compared the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) key 
authorities for preventing the import of unsafe consumer products to 
those of three federal agencies—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Table 1 describes some 
of the statutory and regulatory provisions of such agencies with 
respect to various regulatory activities, such as inspecting shipments 
that are presented for import into the United States.[Footnote 85] In 
acknowledgement of the ongoing efforts of the Interagency Working Group 
on Import Safety, in which these four agencies participate, we present 
these authorities according to the same principles that are the 
foundation of the group’s strategic framework—prevention and 
intervention.[Footnote 86] Although the group uses a third principle—
response—we generally did not evaluate agencies’ authorities to respond 
after an unsafe import enters U.S. commerce because the scope of our 
work was limited to those authorities to prevent their entry. 

Table 1: Key Authorities of Select Federal Agencies for Preventing the 
Entry of Unsafe Imports: 

Product: 
Agency: CPSC: Consumer products; 
Agency: FDA: Food (not including meat, poultry products, eggs, or egg 
products), drugs, and medical devices[B]; 
Agency: NHTSA: Motor vehicles, motor vehicle equipment; 
Agency: USDA[A]: Meat, poultry products, eggs, and egg products; live 
plants and animals. 

Primary statute: 
Agency: CPSC: Consumer Product Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 
1207 (Oct. 27, 1972) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051 et 
seq.)[C] Federal Hazardous Substances Act, Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 
372 (July 12, 1960) (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261 et 
seq.) Flammable Fabrics Act, ch. 164, 67 Stat. 111 (Jun. 30, 1953) 
(classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1191 et seq.) 
Agency: FDA: Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 
1040 (Jun. 25, 1938) (classified, as amended, at 21 U.S.C. §§ 321 et 
seq.); 
Agency: NHTSA: National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, codified 
as amended, at Subtitle VI Title 49, of the U.S. Code (49 U.S.C. §§ 
30101 et seq.); 
Agency: USDA[A]: Federal Meat Inspection Act, ch. 2907, 24 Stat. 1260 
(Mar. 4, 1907) (classified, as amended, at 21 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq.)
Poultry Products Inspection Act, Pub. L. No. 85-172, 71 Stat. 441 (Aug. 
28, 1957) (classified, as amended, at 21 U.S.C. §§ 451 et seq.)
Egg Products Inspection Act, Pub. L. No. 91-597, 84 Stat. 1620 (Dec. 
29, 1970) (classified, as amended, at 21 U.S.C. §§ 1031 et seq.)
Animal Health Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 107-171, Title X, Subtitle E, 
116 Stat. 494 (May 13, 2002) (classified, as amended, at 7 U.S.C. §§ 
8301 et seq.) Plant Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 106-224, Title IV, 114 
Stat. 438 (Jun. 20, 2000) (classified, as amended, at 7 U.S.C. §§ 7701 
et seq.) 

Prevention—Authorities to prevent the importation of unsafe products 
into the United States: 

Preapproval, certification, and/or testing of imports prior to entry 
into the United States: 
Agency: CPSC: All manufacturers are required to issue a certificate of 
compliance with all applicable rules, bans, standards, or regulations.
Certifications must be based on a test of each product or a reasonable 
testing program. With respect to certain children’s products, such 
certification must be based on testing conducted by a third party that 
is accredited by CPSC. 
Agency: FDA: Devices: Certain devices are subject to premarket approval 
by FDA. 
New drugs[D]: No new drug may be introduced into interstate commerce 
unless and until FDA has approved its new drug application. An 
application may be denied if the application does not include reports 
of adequate testing by all methods reasonably applicable to show 
whether or not the drug is safe for use. 
Agency: NHTSA: Manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles and 
equipment comply with applicable safety standards. Such certifications 
may be, but are not required to be, based on testing, and the results 
of any testing are not required to be reported to NHTSA as a condition 
for entry.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: Products must 
be accompanied by a foreign inspection certificate that includes 
certain information and representations of the appropriate government 
official of the exporting country.e The inspection must be signed by 
the authorized foreign government official and, in some cases, bear the 
official seal of the foreign government agency responsible for 
inspection of the products. (See also, “Labeling” below.) 

Inspection of facilities located in foreign countries: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC is authorized to inspect any factory, warehouse, or 
establishment in which consumer products are manufactured or held for 
distribution in the United States. CPSC is required, by rule, to 
condition the importation of any consumer product into the United 
States on the manufacturer’s compliance with the inspection 
requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).
Agency: FDA: FDA is authorized to conduct inspections of establishments 
engaged in the manufacture of food, drugs, or devices offered for 
commercial distribution in the United States. For drugs and medical 
devices, at the request of FDA, the U.S. agent of the establishment is 
required to assist in scheduling inspections. In practice, if the 
foreign firm refuses to permit such an inspection, FDA can sometimes 
refuse admission of products offered for import into the U.S. For 
example, the refusal to permit an inspection could lead to a product 
not receiving a required pre-market approval or the refusal to permit 
an inspection, combined with other information, could support a 
determination of the appearance of a violation.
Agency: NHTSA: No statutory provision expressly authorizes NHTSA to 
inspect facilities located in foreign countries.
Agency: USDA[A]: Egg products, poultry, and meat: Only products from 
establishments certified by eligible foreign countries are eligible for 
importation into the United States. In order to be an eligible country, 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) must determine that the 
foreign country (1) maintains an inspection system equivalent to that 
of the United States and (2) ensures compliance with such inspection 
system. In determining eligibility of a particular country, FSIS will 
conduct an initial review of the operation of the country’s inspection 
system, and conduct periodic reviews thereafter. The eligibility of 
foreign establishments to continue to export products to the United 
States is subject to periodic review, including observations of the 
foreign establishments by FSIS. 
Live plants and animals: APHIS may inspect plants and animals for 
export at international ports or other points of origin. 

Intervention—Authorities to intercept unsafe goods before they enter 
U.S. commerce: 

Product standards/product bans: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC may promulgate mandatory product safety standards, 
as well as rules declaring a product a banned hazardous product.
Currently, there are 33 mandatory safety standards. CPSC may also 
petition a U.S. District Court to declare a product an imminently 
hazardous consumer product and grant such relief as may be appropriate 
to protect the public, such as ordering a recall of the product or 
ordering the notification of such risk to the purchasers of the product.
Agency: FDA: Food and devices: Applicable law sets forth the 
definitions for adulterated and misbranded food, drugs, and devices, 
including the standards for manufacturing practices. 
Agency: NHTSA: NHTSA may prescribe motor vehicle safety standards.
Currently, there are 45 safety standards for vehicles and 15 safety 
standards for equipment.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: FSIS regulates 
the sanitary operating practices of plants that slaughter or process 
poultry and meat and sets forth sanitary operating practices of plants 
that process egg products. Statutes set forth definitions of 
adulterated and misbranded meat, poultry, and egg products.
Live plants and animals: Statute prohibits the import of plants or 
animals that contain certain pests or diseases. 

Labeling: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC may require permanent markings (e.g. labels) on 
products, where practicable, that identify the date and place of 
manufacture, as well as manufacturing cohort information, such as batch 
number.
Agency: FDA: Food, drugs, and devices: Products are subject to labeling 
requirements such as, depending on the product, its contents, and its 
proper use. 
Agency: NHTSA: Manufacturers affix to the motor vehicle or equipment, 
or to the equipment container, a label, tag, or marking that represents 
the required certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with 
applicable safety standards. 
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: The immediate 
containers of eggs and egg products must bear a label printed in 
English with certain information, including, for egg products, the 
inspection mark of the country of origin. The immediate containers of 
imported poultry and meat must bear labels that comply with the 
labeling requirements applicable to domestic products, except that the 
label will bear the name of the country of origin and the inspection 
mark and establishment number assigned by the foreign inspection system 
and certified to FSIS. 

Registration of foreign manufacturers/facilities: 
Agency: CPSC: There is no statutory requirement for the registration of 
foreign manufacturers with CPSC.
Agency: FDA: Food: A foreign establishment that engages in the 
manufacture, processing, packing or holding of food for export to the 
United States without further processing or packaging outside of the 
United States, must register with FDA and provide certain information, 
including a list of all trade names and the name of its U.S. agent.
Drugs and devices: A foreign establishment engaged in the manufacture, 
preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or 
device offered for import into the United States must register with the 
FDA and provide a list of each drug offered for commercial distribution 
and the name of its U.S. agent. 
Agency: NHTSA: Motor vehicles not certified to all applicable safety 
standards may only be imported by a person registered with NHTSA or by 
a person who has contracted with a registered importer. 
Agency: USDA[A]: There is no statutory requirement for registration of 
foreign establishments with USDA. 

Preshipment/prearrival notification: 
Agency: CPSC: No statutory provision expressly requires foreign 
manufacturers to provide preshipment notification to CPSC.
Agency: FDA: Food: Food shipments presented for import must be preceded 
by prior notice to enable FDA to target food for inspection at ports of 
entry. Notification must identify the article, manufacturer, shipper, 
grower, country of origin, and anticipated port of entry. 
Agency: NHTSA: No statutory provision expressly requires foreign 
manufacturers to provide preshipment notification to NHTSA.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: Except for 
importers of Canadian meat products, importers must make an application 
for inspection at the port of entry. The application should be made as 
long as possible in advance of the anticipated arrival of the product 
to the United States. Importers of Canadian meat products are subject 
to streamlined inspection procedures. 

Border surveillance: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC is required to maintain a permanent product 
surveillance program to prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products 
into the United States, among other things. CPSC may inspect consumer 
products being offered for import. At CPSC’s request, CBP will obtain a 
reasonable number of samples of such product for the purpose of making 
admissibility decisions. 
Agency: FDA: All products: FDA may examine shipments and obtain samples 
of food, drugs, and devices presented for import to determine whether 
the product is subject to refusal of admission. Also, authority 
provided to prioritize border food inspections, develop tests for the 
rapid detection of adulterated food, improve border computer systems, 
and improve links with other federal agencies responsible for food 
safety. 
Agency: NHTSA: No statutory provision mandates a border surveillance 
program.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: CBP notifies 
FSIS when products from restricted countries are presented for import 
into the United States.
Live plants: CBP is to notify APHIS of the arrival of any plant at a 
port of entry and is to hold the item until it is inspected and 
authorized for entry or is otherwise released by APHIS. 
Live plants and animals: APHIS may stop and inspect, without a warrant, 
any person or means of conveyance moving into the United States to 
determine whether it is carrying any plant or regulated animal.
Also, authorities are provided to improve surveillance at ports of 
entry and customs and to implement a centralized automated 
recordkeeping system to better track the status of animal and plant 
shipments, including those on hold at ports of entry and customs. 

