Detailed Information on the
Consumer Product Safety Commission Assessment

Establishing broader, more comprehensive long-term goals consistent with CPSC's overall mission.

Ensuring budget requests are explicitly tied to the accomplishment of annual and long-term performance goals, and that resource needs are presented clearly in the budget.

Measure: Reduce the rate of death from fire-related causes by 20 percent from 1998 to 2013. Three year moving averages are used to measure death rate reduction. Figures represent the number of deaths per million citizens.

Explanation:The nation's fire death rate remains high. In 2005, an estimated 2,630 people died. Children and seniors are particularly vulnerable. The rate of death from fire-related causes represents the number of residential structure fire deaths (excluding arson) divided by the U.S. residential population (from the U.S. Census Bureau). 2004 is the last year for which a moving average is available because of the lag in data reporting and processing.

Measure: Reduce the rate of death from carbon monoxide poisoning by 20 percent from the 1999-2000 average by the year 2013. Three year moving averages are used to measure death rate reduction. Figures represent the number of deaths per ten million citizens.

Explanation:Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas that has no smell, color, or taste. Any fuel-burning appliance is a potential CO source. From 2002-2004, there was an annual average of 166 unintentional non-fire CO poisoning deaths associated with consumer products. The rate of death from CO causes represents the number of unintentional CO poisoning deaths (excluding incidents involving auto exhaust and fires) divided by the U.S. residential population (from the U.S. Census Bureau). 2004 is the last year for which a moving average is available because of the lag in data reporting and processing.

Measure: Percent of fire hazard cases going to the preliminary determination panel within 85 business days after a firm report or opening of a case.

Explanation:This new annual output measure targets CPSC's analysis and preliminary determination of product defects unrelated to mandatory standards. This annual measure contributes to CPSC's long-term strategic goal of reducing fire deaths by prioritizing cases involving potential fire hazards for rapid investigation and resolution. CPSC will measure and report on the number of fire-related cases that are resolved within 85 business days compared to all fire-related cases in a given fiscal year, excluding Fast Track cases. The number of days was chosen to provide a short but realistic amount of time to decide whether a product defect is present and corrective action is necessary. This involves obtaining information from the firm, analyzing incident and injury data, obtaining samples, conducting engineering product safety assessments, and evaluating the firm's response to CPSC results.

Measure: Percent of fire-related cases where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination that a product is defective.

Explanation:This new annual output measure targets CPSC's ability to obtain corrective action in product defect cases involving fire hazards. This annual measure contributes to CPSC's long-term strategic goal of reducing fire deaths by driving prompt corrective action for defective products posing fire hazards. Once a preliminary determination has been made, CPSC will seek to obtain a corrective action within 60 business days such as a consumer-level recall, stopping sale of the product and/or correcting future production, within 60 business days. The number of days was chosen to provide a short but realistic amount of time to negotiate and launch a corrective action from a firm that may not believe a corrective action is necessary. Firms must be persuaded that the defect determination is sound and to undertake a major expense voluntarily. Firms must then have adequate time to engineer an appropriate repair or other remedy.

Measure: Percent of cases where corrective action is taken within 35 business days after notice of a violation of CPSC standards relating to fire.

Explanation:This new annual output measure targets industry's compliance with mandatory standards pertaining to fire-related hazards and CPSC's ability to quickly obtain corrective action for violations of fire-related standards. This measure contributes to CPSC's long-term strategic goal of reducing fire deaths by driving prompt corrective action for products violating fire-related standards within 35 business days. When it is determined that a product violates CPSC standards, a letter of advice (LOA) is sent to the manufacturer, importer or retailer. Corrective actions may include a consumer-level recall, as well as stopping sale of the violative product and/or correcting future production. The number of days was chosen to provide a short but realistic amount of time to negotiate and launch a corrective action. While existence of a violation of a CPSC safety standard strengthens CPSC's hand in negotiations, CPSC must still review and verify the firm's proposed design and/or manufacturing changes to determine if they are sufficient to correct the problem.

Measure: Percent of defective product cases where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination involving all hazard areas (including fire and CO).

Explanation:This new annual efficiency measure targets CPSC's ability to obtain a timely corrective action in product defect cases involving all hazards (including fire and CO). This measure contributes to both of CPSC's long-term strategic goals by driving prompt corrective action for defective products in all hazard areas within 60 business days. Once a preliminary determination has been made, CPSC will seek to obtain a corrective action such as a consumer-level recall, stopping sale of the product and/or correcting future production. The number of days was chosen to provide a short but realistic amount of time to negotiate and launch a corrective action from a firm that may not believe a corrective action is necessary. Firms must be persuaded that the defect determination is sound and to undertake a major expense voluntarily. Firms must then have adequate time to engineer an appropriate repair or other remedy.

Measure: Percent of cases where corrective action is taken within 35 business days after notice of a violation of CPSC mandatory standards involving all hazard areas (including fire and CO).

Explanation:This new annual efficiency measure targets CPSC's ability to obtain corrective action for violations of mandatory standards related to all hazard areas. This annual measure contributes to CPSC's long-term strategic goal of reducing fire deaths by driving prompt corrective action for products violating mandatory standards for all hazard areas, including fire and CO, within 35 business days. When it is determined that a product violates CPSC standards, a letter of advice (LOA) is sent to the manufacturer, importer or retailer. Corrective actions include a consumer-level recall, stopping sale of the violative product and correcting future production. The number of days was chosen to provide a short but realistic amount of time to negotiate and/or launch a corrective action. While existence of a violation of a CPSC safety standard strengthens CPSC's hand in negotiations, CPSC must still review and verify the firm's proposed design and/or manufacturing changes to determine if they are likely to adequately address the defect.