Refusal at ports of entry: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC may refuse admission of any consumer product offered 
for import that: 
* fails to comply with an applicable mandatory safety standard or ban;
* has been determined to be an imminently hazardous consumer product;
* has a defect which constitutes a substantial product hazard;
* is not properly certified or labeled; or; 
* is manufactured by a manufacturer that has failed to comply with 
applicable recordkeeping and inspection requirements.
Agency: FDA: All products: Subject to an opportunity to introduce 
testimony, any food, drug, or device may be refused admission into the 
United States if it appears from an examination or otherwise that the 
product: 
* is adulterated or misbranded; 
* is an unapproved new drug; 
* is forbidden or restricted in sale in the exporting country; or; 
* has been manufactured or processed in unsanitary conditions or out of 
conformance with good manufacturing practices.
Food: FDA may refuse a food shipment for which advance shipment 
information has not been provided or is from an unregistered foreign 
manufacturer. 
Drugs and devices: FDA may refuse drugs or devices that are not 
accompanied by a registration of foreign supplier. 
Agency: NHTSA: Motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment manufactured 
after the date an applicable safety standard takes effect shall not be 
imported unless they comply with the standard and are covered by an 
appropriate certification of conformance.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: Eggs, egg 
products, poultry, and meat that are adulterated, misbranded, or do not 
comply with standards applicable to equivalent products in U.S. 
commerce shall not be imported. 
Live plants or animals: APHIS may refuse admission to plants if 
determined necessary to prevent the spread of plant pests or noxious 
weeds in the United States. APHIS may refuse admission of any animal, 
article, or means of conveyance to prevent the introduction or spread 
of any pest or livestock disease in the United States. 

Detention/seizure/holds pending completion of inspection or further 
action by owner: 
Agency: CPSC: CPSC may examine samples of products at ports of entry. 
CPSC statutes describe prohibited acts, which form the basis for it to 
instruct CBP to seize products under the Tariff Act authorities. CPSC 
may also decide to detain the shipment pending further examination and 
testing, conditionally release the shipment to the importer’s premises 
pending examination and testing, or release the shipment to the 
importer outright.
Agency: FDA: All products: Food, drugs, and devices are subject to 
inspection. The product remains in the custody of CBP, unless delivered 
to the owner or consignee under bond. 
Food: FDA may request that a food article that appears to present a 
health threat be held for a period not to exceed 24 hours for the 
purpose of inspecting, examining, or investigating it. Food shipments 
that arrive without adequate prior notice or that are from unregistered 
foreign manufacturers may be held until prior notice or registration is 
completed.
Agency: NHTSA: No statutory provision; however, NHTSA regulations 
provide that motor vehicles not in conformity with all applicable 
safety standards at the time of import may be admitted under a bond to 
ensure that the vehicle will either be brought into conformity within 
120 days, returned to the custody of CBP for export, or abandoned to 
the United States.
Agency: USDA[A]: Eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat: Generally, 
eggs, egg products, poultry, and meat are subject to U.S. inspection at 
the port of entry and may not be removed from the port of entry prior 
to inspection. The product remains in the custody of CBP unless 
delivered to the consignee under an approved bond. FSIS may detain egg 
products, poultry, and meat for a period not to exceed 20 days.
Live animals: APHIS may require that any imported animal be raised or 
handled under quarantine to determine whether it is affected by any 
pest or disease. 

Product destruction: 
Agency: CPSC: Products refused admission into the United States must be 
destroyed, unless CBP permits the product to be exported from the 
customs territory of the United States. All expenses connected with 
destruction must be paid by the owner or consignee. A failure to make 
such payment shall constitute a lien against future imports. 
Agency: FDA: CBP may destroy any food, drug, or device that is refused 
admission, unless the article is exported within 90 days. All expenses 
connected to the destruction of refused goods shall be paid by the 
owner or consignee. A default shall constitute a lien against future 
imports.
Agency: NHTSA: There is no statutory provision regarding the 
destruction of nonconforming motor vehicles or equipment by NHTSA.
Agency: USDA[A]: Egg products, poultry, and meat: Egg products, 
poultry, and meat that violate federal requirements are destroyed at 
the expense of the owner or cosignee, unless they are exported or 
brought into compliance (e.g., labeling). The costs of the destruction 
are either paid directly by the owner or cosignee or reimbursed to the 
government. The failure to make any such reimbursement shall constitute 
a lien against future imports.
Live animals: APHIS may order the destruction or removal from the 
United States of any animal to prevent entry or spread of any pest or 
livestock disease. The Secretary of Agriculture may also order owners 
to disinfect the means of conveyance, an individual, or article 
involved in the importation of animals ordered to be destroyed or 
removed. If owner fails to comply with destruction/removal orders, the 
Secretary may recover from the owner the costs of any care/destruction. 

Response—Authorities to act on harm, real or potential, after products 
enter U.S. commerce: 

Require foreign manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction: 
Agency: CPSC: No statutory provision mandates that CPSC require foreign 
manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction.
Agency: FDA: No statutory provision mandates that FDA require foreign 
manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction.
Agency: NHTSA: No statutory provision mandates that NHTSA require 
foreign manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction.
Agency: USDA[A]: No statutory provision mandates that USDA require 
foreign manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency guidance. 

[A] USDA’s FSIS oversees meat, poultry products, eggs, and egg 
products, and APHIS oversees live plants and animals. 

[B] FDA oversees other products, including biologics, cosmetics, and 
radiation-emitting electronic products, but our scope was limited to 
food, drugs, and certain medical devices. 

[C] As stated in this report, CPSC administers other product safety 
statutes, but these are the three primarily affecting CPSC’s ability to 
prevent the entry of unsafe products. 

[D] The term “new drug” does not mean simply a drug that is new on the 
market; rather, it is any drug, regardless of how old, about which 
insufficient data exists upon which qualified experts can reach a 
consensus that the drug is safe and effective. See 21 U.S.C. § 321(p). 
“In other words, a drug is not a new drug only if it ‘(1) is generally 
recognized, among experts qualified to evaluate the safety and 
effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for its labeled purposes; 
and (2) has been used to a material extent for a material time.’” U.S. 
v. Undetermined Quantities of Cal-Ban 3000, 776 F. Supp. 249, 256 (E.D. 
N.C. 1991)(citation omitted)(emphasis added). 

[E] For example, with respect to egg products, the foreign inspection 
official must certify that the products were produced under the 
approved regulations, requirements, and continuous government 
inspection of the exporting country. Eggs must be accompanied by a 
foreign inspection certificate that certifies that the eggs have at all 
times after packing been refrigerated at the required temperature. With 
respect to poultry, the foreign inspection official must certify that 
the product received antemortem and postmortem inspections at the time 
of slaughter and that such poultry products are sound, healthful, 
wholesome, and otherwise fit for human food. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Key Authorities of Selected International Entities: 

Figure 3: Comparison of Selected International Entities’ Authorities 
with CPSC’s Authorities to Prevent the Entry of Unsafe Consumer 
Products: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

We compared consumer product safety authorities, practices, and 
procedures for Australia, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), Japan 
and the United States. Figure 3 identifies the authorities and 
activities we compared, as well as any future plans for changing the 
organizations, structures, and/or mechanisms for consumer product 
safety in the respective countries. Following the figure is a more 
detailed discussion of the authorities, practices, and procedures. The 
information in this appendix is based on information we received 
through U.S. Embassies in these countries, foreign embassies in 
Washington, D.C., and interviews with country officials. We reviewed 
documents regarding product safety provided by U.S. Embassy officials 
in the selected countries. We did not independently analyze the laws or 
procedures of these countries; instead, we relied on third-party 
assessments of each country’s consumer product safety framework. 

Key regulatory authorities: 
Australia: Trade Practices Act 1974; various state and territory laws; 
Canada: The Hazardous Products Act and its corresponding regulations; 
Chemical Management Plan; 
European Union: The General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) 
(2001/95/EC) sets out the basic requirements on consumer product safety 
for all EU member states; 
Japan: 
- Consumer Product Safety Law; 
- Consumer Basic Act; 
- Product Liability Act; 
- Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful 
Substances; 
- Food Sanitation Law; 
United States: Consumer Product Safety Act; Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act; Flammable Fabrics Act. 

Organizational structure: 
Australia: Australian Treasury and state/territory offices of fair 
trading develop policy. Consumer law enforcement is shared between 
national, state, and territory regulators. Australian Competition and 
Consumer Commission (ACCC) and state/territory offices of fair trading 
conduct enforcement and monitoring; 
Canada: Health Canada is the key policy development and enforcement 
agency. Provincial governments have jurisdiction over the adoption of 
the National Building Code, which includes certification requirements 
for electrical, gas, and plumbing products; 
European Union: Directorate General for Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) 
is the primary EU agency responsible for consumer product safety. EU 
member states are responsible for implementation and enforcement of EU 
legislation; 
Japan: METI is responsible for consumer product safety policy. The 
National Institute of Technology and Evaluation conducts inspections in 
accordance with METI’s instructions and analyzes the cause of 
accidents. The Cabinet Office provides overall policy guidance; 
United States: Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has national 
responsibility for consumer product safety policy and enforcement. 

Standards: 
Australia: Currently there are few direct consumer safety regulations 
on most imported goods; however, retailers can face legal action if the 
goods are faulty. Only a small number of imported consumer products are 
subject to mandatory standards; 
Canada: Approximately two-thirds of standards in Canada are voluntary. 
Some consumer product standards are mandatory legal requirements, 
others are industry standards developed on a voluntary basis, and some 
are purely market driven as a particular technology becomes the 
industry standard; 
European Union: Imported products must meet the same requirements as 
domestic products. The EU product safety system is based on voluntary 
standards. However, for mandatory European Commission standards, 
products that are manufactured to harmonized standards developed by 
recognized European standardization bodies benefit from a presumption 
of conformity with the safety requirements. The safety requirements are 
expressed in sectoral directives, conformity assessment measures, and, 
in certain sectors, the availability of European standards. The GPSD 
fills in the gaps when no sectoral directive exists; 
Japan: Japanese Standards Association, Japanese Industrial Standards, 
and the Consumer Affairs Council are responsible for the development of 
standards. Most standards in Japan are voluntary. Product requirements 
fall into two categories: technical regulations (or mandatory 
standards) and nonmandatory voluntary standards; 
United States: CPSC may promulgate mandatory product safety standards 
and rules declaring a product a banned hazardous product. CPSC must 
defer to a voluntary standard if CPSC determines that the voluntary 
standard adequately addresses the hazard and that there is likely to be 
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. CPSC may ban a 
consumer product if it determines no feasible standard would protect 
the public from unreasonable risk of injury. 

Product certification/labeling/testing: 
Australia: No requirement for imported product certification. The 
Productivity Commission has suggested that importers of consumer goods 
certify that their goods meet applicable Australian mandatory safety 
standards, but the government has not enacted this suggestion; 
Canada: No requirement for product certification; however, new 
legislation seeks to require the furnishing of entry documents and test 
results at the border; 
European Union: Member states are required to conduct sampling and 
safety testing of domestically manufactured or imported products and to 
follow-up on consumer complaints. Businesses must carry out conformity 
and safety assessments of their products in accordance with the GPSD 
and/or specific legislation applicable to their products. For some 
products, self-declaration is sufficient but other products require 
third-party verification; 
Japan: Certain imported and domestic products are subject to product 
testing and cannot be sold in Japan without certification to prescribed 
standards. Compliance with regulations and standards is also governed 
by a certification system in which inspection results determine whether 
or not approval (certification) is granted; 
United States: CPSC requires manufacturers to issue a certificate of 
compliance with mandatory standards. Certifications must be based on a 
test of each product or a reasonable testing program. Children’s 
products must be certified by a third party. CPSC may require labels to 
be permanently marked or affixed to any product, where practicable. 

Definition of unsafe product: 
Australia: No definition for unsafe products; however, current law 
allows the Minister for Consumer Affairs to ban or compulsorily recall 
consumer products in cases where the products “will or may cause 
injury;”
Canada: Nothing specific at this time under the Hazardous Products Act. 
A new act passed by the House of Commons and awaiting action by the 
Canadian Senate, as of June 2009, will include a definition of “danger 
to human health or safety;”
European Union: GPSD defines a “consumer product” and what constitutes 
a “safe” and “unsafe” product. A “dangerous product” means any product 
that does not meet the definition of a “safe” product; 
Japan: Article 1 of the Consumer Product Safety Law defines products as 
unsafe if they cause threat to consumers’ life or health; 
United States: Section 15 of Consumer Product Safety Act defines a 
substantial product hazard as a failure to comply with a mandatory 
standard or a product defect that creates a substantial risk of injury. 

Inspect foreign facilities: 
Australia: The government does not have this authority on product 
safety grounds. Such authority does exist in certain areas, such as 
motor vehicles and aircraft, covered by domestic legislation governing 
the import and licensing of such products; 
Canada: The government does not have this authority. Instead, Canada 
works with the exporter and has been successful in using this approach, 
according to officials; 
European Union: DG SANCO has no inspection authority. Member-state 
authorities can review technical product files that all businesses are 
required to maintain to certify general conformity with product 
standards; 
Japan: The government does not have this authority; 
United States: CPSC is required, by rule, to condition the importation 
of any consumer product into the United States on the manufacturer’s 
compliance with the inspection requirements of CPSA. 

Border surveillance authorities for imported goods: 
Australia: Australian Customs has responsibility for determining what 
may enter Australia. Customs generally accepts ACCC recommendations to 
ban imports of unsafe products; 
Canada: The Canada Border Services Agency uses a risk-based approach to 
border management to detect and intercept dangerous goods and to 
facilitate the movement of low-risk goods. Health Canada does not have 
full-time port presence and relies on Canada’s Border Services Agency 
for seizure and destruction of products; 
European Union: The EU recently issued a new regulation to strengthen 
customs controls. The EU Council Regulation provides the customs 
authorities with the legal basis and equally applicable and comparable 
procedures in all member states to suspend, for no more that 72 hours, 
the release of products that they suspect of posing a serious risk to 
health and safety; 
Japan: Japan does not designate consumer products separately in their 
border and customs authorities. As with CPSC and the EU, Japan imposes 
its consumer product safety laws on importers, which means that 
products must be in compliance in order to be imported to Japan. 
United States: CPSC is to maintain a permanent surveillance program to 
prevent the entry of unsafe consumer products into the United States. 
CPSC may request a reasonable number of samples from Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to examine products for the purpose of making 
admissibility decisions. 

Require consent to local jurisdiction: 
Australia: Under the current law, Australia could ask foreign 
jurisdictions to enforce Australian consumer product safety laws. In 
practice, the Government of Australia prefers other methods, such as 
approaching manufacturers directly to raise concerns; 
Canada: The government does not have this authority; 
European Union: DG SANCO has no jurisdictional authority outside the 
common market. Within the common market, the regulations apply to the 
importer, distributor, manufacturer, and retailer. Imported products 
must meet the same requirements as domestic products; 
Japan: The government does not have this authority; 
United States: No statutory provision mandates that CPSC require 
foreign manufacturers to consent to local court jurisdiction. 

Future plans: 
Australia: Under a decision reached by the Council of Australian 
Governments in 2008, Australia’s states and territories are expected to 
adopt the new Trade Practices Act in its entirety in 2010, providing a 
harmonized product safety regime with greater federal government 
control; 
Canada: On June 12, 2009, Canada’s new Consumer Product Safety Act was 
passed by the House of Commons and, as of the end of June, is awaiting 
action by the Canadian Senate. The new act will provide better 
oversight of consumer products by improving the government’s ability to 
take timely compliance and enforcement actions when unsafe products are 
identified. It will also encourage compliance through higher fines and 
increased penalties for violators; 
European Union: Recent EU initiatives aim to improve market 
surveillance and consistency of enforcement across the member states; 
Japan: On May 29, 2009, the Japanese Diet approved bills establishing 
the Consumer Affairs Agency. The agency will be responsible for 
consumer protection issues as part of a more centralized approach. 
Approximately 200 staff will move to the new agency from the Cabinet 
Office; the Fair Trade Commission; the Ministry of Economy, Trade and 
Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and the 
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; 
United States: Implementation of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 is ongoing. 

Sources: Official documents from foreign governments and from their 
official Web sites, from U.S. embassies overseas, and foreign embassies 
in Washington, D.C. 

[End of figure] 

Australia: 

Environment for Consumer Product Safety in Australia: 

Currently, the dominant issue concerning consumer product safety in 
Australia is the reorganization of its policy framework. On October 2, 
2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a new policy 
framework for implementation in 2010, comprising a single national 
consumer law and streamlined enforcement arrangements. This more 
centralized approach to consumer product safety replaces the current 
system in which the federal, state, and territory governments all share 
responsibility for consumer policy and enforcement. 

* Key organizations: Currently, responsibility for product safety 
regulation in Australia is shared between the federal, state, and 
territory governments. The Australian Treasury is the agency 
responsible for developing consumer policy, and the Australian 
Competition and Consumer Commission monitors and enforces compliance 
with product safety laws. In addition, state and territory governments 
each have their own fair trading agencies that enact and enforce state-
based consumer product safety legislation. Such legislation is similar, 
but not identical, to federal government legislation, which sometimes 
leads to legislative inconsistencies between jurisdictions. 

* Resources: Australia has 30 policy staff working in the Product 
Safety section of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 
and enforcement staff numbering around 150 around Australia. There is 
no separate international office for consumer product safety. The total 
combined resources allocated by the Australian Commonwealth (federal), 
state and territory governments to enforcement in this area of consumer 
product safety are estimated to be about A$5 million annually. 

* Consumer advocacy: Consumer advocacy groups have emerged in Australia 
over the last 40 years in response to growing interest in product 
safety issues. Groups such as the Australian Consumers Association 
supply information on safety issues to consumers and lobby federal, 
state and territory governments to address the most serious product-
related hazards. 

Regulatory Framework/System: 

* Laws and regulations: Currently, Australia’s general consumer product 
safety system is based on the product safety provisions contained in 
the Trade Practices Act 1974 and on equivalent provisions in Fair Trade 
Acts in Australia’s eight states and territories. The administration 
and enforcement of these provisions, along with other nonregulatory 
activities conducted by the federal, state, and territory governments, 
are also part of the system. 

The Trade Practices Act 1974 contains general product safety 
provisions, as well as a product liability regime that enables 
consumers to seek a range of remedies, including damages for loss or 
damage caused by a defective product. The act provides the Australian 
government minister responsible for consumer affairs the power to 
intervene in markets to ensure product safety, including such 
activities as: 

* prescribing consumer product safety and consumer product information 
standards; 

* declaring products unsafe and banning them; 

* investigating products to determine whether they will or may cause 
injury and/or issuing a warning notice of the risk of using the 
product; 

* ordering the compulsory recall of products; and; 

* obtaining information, documents, and other evidence related to the 
administration of the safety provisions of the Trade Practices Act. 

While in law the general regime applies to all consumer products, in 
effect this system provides the general legal safety net for products 
not otherwise protected by specific legislation that addresses more 
hazardous products. 

* Definition of safe products: Australia currently has no definition of 
safe or unsafe products. However, current law allows the Minister for 
Consumer Affairs to ban or compulsorily recall consumer products in 
cases where the products will or may cause injury. 

* Standards: The Trade Practices Act provides the Australian government 
minister responsible for consumer affairs with the power to establish 
mandatory standards for a product where it can be demonstrated that it 
has the potential to cause injury. Standards Australia, an independent, 
nongovernmental organization, is the sole recognized body for standards 
development. Only a small number of imported consumer products are 
subject to mandatory standards, and over half of the standards apply to 
products that may pose a danger to children. State and territory 
legislation also allows for the issuance of mandatory standards. At 
times, the Australia Competition and Consumer Commission, the Treasury, 
and the state and territory fair trading representatives have 
participated in Standards Australia processes. 

* Detection, reporting, and removal of unsafe products: The current 
regulatory system relies on governments (federal, state, and territory) 
to identify and regulate specific product hazards. According to 
Australia’s Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, the ability of 
these governments to address potential safety hazards across a great 
range of products is affected by limitations on their resources and by 
the time and effort required to implement, enforce, and review product-
specific regulations. Currently, the vast majority of product recalls 
are undertaken voluntarily by businesses that have become aware of a 
safety problem concerning one of their products. The Trade Practices 
Act and many of the state and territory Fair Trading Acts contain 
provisions that allow governments to order compulsory product recalls 
when necessary. 