Measure: Number of consumers reached with CPSC's fire safety messages through TV appearances and interviews on national television networks, video news releases to national and local television networks, and e-publications on CPSC's web site.

Explanation:Consumer outreach is an important strategy for providing safety information to the public to reduce product hazards. National networks and local television stations reach a broad audience of consumers very quickly regarding products with potential fire-hazards, such as providing information on the fire dangers posed by flammable Halloween costumes and defective candle holders. The data on the number of consumers reached come from three separate and independent tracking sources. The number of viewers of TV appearances and interviews is determined from Neilson ratings of major television networks. The number of viewers of video news releases is provided by a third party contractor. The number of e-publications viewed is determined through computer programming that links web statistics to publications by hazard.

Measure: Number of consumers reached with CPSC's carbon monoxide safety messages through TV appearances and interviews on national television networks, video news releases to national and local television networks, and e-publications on CPSC's web site.

Explanation:Consumer outreach is an important strategy for providing safety information to the public to reduce product hazards. National networks and local television stations reach a broad audience of consumers very quickly, such as providing information on the danger from carbon monoxide poisonings associated with the use of gas-powered generators after hurricanes and storms. The data for the number of consumers reached come from three separate and independent tracking sources. The number of viewers of TV appearances and interviews is determined from Neilson ratings of major television networks. The number of viewers of video news releases is provided by a third party contractor. The number of e-publications viewed is determined through computer programming that links web statistics to publications by hazard.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) authorizing legislation, the Consumer Product Safety Act (PL 92-573; CPSA) clearly states the program's purpose is, "(1) to protect the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products; (2) to assist consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products; (3) to develop uniform safety standards for consumer products and to minimize conflicting state and local regulations; and (4) to promote research and investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses and injury."

Evidence: Authorizing legislation that affirms CPSC's mission include: (1) the CPSA, cited above; (2) the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, PL 86-613 (FHSA); (3) the Poison Prevention Packaging Act, PL 91-601 (PPPA), (4) the Flammable Fabrics Act, PL 83-88 (FFA); and (5) the Refrigerator Safety Act, PL 84-930 (RSA).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Each year, there continues to be a substantial number of injuries and deaths from over 15,000 types of consumer products under the sole jurisdiction of CPSC. Additionally, the injuries, deaths and property damage associated with these consumer products cost the nation over $700 billion annually. CPSC concentrates on reducing these injuries and deaths in four hazard areas: (1) fire and electrocutions; (2) children's products; (3) chemical; and (4) household/recreational products. Hazard reduction efforts are targeted based on seven CPSC criteria including: (1) Frequency and severity of injuries; (2) Causality of injuries; (3) Chronic illness and future injuries; (4) Cost and benefit of CPSC action; (5) Unforeseen nature of the risk; (6) Vulnerability of the population at risk; and (7) Probability of exposure to hazard.

Evidence: On average, there are 25,100 deaths and over 33.3 million injuries each year related to consumer products under CPSC's jurisdiction. (See 2005 Performance and Accountability Report.) Deaths involving products under CPSC's jurisdiction account for roughly 24% of all deaths resulting from unintentional injury. Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death among 1 to 44 year olds and was the fifth highest overall reason for death among all age groups in the United States in 2003. (See CDC Leading Causes of Death, 2003.) The $700 billion estimate associated with deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer products includes costs for medically-attended injuries generated by CPSC's Injury Cost Model, costs for fatalities using a statistical value of life and costs for property damage from an annual survey of residential fires conducted by the National Fire Protection Association. (See 2007 Performance Budget Request (February 2006) for a summary of how societal costs are estimated.) CPSC criteria for hazard reduction efforts are listed in 16 CFR 1009.8.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: No other Federal, state, local or private group's authority supersedes CPSC in identifying potential safety hazards, setting mandatory national safety standards, obtaining recalls of hazardous products or assessing penalties for products under CPSC's jurisdiction. CPSC is the only agency that is authorized to recall potentially hazardous consumer products under its jurisdiction and to require a refund, repair or replacement of products on behalf of consumers nationwide. When the CPSC issues a mandatory standard under the CPSA, the Federal Hazardous Substances Act [FHSA], the Flammable Fabrics Act [FFA] or the Poison Prevention Packaging Act [PPPA], this CPSC action preempts all standards or regulations that address the same risk of injury and are not as stringent as the Federal standard. A state may adopt a standard identical to a Federal standard promulgated under the CPSA, FHSA, FFA or PPPA to provide a basis for state and local enforcement of violations and to maximize the efficiencies in local health and safety regulatory regimes. A state may continue in effect or establish a safety requirement applicable to a consumer product, which provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury, if the safety requirement is for the state's "own use." (15 USC 2075(b); 15 USC 1261n(b)(1)(B)(2); 15 USC 1203(b); 15 USC 1476(b)). Additionally, no private organization can regulate the safety of consumer products. However, CPSC works collaboratively with many private organizations to promote product safety.