* Business responsibility: Businesses promote product safety through 
industry sector associations, which often undertake such self-
regulatory activities as business education, the development of 
industry codes of conduct, and engagement with law enforcement and 
standards development bodies on enforcement and policy issues. 
Currently there is no formal requirement for suppliers to monitor the 
safety of the products they sell, once those products are released to 
the marketplace. Under the current regulatory system, businesses are 
required to report voluntary recalls to the Australian government 
minister responsible for consumer affairs and to the Office of Fair 
Trading in some other jurisdictions. The Ministerial Council on 
Consumer Affairs has proposed that suppliers be required to monitor the 
ongoing safety of the products they sell and report to the government 
any products that are under investigation for possible safety risks, 
have been associated with serious injury and death, or have been the 
subject of a successful product liability claim. 

* Policy enforcement and compliance: The Australian Competition and 
Consumer Commission is responsible for enforcing the Trade Practices 
Act’s product safety regime. To ensure that suppliers subject to 
mandatory standards and bans are responding appropriately, the 
commission may compel the provision of information, require evidence 
under oath, undertake random market surveys, enter premises, and seize 
documents. In situations where suppliers have failed to comply with 
mandatory standards or bans, the commission can seek orders in the 
Federal Court requiring such suppliers to recall the noncomplying 
products. Additionally, the commission may institute civil proceedings 
or criminal proceedings under the Trade Practices Act. State and 
territory governments have enforcement powers similar to those of the 
Competition and Consumer Commission under their own legislation. The 
relevant state and territory Fair Trading Acts contain criminal 
liability provisions similar to those in the Trade Practices Act. 

Future Plans: 

On October 2, 2008, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to a 
new consumer policy framework as proposed by the Ministerial Council on 
Consumer Affairs. According to the Australian government, the new 
framework consists of a single national consumer law and streamlined 
enforcement arrangements. Australia’s states and territories are 
expected to adopt the new Trade Practices Act in its entirety in 2010, 
providing a harmonized product safety regime with greater federal 
government control. The council recognized that while Australia’s 
current consumer policy framework has strengths, it is in need of 
significant improvements to overcome existing inconsistencies, gaps, 
and duplication in Australia’s consumer legislation and its 
enforcement. The reforms have the following three key elements: 

* the development of a consumer law (called the Australian Consumer 
Law) to be applied both nationally and in each state and territory, 
which is based on the existing consumer protection provisions of the 
Trade Practices Act 1974, and which includes a new national provision 
regulating unfair contract terms, new enforcement powers and, where 
agreed, changes based on best practices in state and territory laws; 

* the implementation of a new national product safety regulatory and 
enforcement framework, as part of the national consumer law; and; 

* the development of enhanced enforcement cooperation and information-
sharing mechanisms between national and state and regulatory agencies. 

Canada: 

Environment for Consumer Product Safety in Canada: 

Changing consumer demands, new technologies, and the increasing 
complexity of global supply chains are the major influences behind 
Canada’s current efforts to modernize its regulatory tools for consumer 
product safety. According to the Canadian government, the authorities 
governing food, health, and consumer products in Canada derive from 
legislation developed in the 1950s and 1960s and, as a result, they are 
out of step with modern realities and needs. For example, the Canadian 
government lacks sufficient authority to issue a mandatory recall of a 
health or consumer product if it poses a serious or imminent risk to 
health and safety or to compel manufacturers to take steps to reduce 
the risk associated with a product. In addition, according to the 
Canadian government, fines and penalties are low compared with those of 
other countries. New legislation will update and strengthen Canada’s 
consumer product safety framework. 

* Key organizations: Currently, Health Canada regulates the import, 
sale, and advertisement of hazardous products or substances. Health 
Canada: 

- supports the development of safety standards and guidelines; 

- enforces legislation by conducting investigations, inspections, 
seizures, and prosecutions; 

- tests and conducts research on consumer products; 

- provides importers, manufacturers, and distributors with hazard and 
technical information; 

- publishes product advisories, warnings, and recalls; and 

- promotes safety and the responsible use of products. 

The Canada Border Services Agency is responsible for stopping goods at 
the border. The agency has a service agreement with Health Canada under 
which it seeks to prevent prohibited products from entering Canada and 
facilitates additional targeted inspections of these products, as well 
as shipments of products from companies with histories of poor 
compliance. In addition, the agency’s Single Window Initiative will 
give the department access to import and export data that will help to 
efficiently approve shipments of low-risk products from low-risk 
suppliers or, alternatively, tag suspicious ones before they have left 
their point of export. 

Other organizations include the Standards Council of Canada, the 
Canadian Standards Association, the Canadian General Standards Board, 
and the Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada. Also, Canada’s Provincial 
governments have jurisdiction over the adoption of the National 
Building Code, which includes certification requirements for 
electrical, gas, and plumbing products. 

* Resources: Canada’s consumer product safety agency, within Health 
Canada, consists of 130 employees who serve as laboratory, compliance, 
and policy development staff. 

* Consumer advocacy: Consumer advocacy groups in Canada are 
particularly concerned with consumer safety issues related to children’
s products and food products. Some advocacy groups in Canada include 
the Canada Toy Testing Council, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, 
Consumers Council of Canada, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. 

Regulatory Framework/System: 

* Laws and regulations: The Canadian government’s key legislation 
governing consumer product safety is the Hazardous Products Act. Part 1 
of the act lists consumer products that are either restricted through 
regulation or outright prohibited from being advertised, sold, or 
imported into Canada. There are approximately 30 products and product 
categories that are regulated, and some 25 others that are prohibited. 
All imported products are subject to the D Memoranda, which 
incorporates legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures used by 
the Canada Border Services Agency. Canada’s Chemical Management Plan 
also has an impact on consumer product safety. 

* Definition of safe product: Canada has no specific definition under 
the Hazardous Products Act. However, a new act, currently awaiting 
Canadian Senate approval as of June 2009, will include a definition of “
danger to human health or safety,” which will support a general 
prohibition. 

* Standards: Some consumer product standards are mandatory legal 
requirements, others are industry standards developed on a voluntary 
basis, and some are purely market driven as a particular technology 
becomes the industry standard. Approximately two-thirds of standards in 
Canada are voluntary. Federal and provincial legislation may impose 
mandatory standards for products, typically where health or safety 
issues are regarded as requiring regulation. Standards can also be 
written into the legislation itself; such is the case with certain 
specifications in toy regulations under the Hazardous Products Act. The 
Standards Council of Canada is the national coordinating body for the 
development of voluntary standards through the National Standards 
System. 

* Detection, reporting, and removal of unsafe products: The current 
Canadian product safety regulatory system follows a reactive approach. 
When a product has been deemed to pose a risk to users—usually over a 
period of time, with reported injuries and/or deaths associated with 
the product’s use—a risk assessment is carried out. The regulatory 
process involves many steps, including consultation with public, 
industry, and technical experts. The end result is either that the 
product remains available for sale in the Canadian marketplace or that 
Health Canada imposes a legal ban on the product under the Hazardous 
Product Act. 

* Business responsibility: Currently, there is no mandatory reporting 
for businesses, and Health Canada relies largely on negotiating with 
suppliers to voluntarily recall or take other corrective measures to 
address a product that poses an unreasonable danger to the health or 
safety of consumers. The new Consumer Product Safety Act (discussed 
below) will give inspectors the ability to order a suppler to take 
corrective measures. 

* Policy enforcement and compliance: Canadian authorities have the 
ability to seize products, prosecute violations through a criminal 
code, and impose civil money penalties. The maximum amount of a civil 
money penalty is $1 million per violation, although penalties of 
$25,000 are most common. 

Future Plans: 

On June 12, 2009, Canada’s new Consumer Product Safety Act was passed 
by the House of Commons and, as of the end of June 2009, is awaiting 
final action by the Canadian Senate. The Consumer Product Safety Act 
would replace Part I of the Hazardous Products Act and includes a new 
regulatory regime. The act focuses on three key areas: 

* Working to address problems before they happen: The legislation 
introduces a general prohibition against the manufacture, importation, 
advertisement or sale of consumer products that pose an unreasonable 
danger to human health or safety. It strengthens compliance promotion 
and enforcement activities through increased fines up to $5 million for 
some offenses and fines that are left to the discretion of the courts 
where the offense is committed knowingly or recklessly. 

* Targeting the highest risk: The act provides the authority to require 
suppliers to conduct safety tests upon a minister’s orders and to 
provide the results where there are indications of a problem. The 
legislation will also require suppliers to notify Health Canada of 
serious incidents or defects and to provide detailed reports about the 
incidents. 

* Rapid response: The act allows the Canadian government to take more 
immediate responsive action to protect the public when a problem 
occurs. It would authorize inspectors to order mandatory recalls and 
other corrective measures to address unsafe consumer products and would 
require suppliers to maintain accurate records to enable quick product 
tracking. In addition, to further improve the government’s ability to 
respond effectively, Health Canada would double the number of product 
safety inspectors. 

European Union: 

Environment for Consumer Product Safety in the EU: 

In 2007, in response to massive recalls of consumer products worldwide, 
the European Commission (EC) conducted an internal review of the 
European Union (EU) product safety framework.[Footnote 87] The review 
concluded that the community regulatory system (discussed below), 
including the General Product Safety Directive, was capable of 
providing to European citizens a high level of protection against 
unsafe consumer products, as long as the rules of the system were 
properly applied. The review identified areas for improvement and ways 
of perfecting their system. The review stated that the adoption of the “
Commission Decision” on magnets in toys;[Footnote 88] the revision of 
the “European Directive” on the safety of toys;[Footnote 89] and the 
issuance of rules called the “New Legislative Framework” for marketing 
of goods; would also raise the existing level of protection.[Footnote 
90] It also identified some areas for further attention.[Footnote 91] 
These findings were subsequently referred to in an official EU report 
on the implementation of the relevant legislation.[Footnote 92] 

* Key organizations: The EC Directorates General for Health and 
Consumers (consumer product safety), Enterprise and Industry (safety of 
regulated products) and Taxation and Customs Union (import safety) put 
forth legislation aimed at further ensuring the safety of products. The 
Directorate General for Health and Consumers, referred to as DG SANCO, 
is an EU branch that is somewhat equivalent to CPSC in driving consumer 
product safety matters both within Europe and internationally. However, 
EU member states (currently 27 individual countries) are responsible 
for implementation and enforcement of EU legislation. Each member state 
has established its unique structures for handling product safety given 
their cultural history and industrial background. The European 
Commission coordinates their approaches and ensures their cooperation. 

* Resources: Because of the very different role of the EC as compared 
to CPSC in product safety enforcement, EU officials had difficulties 
providing us with useful figures on resources and stated they risked 
being seriously misleading if the member states’ role was not taken 
into consideration. They did not have conclusive data for the member 
states. Different commission departments also perform part of their 
functions related to consumer product safety, such as reviewing 
European legislation in certain sectors relevant for consumer safety, 
which would make sense to include in their “central function” 
resources. While the “Product and Service Safety” unit in DG SANCO is 
generally comparable to CPSC in terms of policy function, it does not 
include actual implementation and enforcement at the level of the 
individual member states. Many staff from the Product and Service 
Safety unit play a role in the “international” (versus “European”) 
area, but also have other responsibilities. DG SANCO determines who 
represents the EU at the international level by the subject-matter 
expertise for product safety. 

Regulatory Framework in the EU: 

* Laws and regulations: The General Product Safety Directive sets out 
the basic consumer product safety requirements and defines a “consumer 
product,” and Article 2(b) and (c) of the directive defines “safe” and “
unsafe” product. A “dangerous product” is any product that does not 
meet the definition of a “safe” product. 

* Definition of safe product: The directive defines a “safe product” as 
any product which—under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of 
use including duration and, where applicable, putting into service, 
installation and maintenance requirements—does not present any risk or 
only the minimum risks compatible with the product’s use. Such a 
product is considered to be acceptable and consistent with a high level 
of protection for the safety and health of persons taking into account 
the following points in particular: 

- the characteristics of the product, including its composition, 
packaging, instructions for assembly and, where applicable, 
instructions for installation and maintenance; 

- the effect on other products, where it is reasonably foreseeable that 
it will be used with other products; 

- the presentation of the product, the labeling, any warnings and 
instructions for its use and disposal, and any other indication or 
information regarding the product; and; 

- the categories of consumers at risk when using the product, in 
particular children and the elderly. 

In addition, the feasibility of obtaining higher levels of safety or 
the availability of other products presenting a lesser degree of risk 
shall not constitute grounds for considering a product to be 
“dangerous.” 

In response to inconsistencies and identified weaknesses in the EU 
legislative framework for product safety, the EU issued additional 
regulations on marketing of products within the member states. Adopted 
in July 2008, this new framework aims to strengthen accreditation and 
market surveillance across member states and to remedy existing 
weaknesses of the legislative framework. It will apply from 2010. 
Guidance will be issued on its relation with the General Product Safety 
Directive. 

* Standards: The EU product safety system is based on voluntary 
standards. However, products that are manufactured to harmonized 
standards developed by recognized European standardization bodies (CEN, 
CENELEC, and ETSI) on the basis of a mandate (formal request) by the EC 
and ultimately referenced on the “Official Journal” of the EU benefit 
from a presumption of conformity with the safety requirements of the 
relevant legislative framework that are covered by those standards. 
[Footnote 93] The EU considers their safety requirements to be the 
backbone of its system. The safety requirements are expressed in 
sectoral (industry or product-specific) directives, conformity 
assessment measures and, in certain sectors, the availability of 
European standards. The General Product Safety Directive fills in the 
gaps when no sectoral Directive exists. For example, the EU has 
specific sectoral directives on toys, and some industrial products, 
such as electrical products, machinery, and pressure equipment. 
Businesses must carry out conformity and safety assessments of their 
products in accordance with the General Product Safety Directive and/or 
specific legislation applicable to their products. Businesses are 
required to certify that their products are safe, as defined under the 
directive. For some products self-declaration is sufficient, but other 
products require third-party verification. 

* Detection, reporting and the removal of unsafe products: The EU and 
its member states have the authorities to require mandatory recalls, 
and companies can negotiate voluntary recalls as necessary, similar to 
U.S. recalls. Under the General Product Safety Directive and applicable 
product-specific legislation, national authorities can ban the 
marketing of a dangerous product, order or organize its actual and 
immediate withdrawal, alert consumers to the risks it presents, order 
or coordinate its recall from consumers, and order or organize its 
destruction in suitable conditions. Businesses are required to report 
to the authorities if they detect that they have a dangerous product. 
Businesses also must remove unsafe products from markets and are under 
legal obligation to stop, withdraw, and/or recall their distribution. 
Businesses are required to repair or replace products and/or refund 
consumers the cost under certain criteria. 

* Policy enforcement and compliance: DG SANCO has no inspection and no 
jurisdictional authority. Member-state authorities can review technical 
product files that all businesses are required to maintain to certify 
general conformity with product standards. Within the common market, 
the regulations apply to the importer, distributor, manufacturer, and 
retailer. Imported products must meet the same requirements as domestic 
products. Member states must have authorities to carry out appropriate 
sampling and safety testing of domestically manufactured or imported 
products and to follow-up on consumer complaints. 

According to the EC report on its consumer product safety framework, 
the EU considers its customs controls to be reactive—no proactive 
obligation exists for the customs authorities to carry out controls for 
unsafe products at the EU borders on their own initiative. In response, 
the EU issued a “Council Regulation” to provide customs authorities 
with the legal basis and equally applicable and comparable procedures 
in all member states to suspend, for no more than 72 hours, the release 
of products which they suspect pose a serious risk to health and 
safety. 

* Consumer advocacy: A unique feature of the EU approach to consumer 
product safety is the funding support they provide to consumer 
representation groups through grants. As part of this approach, the 
consumer groups help define priority/future issues that require 
additional research and contribute to standard-making, and consumer 
groups can apply for grants to survey and educate consumers on these 
emerging issues. 

Japan: 

Environment for Consumer Product Safety in Japan: 

Japan’s Consumer Product Safety Law regulates the manufacture and sale 
of specific products to prevent harm and injury to consumers, to secure 
the safety of consumer products, and to promote voluntary activities of 
private business for the benefit of general consumers. Japan’s consumer 
product safety policies and procedures have been developed, 
implemented, and enforced by a wide variety of government agencies and 
organizations. As with some of the other countries we reviewed, Japan 
recently reorganized its approach and mechanisms for consumer product 
safety and food safety with the creation of the new Consumer Affairs 
Agency, as follows: 

* Key organizations: The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry 
(METI) is the key government organization responsible for developing 
consumer product safety policy in Japan. The National Institute of 
Technology and Evaluation conducts on-the-spot inspections of 
enterprises in accordance with METI’s instructions and analyzes the 
cause of accidents based on accident information to prevent future 
problems. The Consumer Policy Council, the Quality-of-Life Policy 
Council, and the National Consumer Affairs Center of Japan also have 
roles in advising and supporting the government on consumer-related 
issues in Japan. The Japan Cabinet Office carries out general 
coordination of basic consumer policies among related ministries and 
agencies. 

* Resources: According to Japanese officials, 33 staff members are 
devoted to consumer product safety, as part of the Product Safety 
Division of METI. However, other staff located in other agencies, as 
indicated above, also work on these issues. 

* Consumer advocacy: According to U.S. Embassy officials in Tokyo, 
consumer product safety issues receive considerable attention in the 
local press and the Japanese government, and consumers view consumer 
product safety as a major priority. A survey conducted by the cabinet 
office in 2005 found over 2,800 consumer groups active in Japan. Seven 
nonprofit consumer groups have been officially accredited by the 
Japanese government. They are: 

- Consumer Organization of Japan,
- Kansai Consumers Support Organization,
- Japan Association of Consumer Affairs Specialists,
- Kyoto Consumer Contract Network,
- Consumer.net Hiroshima,
- Hyogo Consumers Net, and, 
- Saitama Organization to Abolish Damage to Consumers. 

Regulatory Framework/System: 

* Laws and regulations: Domestic and imported consumer products are 
regulated by the following laws in Japan: 

- the Consumer Product Safety Law,
- the Household Goods Quality Labeling Law,
- the Law for the Control of Household Goods Containing Harmful 
Substances,
- the Chemical Substances Control Law, and, 
- the Electrical Appliance and Material Safety Law. 

Other laws relating to consumer protection include: 

- the Product Liability Act,
- the Consumer Contract Act,
- the Consumer Basic Act, and, 
- the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

Under Japan’s Consumer Product Safety Law, METI collects and makes 
public information on serious accidents involving consumer (household) 
products. The law requires manufacturers, marketers, and/or importers 
to report actual serious accidents to METI, which in turn informs the 
public. Manufacturers, marketers, and/or importers are also required to 
inform the public of the product safety issues involved. Major national 
consumer centers compile complaints from consumers, including product 
safety complaints. Depending on the product type, relevant ministries 
maintain regulations covering consumer products, including ensuring 
that products meet appropriate standards and labeling and certification 
requirements. Some ministries may require foreign manufacturers to 
register foreign manufacturing sites with the local government. 

* Definition of safe product: Article 1 of the Consumer Product Safety 
Law defines products as unsafe if they cause threat to consumers’ life 
or health. In addition, Article 2, Section 2, of the Product Liability 
Act provides that a defective product is to be considered as unsafe, 
taking into account the nature of the product, the ordinarily 
foreseeable use of the product, the time when the manufacturer 
delivered the product, and other circumstances. 

* Standards: Product requirements in Japan fall into two categories: 
technical regulations (or mandatory standards) and nonmandatory 
voluntary standards. Compliance with regulations and standards is also 
governed by a certification system in which inspection results 
determine whether or not approval (certification/quality mark) is 
granted. To affix a mandatory quality mark or a voluntary quality mark 
requires prior product type approval and possibly factory inspections 
for quality control assessment. Certain regulated products must bear 
the appropriate mandatory mark when shipped to Japan in order to clear 
Japanese Customs. Safety standards are specific to types of products 
and fall under the jurisdiction of the relevant ministry. 

* Policy enforcement and compliance: Generally, the importer of record 
is responsible for ensuring the quality and safety of imported consumer 
products in Japan. If a product is deemed harmful or defective, the 
importer is responsible for working with local authorities and consumer 
outlets to take necessary measures. The government may take action 
against the importer, such as conducting on-site inspection of business 
offices, plants, stores, and/or warehouses; ordering mandatory product 
recalls; suspending business operations for a certain period of time; 
or imposing penalties including fines and/or imprisonment. 

Future Plans: 

On May 29, 2009, the Japanese Diet approved bills establishing the 
Consumer Affairs Agency, which will administer consumer protection 
issues in Japan. The agency will begin operating in the fall with about 
200 staff from the Cabinet Office; the Fair Trade Commission; the 
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Forestry and Fisheries; and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. 
In addition, 60 temporary staff will be appointed from attorneys, 
consumer affairs consultants, and academics. The Consumer Affairs 
Agency will be placed under the Cabinet Office, and Consumer Affairs 
Centers nationwide will be established to provide information about 
product-related accidents and complaints. In addition, the Consumer 
Affairs Committee will be established at the same time to monitor the 
Consumer Affairs Agency. The committee—an independent body— will have 
authority to request information and reports from ministries and make 
recommendations for crisis management, through the Prime Minister, in 
the event of consumer incidents. 