Evidence: One example of an area in which both the Federal government and the states may act is in the regulation of certain risks associated with bicycles. One aspect of the Commission's regulations addressing certain safety aspects of bicycles is the requirement that all regulated bicycles have reflectors as required in 16 C.F.R. 1512.16. This is intended to address the risk of inadequate nighttime visibility of bicycles by automobile drivers. Under the CPSC's statutes, federal preemption of state standards applies to state rules that address the same risk of injury. (See 15 U.S.C. 1261n(b).) States that seek to mandate the use of high intensity bicycle lights for nighttime use would be addressing a different risk of injury, that of the risk from obstacles in the road that may not be visible to the rider at night. Since the state rule in this example addresses a different risk of injury than the Commission's reflector standard, the state rule would not be preempted by Federal law.(See Consumer Product Safety Act.) Examples of complementary efforts of CPSC and other organizations include work with the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (CBHFTI), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and with industry experts, to share research information and reduce duplication of effort. This cooperative effort resulted in a mattress test method developed by NIST. In March 2006, CPSC issued a national standard, based upon NIST's test method, limiting the size and growth of fires from mattresses. California's TB 603 flammability requirements for mattresses, effective in January 2005, also incorporated the test method developed by NIST. (See Fire Test Method for Mattresses, Contract # CPSC-I-05-0009.)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: CPSC's program design provides an approach that balances the needs of consumers and industry through the use of voluntary and mandatory standards, recalls and consumer information. Mandatory standards may be implemented only in the absence of effective voluntary standards. Voluntary standards are usually effective because any product that fails to comply with voluntary standards may be considered a "substantial product hazard", which would allow for mandatory rulemaking to commence. The CPSA requires regulatory analysis, i.e., cost benefit, in Commission rulemaking. (See Section 9(f)(3)(E) and (F) of the CPSA.) There are identical provisions in the FHSA and FFA. There is no evidence that another approach would be more effective or efficient.

Evidence: CPSC has a program in place to systematically and regularly conduct reviews of all existing rules to determine whether the rules are still needed or if they can be streamlined to minimize regulatory burdens, especially on small entities. The rules to be evaluated are described in the Federal Register and public comment is solicited. For CPSA's regulatory analysis in Commission rulemaking, see Section 9(f)(3)(E) and (F) of the Consumer Product Safety Act. An example of a voluntary standard that has helped both consumers and industry is the baby walker standard. When first identified as an issue, data showed that baby walkers accounted for more injuries than any other type of nursery product when toddlers in baby walkers fell down stairs. CPSC started rulemaking proceedings and worked with the baby walker industry to add performance requirements to the voluntary standard that would address stair falls. Staff worked collaboratively with industry and published a revised voluntary standard with a stair fall test. Manufacturers then began marketing baby walkers that complied with the new standard. An independent peer-reviewed evaluation of effectiveness of the new standard concluded that the standard reduced the rate of emergency room-treated injuries by an estimated 63%. As a result of this standard, industry is able to market a safer product that meets consumers' needs.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Program resources are targeted to enhance the impact of consumer product safety activities: identifying hazards through data collection systems, developing and/or strengthening safety standards, removing unsafe products from the marketplace and public notification of safety information. There are no unintended subsidies. CPSC manages hazard reduction efforts on a risk-presented basis using death and injury data it collects and analyzes. The U.S. public, including consumers and industries, are the primary beneficiaries of improved product safety that result from safety standards and recalls. Consumers are provided with four main avenues for reporting incidents involving consumer products including: (1) CPSC's web site with a fill-in form, (2) calling the toll-free hotline at 1-800-638-2772, (3) sending an e-mail to info@cpsc.gov, or (4) mailing the agency at the street address. Consumers are also notified of product hazards and recalls as they occur, provided practical information about product safety and regulations that improve the safety of consumer products. Notice of recalls is often targeted to users of the specific products. For example, safety information is targeted to homeowners through inserts in utility bills to warn of fire and carbon monoxide hazards, to pediatrician offices for recalled children products, and to users of recalled sports equipment through notices in sporting magazines. Additionally, industry receives guidance and information on adherence to regulations and a national level playing field for domestic and imported consumer products. As the consumer product safety landscape changes, CPSC continually adapts to meet the needs of the U.S. public. Many CPSC publications, notices and grassroots partner services are available in Spanish and English. New technologies are implemented to improve reach, data quality and program effectiveness.

Evidence: CPSC extends its outreach through a number of mechanisms in order to ensure its resources get to beneficiaries, including its website (see http://www.cpsc.gov/ Report an Unsafe Product ). Other ways CPSC extends outreach to consumers is through agreements with the states, namely the State Partners Program, which enables CPSC to utilize state resources to do more recall effectiveness checks and more establishment inspections than it would otherwise be able to do. CPSC's field staff works with state and local organizations, such as Safe Kids and the 4-H to get product hazard information to consumers who otherwise might not receive CPSC's information. Additionally, CSPC staff uses new technologies to increase its outreach to beneficiaries; through the RSS (Really Simple Syndication) "feed," distribution of CPSC's recall notices can be automatically added to outside websites without any additional effort. For example, CPSC's tracking of fire death data showed that open flame ignitions of mattresses are a leading cause of fire deaths associated with products under CPSC's jurisdiction, with an estimated 350 deaths annually. Staff spent years developing the recently approved new Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets to address these deaths and associated injuries. This Standard was based on CPSC staff work such as analyses of national data sets; extensive laboratory testing; participation of industry and other stakeholders; public briefings of the Commission; an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Standard mandates performance requirements that will lead to smaller size fires which spread more slowly, thus providing people with more time to escape from the house before the room becomes engulfed in flames. CPSC's Office of Public Affairs and Office of Compliance are working to ensure success with the Standard. Compliance is focusing on educating the industry as to how to comply with the standard while Public Affairs will be providing consumers with an explanation of the Standard and with information about what to look for when buying a new mattress. When the Standard is fully effective, CPSC estimates that it will prevent up to 270 deaths and 1,330 injuries each year.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: CPSC has established two long-term performance measures: (1) reducing the death rate from fires associated with consumer products and (2) reducing the death rate from carbon monoxide poisonings associated with consumer products. These long-term performance measures were chosen because they represent serious problems and are addressable by CPSC actions. The outcome measures are in direct support of CPSC's mission to protect the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury from consumer products within its jurisdiction. CPSC is developing an additional long-term measure addressing all hazard areas, to provide a comprehensive picture of CPSC's overall activities and performance.