China: 

Environment for Consumer Product Safety in China: 

China imports relatively few manufactured products compared with its 
exports. Consumer products that are imported tend to come from more 
developed and more regulated markets in Europe, Japan, and the United 
States. Therefore, China faces proportionally fewer challenges with 
regard to import products. Further, the costs of testing products and 
certifying them for sale, as well as the costs of shipping and tariffs, 
make it difficult for imported products to compete with Chinese 
domestic products in similar product categories. 

Recent high-profile cases in China involving food and product safety 
have affected China’s export reputation. These cases appear to have 
prompted the government to raise the priority of food and product 
safety. 

* Laws and regulations: China’s fundamental law on product safety is 
The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Product Quality, which was 
written in 1993 and revised in 2000. This law preceded the 
establishment of China’s leading quality and safety agency, the General 
Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine 
(AQSIQ). The law sets a very low standard for corporate liability by 
defining the amount of damages and fines that can be collected through 
lawsuits. It also applies some penalties to entities that can claim 
ignorance of the law. The law makes no reference to foreign 
manufactures or domestic goods. 

China’s main regulatory code pertaining to imported consumer goods is 
found in AQSIQ’s Regulations for Compulsory Product Certification. 
Issued in 2001, this regulation created a uniform standard for imported 
and domestically manufactured goods, as well as a certification mark 
known as China Compulsory Certification (CCC) or 3C. The regulation 
applies to a catalogue of products that must be approved by AQSIQ prior 
to general sale in China. The standards for individual products are 
defined separately by national and industry standards. CCC testing is 
conducted mostly by enterprises owned in whole or in part by AQSIQ; 
foreign testing companies have not been approved to conduct CCC tests, 
but neither have they been explicitly excluded. 

The Law of the People’s Republic of China on Import and Export 
Commodity Inspection is the main law pertaining to import and export 
inspections. The law dates to 1989 and provides for fee-based 
inspections at port, as well as preshipment inspections that may be 
conducted in a foreign country. The law empowers the provincial-level 
organizations of AQSIQ—known as Customs, Inspection and Quarantine 
(CIQ)—to conduct inspections. The law also provides for an appeal 
process in case the importer or exporter disagrees with the result of 
an inspection. The law sets penalties for evading the inspection 
process, trading in counterfeit goods, and corrupt practices. However, 
recent problems with food and product safety demonstrate that the local 
inspection offices responsible for both food and product testing may 
lack robust technical abilities and the capacity to deal with the 
current volume of trade. 

* Key organizations: AQSIQ is China’s leading quality and safety 
agency. Standards are issued by the Standards Administration of China, 
a division of AQSIQ, which also represents China in international 
standards organizations. The Certification and Accreditation 
Administration of the People’s Republic of China (CNCA), which is also 
technically part of AQSIQ, is responsible for certifying and 
accrediting functions related to CCC tests. Numerous testing companies, 
almost all partially owned by AQSIQ, carry out testing for the CCC 
system. A catalogue of China’s specific products required to obtain CCC 
approval can be found on CNCA’s Web site.[Footnote 94] In 2009, CNCA 
revoked a provision to allow the limited importation of any product not 
certified with a CCC mark. Unlike similar approvals for the United 
States, foreign manufacturers applying for CCC approval must pay all 
costs, including travel and lodging expenses of Chinese inspectors 
traveling to the foreign country for factory inspections. 

Routine inspections, factory checks, recalls, and other regulatory 
actions are carried out mostly by AQSIQ’s provincial representative 
offices, CIQ. China also has a product recall entity know as the 
Defective Product Administrative Center, a part of AQSIQ, which is 
responsible for the oversight of product recalls. The center is 
technically responsible for consumer products, but its primary focus is 
on automobile safety. The local CIQ offices are responsible for 
overseeing recalls at the local level. The national system for product 
recalls is still undeveloped. 

* Standards: China has a comprehensive body of regulatory standards 
that fall into four categories: National Standards, Industry Standards, 
Local Standards, and Enterprise Standards. Each category includes 
aspects of product safety. The governing law for these categories dates 
to 1988 and applies to a range of industries and fields, not just 
consumer products. Some of these regulatory standards are more clearly 
spelled out in product-specific codes published on the CNCA Web site. 

Under China’s system, there are both mandatory and voluntary standards. 
Mandatory standards are those intended to safeguard human health, 
personal property, and safety and those enforced by laws and 
administrative regulations. All others are voluntary standards. 
Similarly, under the CCC product certification system, some products 
are not subject to compulsory certification but can be certified on a 
voluntary basis. The voluntary process is known as the China Quality 
Certification Center’s Voluntary Product Certification System. It 
applies to products that are not included in an itemized catalogue of 
products subject to mandatory certification. The system is also an 
AQSIQ function, and this certification is limited to Chinese companies 
only. 

* Policy enforcement and compliance: CIQ offices are responsible for 
local enforcement actions. Local CIQ offices have responsibility for 
inspecting and certifying factories, issuing and revoking manufacturing 
licenses, issuing or revoking export permits, conducting preshipment 
export inspections, and clearing or refusing goods for importation into 
China. Local CIQ offices have their own laboratory facilities but often 
call upon AQSIQ headquarters for policy guidance and technical support. 
Local CIQ offices also have the authority to initiate a mandatory 
recall, although China’s recall system is still developing. As of July 
2009, China’s recall provisions emphasized the cessation of 
manufacturing and sale of dangerous goods and included no methodical 
system for the physical collection of goods already sold. According to 
U.S. Embassy officials in Beijing, draft regulations in China on 
product recalls represent a positive step for improved product safety. 

* Authority to inspect foreign manufacturing plants: China 
unambiguously holds and maintains the authority to inspect foreign-
owned plants operating in China, and such inspections are conducted by 
AQSIQ and the Ministry of Health. However, for any plant operating only 
for the purpose of export manufacturing (i.e., no sales in China), 
AQSIQ takes a less rigorous approach to regulation. Such plants are not 
required to undergo the same assessments as plants manufacturing for 
local consumption. 

U.S. Embassy officials in Beijing stated that they are unaware of any 
memorandum of understanding that AQSIQ may have to facilitate foreign 
inspections. However, the CCC system requires factory inspection to be 
conducted by a certification body that has been accredited by CNCA. 
Only one non-Chinese certification and testing body, Underwriters 
Laboratories, has been accredited to conduct follow-up factory 
inspections in the United States for CCC approval. CNCA has similar 
arrangements with other countries. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

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

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Debra Johnson, Assistant 
Director; Meghana Acharya; Philip Curtin; Elizabeth Guran; Ronald Ito; 
Marc Molino; Omyra Ramsingh; Linda Rego; Jennifer Schwartz; Jay Smale; 
and Kathryn Supinski made key contributions to this report. Important 
contributions also were made by Loren Yager, Director, International 
Affairs and Trade; Richard Stana, Director, Homeland Security and 
Justice; and Christine Broderick, Assistant Director, International 
Affairs and Trade. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

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

[2] See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 225, Pub. L. 
No. 110-314, 122 Stat. at 3070. 

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

[4] Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1207 (Oct. 27, 1972) (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051 et seq.). 

[5] See Consumer Product Safety Act § 30, Pub. L. No. 92-573, 86 Stat. 
1207, 1231 (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2079). 

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

[7] Pub. L. No. 86-613, 74 Stat. 372 (July 12, 1960) (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1261 et seq.). Under the act, CPSC is 
authorized to declare a substance to be a hazardous, and to regulate 
the labeling of substances which are declared to be hazardous. 15 
U.S.C. § 1261(f)(1)(B) and § 1262. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 91-601, 84 Stat. 1670 (Dec. 30, 1970) (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1471 et seq.). 

[9] Act of August 2, 1956, c. 890, 70 Stat. 953 (classified, as 
amended, at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1211 et seq.). Under the act, it is unlawful 
for any person to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate 
commerce any household refrigerator, unless it is equipped with a 
device enabling the door to be opened from the inside and which 
conforms with the standards prescribed by CPSC. 15 U.S.C. § 1214. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title XIV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1794 (Dec. 19, 
2007) (classified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 8001 et seq.). 

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

[12] CPSC has not been authorized to receive appropriations for more 
than three commissioners since fiscal year 1993. See Pub. L. No. 102-
389, Title III, 106 Stat. 1571, 1596 (Oct. 6, 1992). Section 202(b) of 
CPSIA repealed this provision, effective August 14, 2009. We have 
previously found that CPSC could benefit by changing to a single 
administrator because some of the basic assumptions about the need to 
have commissioners had not been realized. See GAO, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission: Administrative Structure Could Benefit from Change, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HRD-87-47] (Washington, 
D.C.: Apr. 9, 1987). 

[13] Products subject to such mandatory standards are often referred to 
as “regulated products.” Regulated products that do not comply with 
mandatory standards are often referred to as “violative products.” 

[14] See 15 U.S.C. § 2057; 15 U.S.C. § 1262; 15 U.S.C. § 1193; and 15 
U.S.C. § 1472. Banned products include unstable refuse bins, extremely 
flammable contact adhesives, lead-containing paint, consumer patching 
compounds containing asbestos, artificial emberizing materials 
containing asbestos, and lawn darts. See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1301-1306. 

[15] Although voluntary standards do not have the force of law, every 
manufacturer of a consumer product must inform the commission if they 
obtain information that reasonably supports the conclusion that the 
product is defective such that it presents a substantial product 
hazard, as defined below. 15 U.S.C. § 2064(b). Such a report may 
include information the manufacturer obtained about a product outside 
the United States if it is relevant to products sold or distributed in 
the United States. 16 C.F.R. § 1115.12(f). 

[16] 15 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(1). 

[17] 16 C.F.R. § 1009.3(a). When it appears that application of this 
policy is unduly burdening the free flow of goods, the commission 
states that it may consider modifications that alleviate such burdens, 
but not those that do not assure the consumer the same protection from 
unsafe foreign goods as from unsafe domestic goods. 16 C.F.R. § 
1009.3(i). 

[18] 15 U.S.C. § 2066(h). 

[19] Harmonized Tariff Schedule is an extension of the six-digit 
Harmonized Commodity and Coding System, the internationally recognized 
classification system for commodities. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
is a statutory authority codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1202. 