Evidence: CPSC's long-term performance measures are to: (1) reduce the rate of death from fire-related causes by 20% from 1998 to 2013. The rate of death from fire-related causes represents the number of residential structure fire deaths (excluding arson) divided by the U.S. residential population (from the U.S. Census Bureau), and (2) reduce the rate of death from carbon monoxide poisoning by 20% from 1999 to 2013 (2007 Performance Budget). The rate of death from CO causes represents the number of unintentional CO poisoning deaths (excluding incidents involving auto exhaust and fires) divided by the U.S. residential population (from the U.S. Census Bureau).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: In 2003, CPSC established long-term goals to reduce the death rate from fires and carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning from consumer products each by 20% of a baseline rate by the year 2013. After an examination of past projects and estimated future projects, workload and resources, a 20% target was determined to be ambitious. In addition, as time progresses, the rate of success becomes more difficult to sustain as more readily addressable hazards are reduced. The primary indicator CPSC uses to monitor its progress toward the long-term measures is the fire-related and CO related death rates. Due to data lags, implementation lags, process unpredictability and a need for multiyear data, a ten year timeframe (along with annual progress reporting) is appropriate.

Evidence: There is a lag of 3 to 4 years to obtain a reasonably complete national count of product-related deaths for a given year. This lag is caused by factors outside of CPSC's control including: medical examiners/coroners finalizing the death certificates; receipt of final fire department reports; counties reporting to the state level; and the states reporting to CPSC. In addition to the lag in data, the effects of safety standards or corrective actions often are not fully realized until years after implementation. For example, CPSC promulgated a safety standard for mattresses in 2006 to be effective in 2007. Death reductions clearly attributable to implementation are estimated to begin to appear in 2009. Additionally, data to measure the 2009 effectiveness will not be available until 2012 to 2013.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: CPSC has seven new annual output goals that are meaningful to the program, measurable, and assess progress towards achieving CPSC's long-term death reduction outcome goals. CPSC's annual performance measures focus on obtaining voluntary corrective actions for products that are defective or violate mandatory standards, as well as consumer outreach to reduce product-related deaths and injuries, associated with the long-term measures for fire and CO. There are five measures related to industry compliance; two of which are efficiency measures. CPSC's measures for industry compliance contribute to reducing the death rate from fire hazards by prioritizing cases involving potential fire hazards for rapid investigation culiminating in a "preliminary determination" of whether or not there is a product defect. In cases where a preliminary determination has been made, CPSC will drive prompt action from industry to correct products posing fire hazards. The efficiency measures aim to obtain timely corrective actions from industry for regulated and unregulated products across all hazard areas (including fire and CO). All five measures allow CPSC to remove hazardous products from the marketplace more quickly. Additionally, CPSC has two goals to increase the number of consumers reached with CPSC's fire and carbon monoxide safety messages. Consumer outreach is another important strategy for reducing the death rate by providing safety information to the public to reduce product hazards. Annual output goals are appropriate and useful measures for CPSC because they are the key activities used to reduce product-related deaths, can be tracked and measured in the action year and are not subject to the data and implementation lags associated with CPSC's outcome measures.

Evidence: The new annual performance measures are as follows: (1) Percent of cases involving fire hazards going to the preliminary determination panel within 85 business days after a firm report or opening of a case; (2) Percent of fire-related cases where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination that a product is defective; (3) Percent of cases where corrective action is taken within 35 business days after notice of a violation of CPSC standards relating to fire; (4) Percent of defective product cases where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination (across all hazard areas); (5) Percent of cases where corrective action is taken within 35 business days after notice of violation of CPSC's mandatory standards (across all hazard areas); (6) Number of consumers reached with CPSC's fire safety messages through TV appearances and interviews on national television networks, video news releases to national and local television networks, and e-publications on CPSC's website; (7) Number of consumers reached with CPSC's carbon monoxide safety messages through TV appearances and interviews on national television networks, video news releases to national and local television networks, and e-publications on CPSC's website.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Since all of the annual measures are new, CPSC has set specific, ambitious, quantified targets established from 2002-2006 acutal data that allow for challenging performance for 2007 and 2008.

Evidence: Targets for all measures are above the average for the immediately preceding two years, including the year-to-date data for 2006. All measures targeting CPSC's ability to obtain corrective action from industry in a timely manner for fire-related hazards have targets that are between 5% to 15% above the average for the immediately preceding two years. Both efficiency measures targeting CPSC's ability to obtain corrective action from industry in a timely manner for all hazards have targets that are between 3% to 7% above the average for the immediately preceding two years. Improving performance under these goals will require reversal of the recent trend towards longer negotiation periods in fire cases and quicker execution of the most difficult corrective actions. All measures targeting consumer outreach aim to increase the number of consumers reached through television appearances and interviews, video news releases, and e-publications by approximately 3 to 10 million.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: CPSC has partnerships with other Federal agencies that are undertaken only if they can benefit the achievement of CPSC's long-term goals. CPSC and its partners are committed to reducing deaths from fire and carbon monoxide poisoning through cooperative agreements, Memorandums of Understanding [MOUs] and interagency agreements. CPSC contracts are used to increase the agency's knowledge of specific product hazards and with commercial vendors for specific program services. These activities have resulted in numerous interventions to reduce the risks associated with these life threatening hazards.

Evidence: In support of CPSC's long-term fire reduction strategic goal, CPSC has MOUs in place with agencies such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) to coordinate work on reducing fire deaths. CPSC, CDC and USFA, along with other private organizations, meet periodically each year to maintain technical cooperation and information exchange among the agencies and to assess progress on mutually agreed upon objectives in order to reduce fire-related deaths. In support of CPSC's long-term carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning reduction strategic goal, CPSC is working with the Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to investigate combustion gas sensing technologies that might be used to detect CO in appliance flue passageways and provide a shutoff or preemptive response to dangerous CO levels that could lead to death. The contract between SNL and CPSC identifies specific performance criteria supporting the CO reductions goal. These criteria include defining the CO sensor environment, establishing sensor performance goals, fabrication and test of a CO sensor demonstration system, and regular project reports and presentations. Results of the SNL work have been used to support past voluntary standards recommendations, an annual intermediate outcome goal in CPSC's 2005 Performance Budget, and to require CO sensing technologies to be installed in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) gas-fired vented appliance standards. CPSC's work with SNL will also be used in the future to develop new voluntary standards recommendations, as appropriate.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: CPSC conducts independent evaluations to monitor effectiveness of its efforts and to make recommendations in response to the evaluation's findings. Within the agency's resources, evaluations appropriate to the size of the agency are conducted and focused on areas of major impact. The offices available for evaluation include the Division of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (PBE), technical directorates, and the Inspector General (IG). CPSC's independent PBE has the primary responsibility for developing and conducting evaluations and disseminating results, such as an evaluation of the Electrocutions and Carbon Monoxide (CO) programs. PBE is considered an independent program evaluation office because it is not in the chain of command of the offices and programs it evaluates. Technical staff may conduct evaluations of the effectiveness of specific product standards; these are accepted as independent evaluations after publication in peer-reviewed journals. In addition, CPSC's IG is also available to conduct evaluations of CPSC program work and in the past has audited the verification and validation of the electrocution program data. The scope of CPSC's evaluations are comprehensive; in some cases CPSC evaluates entire programs, and in other cases CPSC evaluates a portfolio of specific safety standards. For each safety standard evaluated, a schedule is developed that identifies the date the standard went into effect, an estimate of the product life (the time for consumers to replace their old products with safer ones), and an approximate date for the evaluation. Additionly, CPSC evaluates efforts specific product areas and in the past ten years has completed five such studies (child resistant cigarette lighters; child resistant packaging for aspirin; oral prescription drugs; baby walkers; and mattresses). These evaluations are supplemented by yearly trend analyses that track fire-related deaths, CO poisoning deaths, and the timeliness of Fast Track recalls. These trends are used by management to inform program decisions. They are inspected as part of the budget cycle and areas which do not show expected levels of achievement are examined more closely.

Evidence: For the comprehensive evaluation of the electrocution program, staff evaluated all electrocution-related safety standards to determine their contribution to death reductions, and for the Fast Track Recall program, both timeliness and customer satisfaction were measured. (An Evaluation of the U.S. CPSC's Electrocution Reduction Program, PBE, 2002.) The effectiveness of the baby walker standard was evaluated by comparing estimates for multiple years of injuries from falls down stairs before and after the implementation of a standard developed with substantial CPSC participation. (Gregory B. Rodgers, Elizabeth W. Leland, An evaluation of the effectiveness of a baby walker safety standard to prevent stair-fall injuries, Journal of Safety Research 36 (2005) 327-332).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget decision making is closely linked to performance goals, but it is not explicitly tied to their accomplishment. CPSC utilizes a project tracking system to accurately capture direct costs, such as staff time and travel, and proportionately distributes indirect costs, like support office costs and rental space, to product safety activities. However, marginal cost analysis is not utilized to determine which funding level activities should receive. CPSC decides where resources should be focused primarily upon a current assessment of the risk landscape. These decisions are additionally influenced by the supply of area specific experts available to be transferred from other activities, and are supplemented by financial data. The explicit relationship between strategic goal activities and budget requests is not documented during this process. Historical trends facilitate the formulation of budget requests. In order to strengthen the link between forecasting and budgeting, the offices of Budget, Planning, and Evaluations and Finance were recently combined under the direction of the Chief Financial Officer.

Evidence: For example, CPSC's 2007 Performance Budget Request contains the dollars and staffing for annual goal activities that support the strategic goal, reducing fire-related deaths, for fiscal 2005 (spent), 2006 (planned), and 2007 (proposed). In 2007, CPSC is requesting approximately $20 million with 139 FTEs for reducing the death rate associated with fire-related causes.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: CPSC's planning process is managed by its Office of Financial Management, Planning, and Evaluation, with reviews by the Commissioners and other senior management. CPSC's performance plan goals and measures are regularly reviewed to address any planning deficiencies and staff conduct evaluations as needed to provide information for decision-making. CPSC uses two methods to address potential strategic planning deficiencies: regular Program Evaluations, and the Data Quality Initiative. Program Evaluations provide a top-down review by hazard program area. The Data Quality Initiative, started in 2004, provides a bottom up approach to monitoring data systems that are used by all hazard areas.