[20] A manifest is a document or compilation of documents required by 
law for most conveyances arriving in United States territory. A 
manifest provides information describing the cargo on board the 
arriving conveyance. See 19 U.S.C. § 1431; 19 C.F.R. § 4.7; 19 C.F.R. § 
122.48; and 19 C.F.R. § 123.4. 

[21] An imminently hazardous consumer product is a consumer product 
that presents imminent and unreasonable risk of death, serious illness, 
or severe personal injury. 15 U.S.C § 2061(a). CPSC states that it has 
not used its authority to refuse admission of an imminently hazardous 
consumer product because it requires filing an action in U.S. District 
Court, which is a resource-intensive process. Instead, CPSC states that 
it works cooperatively with the manufacturer to remove the product from 
the market, which can include seizure and detention of products at the 
port by CBP, if necessary. 

[22] A product may present a substantial product hazard if it fails to 
comply with a mandatory standard or is otherwise found to have a 
defect, and if the product creates a substantial risk of injury to the 
public. 

[23] CPSC officials told us that there is statutory authority under the 
Tariff Act of 1930, revised, that places certain obligations and time 
constraints on CBP for issuing detention notices and making decisions 
regarding detained products, but that authority expressly exempts from 
those requirements detentions made where the decision as to 
admissibility resides with an agency other than CBP. See 19 U.S.C § 
1499. Accordingly, CPSC officials stated, neither CBP nor CPSC is bound 
by those procedural constraints when merchandise is detained under CPSC 
authority. 

[24] 15 U.S.C. § 2066(e). CBP has the authority to supervise the 
exportation of refused consumer merchandise. See 19 C.F.R. § 158.45. 

[25] Effective August 14, 2009, the civil penalty maximum amounts are 
$100,000 for each individual violation and $15 million for a related 
series of violations. 15 U.S.C. § 2069(a)(1). The criminal penalties 
for a knowing and willful violation of the Acts that CPSC enforces 
could result in up to 5 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 for 
individuals and $500,000 for corporations for each offense. 15 U.S.C. § 
2070(a). 

[26] For example, according to CBP’s 2009-2013 Trade Strategy, on a 
typical day CBP processes over 85,000 shipments of goods worth $5.2 
billion. However, CBP indicated that after steady growth in imports the 
past few years, the overall value of imports entering the United States 
has decreased to $900 billion as of mid-fiscal year 2009, a decrease of 
$200 billion from fiscal year 2008. CBP also projects that the value of 
imports for fiscal year 2009 will decline to as low as $1.7 trillion, 
which was the level in 2004-2005. 

[27] 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(1). Section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (classified, as amended, at 15 U.S.C. § 2063) has always required 
that manufacturers and private labelers of consumer products subject to 
a product safety standard issue a certificate that certifies that such 
product complies with the applicable mandatory standard. The 
certificate must be based on a test of each product or upon a 
reasonable testing program. However, CPSC told us that they did not 
enforce the certification requirement at the ports of entry, but rather 
focused on the compliance of the product with the underlying mandatory 
standard. Furthermore, the previous certification requirement in the 
Consumer Product Safety Act applied only to products subject to 
mandatory standards promulgated under the act rather than each of the 
laws administered by the CPSC. 

[28] 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(2). A children’s product is defined as a 
product primarily intended for children age 12 and under. 15 U.S.C. § 
2052(a)(2). CPSC is in the process of defining rules by which 
accredited third party laboratories are eligible to conduct testing for 
conformance with certain mandatory standards; that is, the laboratories 
do not receive a blanket accreditation from CPSC. CPSC is required to 
establish requirements for periodic audits of accredited third party 
laboratories and may withdraw accreditation under certain 
circumstances. 15 U.S.C. § 2063(d)(1) and (e). 

[29] CPSC provided three reasons why surveillance is focused on these 
products. First, the HTS may not be specific enough to accurately 
identify specific products subject to CPSC mandatory standards. 
Generally speaking, the HTS is used to describe all goods in trade. 
Importers use a code from the HTS to identify goods in shipments. If 
the code is not specific enough, then CPSC states that it has 
difficulty targeting specific products. Second, CPSC states that the 
mandatory standards for these consumer products are written in a manner 
that allows for easy identification of violative products at the port. 
Third, CPSC states that fireworks and lighters, as well as toys, are 
among the most common consumer products imported into the United 
States, so it conducts increased port surveillance to prevent unsafe 
products from entering the market. 

[30] CPSC may by rule determine that certain characteristics of a 
product or class of products, by their absence or presence, shall be 
deemed a substantial product hazard if (1) the characteristics are 
readily observable and addressed by voluntary standards, (2) the 
voluntary standards have been effective in reducing the risk of injury, 
and (3) there is substantial compliance with such standards. 15 U.S.C. 
§ 2064(j). Characteristics of products often used as examples for the 
substantial product hazard list include the presence of drawstrings in 
hooded sweatshirts intended for children and the absence of a ground 
fault circuit interrupter in electric hairdryers. 

[31] Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2066(b), an importer may demand a full 
administrative hearing to contest a refusal of admission made on the 
basis of a CPSC staff-level substantial hazard determination. CPSC 
states that this is a resource-intensive process. See 16 C.F.R. § 1025. 
With the substantial product hazard list, CPSC states that if its 
determination to refuse admission is challenged by the importer, the 
only issue at the administrative hearing would be whether the product 
is on the substantial product hazard list. 

[32] Products subject to no standards cannot, by law, be included on 
the list. CPSC staff told us that it is very difficult to judge whether 
a product is defective when there is no standard with which to compare 
the product. CPSC staff stated that this is particularly true at ports 
of entry where there is pressure to move products quickly into 
commerce. Moreover, manufacturing or design defects in products are not 
always readily apparent and can take some time to surface, sometimes 
only after consumers have used the product. 

[33] See “Notice of Stay of Enforcement of Testing and Certification,” 
74 Fed. Reg. 6396 (Feb. 9, 2009). 

[34] See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and Public Citizen, 
Inc., vs. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 597 F.Supp 2d. 370 
(S.D.N.Y. 2009). 

[35] For example, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, a U.S. trade 
group, has recently partnered with the United Kingdom’s retailers 
association, the British Retail Consortium, to develop global 
manufacturing standards and risk management practices. In addition, two 
trade groups that specialize in children’s products—the Toy Industry 
Association and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association—have 
developed their own certification programs. The American Fireworks 
Standards Laboratory has, for several years, had a testing and 
certification program for the fireworks industry in response to the 
failure of over half of all imported fireworks to meet federal safety 
standards and to CPSC’s seizure of these products in the 1980s. 

[36] Through this program, CPSC has worked with CBP and U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a component of the U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security that enforces U.S. customs and immigration laws, 
to implement national programs targeting (1) lighters that do not 
comply with CPSC’s mandatory regulations, (2) holiday lights that pose 
a fire or electrocution hazard, and (3) toys that do not comply with 
CPSC requirements. According to CPSC, the agency’s involvement in 
Operation Guardian dates back to December 2007. 

[37] So far, two consumer product companies have joined the program—
J.C. Penney and Hasbro—and, according to CBP and a trade group, both 
have had positive experiences thus far. 

[38] See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(a), Pub. 
L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. at 3066. 

[39] Upon completion of its risk assessment methodology, CPSIA requires 
CPSC to submit a report to Congress within 180 days regarding changes 
made or necessary to be made to its MOU with CBP. See Consumer Product 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(d)(2), Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 
Stat. at 3068. 

[40] The time frames for receiving manifest data for goods entering the 
United States through other modes of transportation—air, train, or 
truck—vary. 

[41] Section 405 of the SAFE Port Act requires all federal agencies 
with import regulatory responsibility, including CPSC, to participate 
in the International Trade Data System. Pub. L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat 
1884, 1929 (Oct. 13, 2006) (classified at 19 U.S.C. § 1411). 

[42] According to CBP, the 2002 MOU will likely need to be updated to 
reflect changes to the relationship between CPSC and CBP that have 
resulted from enactment of CPSIA, and updating the 2002 MOU may also 
help CPSC prepare the risk assessment methodology described above. 

[43] See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 222(b) and 
(c), Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. at 3067. 

[44] The National Targeting Center is a centralized coordination point 
for all of CBP’s antiterrorism knowledge. 

[45] The Automated Targeting System is a system CBP uses to target 
shipments for further screening and review at U.S. ports of entry. The 
system contains manifest data on shipments of consumer products. 

[46] See Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 § 202(c)(1) 
and (2), Pub. L. No. 110-314, 122 Stat. at 3040. 

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

[48] See GAO, Feasibility of Requiring Financial Assurances for the 
Recall and Destruction of Consumer Products, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-512R] (Washington D.C.: Apr. 22, 
2009). 

[49] See 15 U.S.C. §§ 2065(d) and 2066(g). CPSC has authority to enter 
and inspect, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, a “
factory, fire-walled conformity assessment body, warehouse, or 
establishment where such products are manufactured, held, or 
transported and which may relate to the safety of such products.” 15 
U.S.C. § 2065(a). Also, every manufacturer, private labeler, or 
distributor of a consumer product is required to establish and maintain 
records reasonably required by the commission to implement the Consumer 
Product Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2065(b). 

[50] CPSC believes that certifications and tracking labels on consumer 
products may help in this regard. When implemented, certifications must 
identify the manufacturer issuing the certificate and the place of 
manufacture. See 15 U.S.C. § 2063(g)(1). Also, the Consumer Product 
Safety Act requires, as of August 14, 2009, that tracking labels be 
placed on children’s products identifying the specific source of the 
product. See 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(5). 

[51] See, for example, 15 U.S.C. § 2056-2057 (CPSC); 21 U.S.C. § 341 
and § 360d(b) (FDA); 49 U.S.C. § 30111 (NHTSA); and 21 U.S.C. § 1035, § 
1036, § 453, § 456, § 601, and § 608 (USDA). 

[52] See 15 U.S.C. § 2066(b) and (h), and § 2066(a-b) (CPSC); 21 U.S.C. 
§ 381(a), § 381(m) and (o) (FDA); 7 U.S.C. § 7712(a), § 7713(a), § 
8303(a), and § 8307(b) (USDA—live plants and animals); 21 U.S.C. § 
620(a) (USDA—meat); 21 U.S.C. § 466(a) (USDA—poultry); 21 U.S.C. § 
1046(a) (USDA—egg products). 