Evidence: Program Evaluations: In beginning to evaluate agency work, pertinent hazard data are reviewed by CPSC's Division of Planning, Budget and Evaluation (PBE). It was this phase of the evaluation process that identified the deficiency in the CO program, revealing that the way the CO data are currently reported make it impossible to track deaths associated with specific products. Since safety standards are developed by product, it is essential that the agency be able to monitor deaths associated with particular products to determine whether specific voluntary standards are effective. Any problems discovered in the review by PBE are discussed with the appropriate Office. The CO deficiency was reported to the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction (EXHR), which is responsible for developing the CO death data. PBE recommended that the deficiency be corrected by reporting product specific data and recalculating past estimates. These recommendations were accepted by management in EXHR, the appropriate data analysts were informed, and the recommended changes will be incorporated in the CO death report currently in preparation. Data Quality Initiative: CPSC data systems are reviewed to monitor how well information collected is able to present the level of detail and accuracy required by users, including managers making strategic plans. Deficiencies are identified and ranked in importance. Recommendations for improvements are provided to senior management and evaluated for implementation based on relative need and fiscal constraints. Two system reviews are currently near completion: the system used to track work done by CPSC investigators in the field, and the system used to manage samples of potentially hazardous products used within the agency. System improvements, if approved, are expected to be started before the end of the fiscal year.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: Only those regulations absolutely necessary to accomplish the agency's mission and goals are promulgated. CPSC legislation requires the agency to defer to an effective voluntary standard before issuing a mandatory standard. It is only when a voluntary standard does not exist to address a particular risk of injury (or an existing standard does not adequately address the risk or there is widespread nonconformance with it), that the agency may develop a regulation. From 1990 to 2005, CPSC worked cooperatively with industry to complete 304 voluntary standards while issuing only 35 mandatory rules, a nine-to-one ratio of voluntary to mandatory standards.

Evidence: A recent example is the baby walker voluntary standard now in effect. As stated in Section 1.4, the baby walker standard has been successful in dramatically reducing injuries to young children. An independent peer-reviewed evaluation of the effectiveness of the new standard concluded that the standard reduced the rate of emergency room-treated injuries by an estimated 63%. As a result of this standard, industry is able to market a safer product that meets consumers' needs, and consumers benefit from having a product they want and that is safer for their children to use. After the Commission initiated rulemaking, a revised voluntary standard was issued; the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) for baby walkers was subsequently withdrawn.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: CPSC regularly collects death, injury and incident data related to consumer products from a number of sources. For product-related injuries, CPSC has an emergency room reporting system where a representative sample of hospitals around the country report product-related injuries that are treated in their emergency rooms. For deaths, CPSC uses National Center for Health Statistics death data, and, to get more specific information about product involvement, purchases death certificates annually from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for codes that are likely to involve consumer products. For fire data, CPSC uses information from the U.S. Fire Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), which contains reports from fire departments around the country and from the National Fire Protection Association's annual survey of fire departments. CPSC supplements the data sources noted above by using information from in-depth investigation conducted by CPSC's field investigators and from medical examiners and coroners, news clips, consumers, lawyers, physicians and fire departments.

Evidence: CPSC uses this data to improve performance. For example, CPSC has a long history of work in the area of All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) safety, but, in recent years, CPSC's data has shown an increase in ATV-related deaths and injuries indicating that more work is needed to improve performance in this area. This death and injury data as well as information about increasing sales and increasing numbers of new entrants into the ATV market led to a comprehensive review of all ATV safety actions, which in turn resulted in recommendations to the Commission on how to address ATV safety. The staff has developed proposals, both regulatory and non-regulatory, for Commission consideration that address the risk of death and injury, particularly for children under the age of 16. These proposals were adopted, with some modifications, by the Commission.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: CPSC has a rigorous performance review process that annually holds all Senior Executive Service (SES) employees accountable. During this review, a senior executive is rated on a 1 to 5 scale by an official using factors including: organizational results achieved; operational planning and management; human resource management; communication and coordination; and institutional performance, including financial management. Additionally, the executive's supervisor determines an overall rating for the executive's performance. Next, the Performance Review Board evaluates the executive in connection with data regarding CPSC's overall performance, and makes a comprehensive recommendation to the Chairman who in turns reviews the evaluation. The results of this appraisal drive compensation, training, transfer and removal of employees from the SES. Due to the consequences associated with this appraisal, a formal appeal process exists as well. Contractors, and the federal managers responsible for oversight, are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results for two key program support contracts that are performance-based: the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) and CPSC's Consumer Hotline contracts. Timeliness measures for deliverables are clearly established in the contracts, and performance must be acceptable or the contracts can be terminated.

Evidence: CPSC Directive 1023.1 Senior Executive Service Performance Management System (August 2005) outlines the formal SES performance evaluation process, and the standards to which executives are held. An example of how SES managers are held accountable for Program Performance in their SES contracts, is the Director of Engineering Sciences' 2006 performance plan. The Director's plan outlines CPSC's 2006 long-term performance measures, such as "reducing the rate of death from fire-related causes," and includes individual performance measures with quarterly status updates. NEISS hospitals are responsible for timely, accurate, and complete reporting. (Sample NEISS Contract-N-06-0072.) Failure to perform to these standards can result in replacing hospital coders or the hospital itself. Performance is measured on a quarterly basis. Hospital coders can receive monthly bonuses if specific coding standards are met; these include timeliness, quality, and completeness of data. The Consumer Hotline contractor must attain a satisfactory rating on several performance measures to qualify for renewal of the contract.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner, spent for their intended purpose and accurately reported. Each year, CPSC develops an operating plan that reflects the intent of the final appropriation and how the appropriated funds will be spent. Funding allowances are issued quarterly to allowance holders (managers) based on the annual performance plan. In accordance with the agency's administrative control of funds directive, each allowance holder is responsible for obligating funds and performing a monthly reconciliation to ensure that funds are spent for the intended purpose. Unobligated funds remaining at the end of the year consistently range from $50,000 to $70,000. CPSC has never violated the Anti-Deficiency Act and has never had a single audit finding where funds were not spent as intended. In addition, the Inspector General's audit of CPSC's annual financial statements resulted in clean opinions for the 2003, 2004 and 2005 audits of financial statements, the first years of required audits for CPSC.

Evidence: Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Federal Financial System, an automated financial system that performs fund control checks to validate available funds for obligation. Additional oversight of obligations is performed by centralized review and approval of fund certifications prior to contracts being issued for project support. The Commission's Management Information System (MIS) merges financial and staff time data to provide an accounting of CPSC resources expended by project and organization. The MIS is used to monitor planned versus actual staff time (CPSC's largest resource expenditure) and provides historical information for planning purposes. Payments are made to vendors only after submission of a valid invoice. Prior to paying an invoice, it must be matched with a valid obligation, approved by an authorized official, audited by Finance staff and reviewed by a certifying officer. This process ensures that goods and services have been received and funds are spent for their intended purpose. CPSC has not had any annual erroneous payments as defined in Public Law 107-300 (Improper Payments Act of 2002). (2005 PAR.)( Monthly reconciliation report from Agency allowance holders.) (Cash Reconciliation with Treasury.) (FACTS II report for 2nd Quarter 2006.)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: CPSC has regular procedures in place to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness through continuous updates to its Information Technology (IT) systems. CPSC increased public benefit at lower resource levels through many process monitoring tools and IT improvements, such as increasing public access to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents and instructions. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) established a Policy and Planning Division to evaluate IT processes, identify those processes that could potentially achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness and ensure compliance with Federal Mandates. To accomplish this, organizations throughout CPSC submit requests for process reviews and improvements; CIO, Policy and Planning Division and technical staff review proposals for technical feasibility and costs and prioritize them based on potential efficiencies and resource requirements. Prioritized proposals are submitted to the Senior Management Council and the Council submits its recommended proposals to the Executive Director for final decision. Upon approval, annual goals and project plans are developed, including milestones and deliverables. Through this procedure, less expensive and automated methods were developed that enabled additional performance with no increase to the agency appropriation. CPSC's efficiency performance measure is to initiate a recall under the Fast Track Recall Program within 20 business days after industry files its report of a potentially hazardous product with CPSC. In 2005 CPSC staff handled a record number of firm reports of potentially hazardous products and conducted the highest number of recalls in the last 10 years. In addition, staff's new Retailer Reporting Model provides a source of early warning safety information and data with over 4,000 new summaries of customer complaints screened by staff each year. This retailer reporting model has generated a number of additional reports and has prompted more reporting by manufacturers and retailers. To adequately manage these additional activities, managers have streamlined processes (specific staff designated to review retailer data), made IT changes (forms automatically generated) and developed targeted management review reports.

Evidence: An IT solution to make it easier and quicker for the public to access Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents and instructions, while also reducing staff time, was approved by the Executive Director after going through the CIO, Policy and Planning Division and technical staff review process. Based on fewer FOIA requests requiring staff time (due to this IT improvement), an annual goal with defined milestones and performance measures was developed. Several automated solutions have been implemented and FOIA requests requiring processing by staff decreased, by 16% from 2004 through 2005. These automated solutions allowed for the elimination of 4 FTEs in 2005, saving the agency a total of $440,000 annually. Visits to the web page with automated FOIA on-line access, deployed in 2004, increased by 48% from 2004 through 2005. ( Documentation of E-FOIA Milestones and Clearinghouse Requests for NEISS.) Additionally, CPSC's Fast Track Recall program allows CPSC to more quickly and effectively remove hazardous products from the environment. (Fast Track: Press Release, CPSC Logs Record Year for Recalls, Civil Penalties, and Reports of Dangerous Products, October 27, 2005.)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: CPSC engages in a wide range of collaborative activities with other government agencies, state and local governments, foreign governments and domestic standards-settings groups, which lead to meaningful actions in management and resource allocation. CPSC collaborates and coordinates its fire reduction efforts with the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the three agencies share in setting objectives and decide on project direction, priorities and technical issues so that the outcome is beneficial to all and avoids duplication of effort. An extension of this collaboration is the Public/Private Fire Safety Council, a 16-member partnership of federal agencies and non-governmental organizations, created to develop a coordinated national effort to eliminate residential fire deaths. Council members rank among the nation's leading sources of public fire safety education information and research and include the major code and standard-making organizations, the U.S. fire service representatives, fire safety education organizations, federal agencies and many more. The Council recently released the first residential smoke alarm strategies in a planned series of white papers that result from the Council's development of major strategies for reducing the annual death toll from home fires. At the state level, CPSC staff has been working closely with the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation. A test method, incorporated in California's flammability requirements for mattresses in January 2005, was based on CPSC's work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and industry experts measuring the open flame ignition hazard presented by mattresses and bedding. In February 2006, CPSC adopted a national standard, also based on the test developed by NIST, limiting the size and growth of fires from mattresses.

Evidence: CPSC, USFA and the CDC work collaboratively on their shared goal of reducing fire-related deaths. Per their MOU, CPSC's activities include standards development, implementation of a survey of the effectiveness of sprinklers, smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in residential fires and the development of wireless technology to interconnect battery-operated smoke alarms. USFA activities have focused on consumer information, including the development and implementation of a fire safety campaign and development of a website for information sharing. CDC activities have focused on effective interventions, such as installing smoke alarms in high risk households, implementing state community based consumer programs and conducting studies focused on fire and behavioral risk factors. (Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between The U.S. Fire Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and The Center for Disease Control's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC) and The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.) (Contract with NIST: Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Contract # CPSC-I-05-0009.) (Fire Safety Council Meeting Report, December 2005.)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: CPSC uses strong financial management practices and is free of any material internal control weaknesses. CPSC's accounting system, the Federal Financial System (FSS), is audited annually by independent auditors. The FY 2005 audit of the FSS controls found that "the controls that were tested provided reasonable assurance that all control objectives were achieved." Internal reviews conducted by staff and CPSC's annual letters of assurance have not identified any material weaknesses or material non-conformances in its financial systems. This conclusion is further supported by the unqualified opinion of the 2003, 2004 and 2005 audit of financial statements conducted by the CPSC Inspector General's (IG) office. The audit found: (1) principal financial statements and related notes were presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) CPSC has effective internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and compliance with laws and regulations; (3) the Federal Financial System used by the Commission is compliant with financial system requirements set forth in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996; and (4) there was no reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations. In addition, CPSC has also met all timeliness deadlines for its internal reports, external reports to Treasury and the production of its Performance and Accountability Report. CPSC's funds certification process, prior to obligation, is designed to validate that the intended purpose is appropriate and consistent with the agency's operating plan. Payment procedures require that payments be matched with a valid obligation, approved by an authorized official, audited by Finance staff and reviewed by the Certifying Officer. CPSC has no annual erroneous payments as defined in Public Law 107-300. Payment and obligation data are also reconciled monthly by each budget allowance holder (i.e. a selected manager with an "allowance" of a portion of CPSC's fiscal year appropriation that he or she can obligate for expenditures). Results are reported to the Division of Financial Services for review, analysis and appropriate action as necessary.

Evidence: (CPSC 2005 Financial Statement Audit.) (Annual Letter of Assurance as required by the FMFIA. 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, Analysis of Systems, Controls and Legal Compliance.) (Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Vender Miscellaneous Payments Compliance reports for valid TIN, Payee Name, and Payment Type. CPSC scored 100% in all three categories.) (CPSC Directive 1230.1, Administrative Control of Funds.) (CPSC Office of the Inspector General Audit Report, Evaluation of Internal Control Procedures, Government Purchase Cards, September 23, 2002.) ( Payments Management and Analysis of Systems Control, 2005 Performance and Accountability Report.)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Through the annual Federal Management and Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process, CPSC reviews its program implementation practices for any material weaknesses, develops plans for correcting the weaknesses and reports on the progress. Corrective action plans are developed for all material weaknesses and other deficiencies with progress assessed and reported to the Senior Management Council (SMC) to ensure timely and effective results. The SMC is responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of existing management controls, making recommendations for improvements, and correcting any deficiencies and material weaknesses in a timely manner. SMC review meetings are held bi-weekly with the Executive Director so that program deficiencies can be identified and addressed.

Evidence: The independent Office of the Inspector General (IG) has audited CPSC's purchase and travel card programs and found no material weaknesses but some deficiencies. The audit recommended strengthening controls and oversight and CPSC did so. The IG identified information technology (IT) security weaknesses in a 2002 audit of CPSC's compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). Senior management developed a plan to correct the deficiencies including timeframes, quarterly reports and progress reports. All milestones have been met. The IG conducted a follow-up evaluation to determine whether timely and appropriate corrective actions had been taken to address the weaknesses identified during the prior audit. The evaluation found that substantial improvements had been made and all previously identified weaknesses had been addressed. The IG also audited CPSC's property management system and identified deficiencies. CPSC's Board of Survey, a standing committee to review property management policies and procedures, responded to the audit findings and the property system was modified to establish better management controls. (2005 Performance and Accountability Report.) (Inspector General annual report, detailing audit results and management challenges.)

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The CPSC continuously seeks the views of all affected parties throughout the development of significant regulations. Recently, CPSC promulgated a regulation meeting the "significant" threshold (i.e., annual impact greater than $100 million), "Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets." Throughout the development of the mattress rule, CPSC solicited comments in the Federal Register notices advising of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the notice of proposed rulemaking, holding a public hearing and by other means. The preamble to the Final Rule for the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets demonstrates numerous examples of the CPSC's consideration of comments. CPSC staff analyzed comments received and, where appropriate, made recommendations for changes. The CPSC incorporated changes into the final mattress rule based on comments from affected parties regarding definitions, testing conditions, labeling and recordkeeping, among other issues. In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, CPSC staff prepared an initial and a final regulatory flexibility analysis for the mattress standard. The Commission has just received the report to Congress from the Comptroller General required by the Congressional Review Act confirming CPSC's compliance with these requirements.

Evidence: Regarding the final regulatory flexibility analysis for the mattress standard, CPSC responded to concerns from small businesses by implementing an effective date that would coincide with the time manufacturers make regular model changes to their mattresses and by allowing for prototype pooling for testing. With regard to testing conditions, several commenters recommended tightening test area conditioning requirements. CPSC agreed that exposure of a mattress sample to the fire test room environmental conditions could have an impact on test results and therefore required that testing of a specific conditioned sample begin within a certain amount of time after removal from storage conditions. With regard to labeling, a commenter urged the Commission to require the labels of imported mattresses to bear the foreign manufacturer's name and full address, including country, as well as the importer's name and full address. The Commission agreed with this comment and therefore revised 16 CFR §1633.12(a) of the mattress standard accordingly. (Standard for the Flammability of Mattress Sets.)

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: With the exception of requirements related to publication of the semi-annual agenda of regulations under development or review during the year, Executive Order 12866 applies to Executive Department Agencies but not to independent agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) require CPSC to prepare regulatory analyses, including cost-benefit analyses, for all rules under these acts. In a proceeding for the development of a consumer product safety rule, CPSC includes a description of any reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulation, together with a summary description of their potential costs and benefits, and a brief explanation of why such alternatives should not be published as a proposed regulation. The Commission also considers non-regulatory approaches, i