[53] FDA may deny an application to introduce a new drug into commerce 
in the United States if the application does not include reports of 
adequate testing by all methods reasonably applicable to show whether 
or not the drug is safe for use. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(b) and (e). 
Products under CPSC jurisdiction that are subject to a children’s 
product safety rule must be tested by a third party. See 15 U.S.C. § 
2063(a)(2). 

[54] 15 U.S.C. §§ 2065(a) and 2066(g). 

[55] In general, imported egg products, poultry, and meat must be 
manufactured or processed in a foreign country that has obtained 
certification from FSIS indicating that it maintains a safety 
compliance program equivalent to that of the United States. See 21 
U.S.C. § 466(d) and 9 C.F.R. Part 381, Subpart T (poultry); 21 U.S.C. § 
620(f) and 9 C.F.R. Part 327 (meat products); 21 U.S.C. § 1046(a)(2) 
and 9 C.F.R. §§ 590.900—590.970 (egg products). Individual drugs and 
certain medical devices must obtain preapproval from FDA before they 
can be introduced, delivered, or marketed in U.S. commerce. See 21 
U.S.C. § 355(a) and § 360(e). 

[56] See 49 U.S.C. § 30164; 49 C.F.R. Part 551. As noted in appendix II 
of this report, notice of an enforcement action is one of the necessary 
elements for establishing jurisdiction in a U.S. court. 

[57] In re Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0019 
(reprinted in 74 Fed. Reg. 28030 (June 12, 2009)). 

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

[59] According to CPSC, formal action against a foreign corporation 
must be served following the Convention on the Service Abroad of 
Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. 
658 U.N.T.S. 163 (November 15, 1965). 

[60] According to USDA officials, FSIS invested approximately $19 
million in fiscal year 2009 to ensure the safety of imported products, 
which included costs for determining the equivalence of foreign 
inspection systems. 

[61] Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures, signed April 15, 1994, Final Act of the Uruguay Round of 
Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Marrakesh, Morocco. 

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

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

[64] FDA compliance programs are documents prepared by FDA centers that 
provide guidance to field staff in carrying out investigations, 
inspections, sample collections, sample analyses, and regulatory 
activities in defined program areas, such as domestic seafood and 
pesticides in domestic foods. 

[65] As stated above, all federal agencies with import regulatory 
responsibility are required to participate in the International Trade 
Data System, which, according to CBP, is intended to link these 
agencies to CBP’s Automated Targeting System. 

[66] FSIS is developing a new risk-based public health inspection 
program it calls the Public Health Information System (PHIS) that will 
phase out AIIS. We did not independently review AIIS or PHIS. 

[67] We did not independently review OASIS. FDA is developing a new 
screening tool to replace the admissibility screening portion of OASIS 
it calls the Predictive Risk-Based Evaluation for Dynamic Import 
Compliance Targeting (PREDICT). The PREDICT screening tool will be 
different from the legacy OASIS screening module in that it is designed 
to use multiple factors including automated data mining, pattern 
discovery, open source intelligence, and database queries of other FDA 
Center databases to calculate a risk score for import shipments. 

[68] Import alerts indicate particular risks that are screened for at 
U.S. borders and face potential refusal into the United States. FDA 
officials told us the agency may issue an import alert based on 
information from market surveillance, border inspections, or from 
information they obtain directly from foreign countries. 

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

[70] As of June 18, 2009, at [hyperlink, 
http://www.fda.gov/InternationalPrograms/Agreements/MemorandaofUnderstan
ding/default.htm]. 

[71] In 2008, OECD sent out a questionnaire to its member nations on 
consumer product safety. The Analytical Report on Consumer Product 
Safety, DSTI/CP(2008)18/FINAL, OECD, 2008, was prepared to facilitate 
discussion of the questionnaire responses at the Roundtable on Consumer 
Product Safety, sponsored by the OECD Committee on Consumer Policy on 
Oct. 23, 2008. 

[72] GPSD aims at ensuring that only safe consumer products are sold in 
the EU. According to the EU, GPSD provides a broad definition of a safe 
product, and products must comply with this definition. In addition to 
the basic requirement to place only safe products on the market, 
producers must inform consumers of the risks associated with the 
products they supply. They must take appropriate measures to prevent 
such risks and be able to trace dangerous products. Under GPSD, the 
member states are obliged to enforce the requirements on producers and 
distributors. In addition to the power to impose penalties, the 
directive gives the surveillance authorities a wide range of monitoring 
and intervention powers. 

[73] According to the EU, half of all dangerous products seized by 
European customs and product safety authorities in 2008 came from 
China, and China is the EU’s biggest supplier. 

[74] The EU’s RAPEX system was established by the GPSD and applies to 
only nonfood consumer products. It is designed to ensure the swift 
transfer of information on dangerous nonfood consumer products found in 
one EU member state to the European Commission and to other member 
states. The system is intended to promote effective cross-border market 
surveillance. Once a dangerous product is found and stopped, the 
national contact point notifies national market surveillance 
authorities, customs authorities, and the European Commission. The 
commission validates the notification and then transmits the 
information to the other countries through the RAPEX system. 

[75] Summaries of these reports are publicly available at [hyperlink, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/int_coop/july2009_after_vi_report.p
df.] 

[76] The roundtable recommended greater coordination and cooperation 
within and among countries and multilateral organizations. In addition, 
the roundtable also recommended that governments take a more proactive 
approach to product safety failure, make greater efforts to harmonize 
product safety standards internationally, and work to develop a rapid 
international information exchange system. See OECD Roundtable on 
Consumer Product Safety—Summary Report, DSTI/CP (2009)1/FINAL, OECD 
(October 2008). 

[77] The Interagency Working Group on Import Safety, composed of 
representatives from 12 cabinet departments and agencies, including 
CPSC, was formed by executive order in July 2007. The working group 
issued its Action Plan for Import Safety on Nov. 6, 2007, which 
contained several recommendations designed to improve the safety of 
imported products. According to a CBP official, representatives from 
import safety agencies, including CPSC, continue to meet to implement 
certain recommendations of the action plan. 

[78] See “Consumer Product Safety Commission Agenda, Priorities, and 
Strategic Plan: Request for Comments,” 74 Fed. Reg. 109 (Jun. 9, 2009). 

[79] We previously reported that when agencies have difficulty 
establishing outcome-oriented performance measures, they can develop 
intermediate measures that show how programs are contributing toward 
end outcomes. See GAO, Rail Safety: The Federal Railroad Administration 
Is Taking Steps to Better Target Its Oversight, but Assessment of 
Results Is Needed to Determine Impact, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-149] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 
2007): 39-47. 

[80] South Korea is also a member of the International Consumer Product 
Safety Caucus, but due to resource constraints, we omitted Korea from 
our analysis. The EU is a customs territory, but we refer to it as a 
country in this report for ease of reference. 

[81] The most common means of establishing personal jurisdiction are 
(1) service of process on a defendant that is physically located within 
the territorial jurisdiction of the particular court; (2) service of 
process on a defendant that is not physically located within the 
court’s territorial jurisdiction, but where such service is determined 
to be fair because the defendant has sufficient “contacts” within the 
jurisdiction; or (3) a defendant’s consent to personal jurisdiction. 

[82] For example, in June 2009, CPSC reached a $2.3 million settlement 
with Mattel, Inc., regarding the importation of toys manufactured in 
China that violated the Commission’s Ban of Lead-Containing Paint and 
Certain Consumer Products Bearing Lead-Containing Paint (Lead-Paint 
Ban), 16 C.F.R. Part 1303. In re Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., 
CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0019 (reprinted at 74 Fed. Reg. 28030 (Jun. 12, 2009). 

[83] See 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (November 15, 1965). 

[84] CPSC announced on August 4, 2009, that Techtronic Industries Co. 
Ltd., which is a foreign entity, agreed to pay a civil penalty in the 
settlement of litigation filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (on 
CPSC’s behalf) in U.S. district court. In re United States v. Wagner 
Spray Tech Corp. and Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., No. 08 Civ. 6478 
(D. Minn. July 23, 2009). Also, in July 2009, CPSC reached a $50,000 
settlement with First Learning Company, Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation 
with offices in the U.S., regarding the importation of toys 
manufactured in China that violated the Commission’s Lead-Paint Ban. In 
re First Learning Company Ltd., CPSC Dk. No. 09-C0026 (Jul. 8, 2009). 

[85] This table is not a comprehensive representation of all statutory 
or regulatory provisions applicable to a particular regulatory 
activity. In the absence of a primary statutory provision that 
expressly authorizes or prohibits a particular regulatory activity, we 
did not undertake an independent analysis to determine whether an 
agency is authorized to undertake such activity pursuant to a general 
grant of authority under the relevant implementing statute or 
otherwise. 

[86] Established by the President on July 18, 2007, the Interagency 
Working Group on Import Safety is composed of senior officials from 
twelve federal departments and agencies and is organized to 
continuously improve the safety of imported goods. To accomplish this, 
the group’s strategy is to shift focus from intervention—actions taken 
when risks are identified—to prevention—actions to prevent harm in the 
first place. 

[87] In the EU, policy responsibilities lie with the EC— the executive 
arm of the EU, responsible for implementing its policies and running 
its programs. 

[88] Commission Decision 2008/329/EC (OJ L 114, 26.4.2008, 90). 

[89] COM (2008) 9. 

[90] On July 9, 2008, a new legislative framework for the marketing of 
products consisting of Regulation (EC) No. 765/2008 and Decision 
768/2008/EC was adopted (OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, 30, 82). 

[91] The report suggests scope to develop the framework and further 
actions, outlining benefits which further coordinated market 
surveillance between the Member States would bring, given the 
increasingly global market. It also suggests that efficiency in 
addressing product safety issues would be increased if the Commission 
were enabled to act more quickly to create state-of-the-art standards 
for specific risky products and if a permanent ban could be imposed 
under the General Product Safety Directive on products or substances 
when a risk is generally recognized, rather than having to do this 
through further product specific Directives. 

[92] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the 
Council on the Implementation of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product 
safety, Brussels, 14.1.2009, COM(2008)905 final. [hyperlink, 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/safety/prod_legis/docs/report_impl_gpsd_en
.pdf]. 

[93] The drafting of specific EU standards is handled by three European 
standards organizations: the European Committee for Electrotechnical 
Standardization (CENELEC), the European Telecommunications Standards 
Institute (ETSI), and the European Committee for Standardization (CEN). 

[94] CNCA’s English-language Web site is hyperlink, 
http://219.238.178.8/20040420/column/227.htm] (accessed 7/6/09). It 
lists the types of products that require CCC tests. 

[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site, 
[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. 

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

Contact: 

Web site: [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: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: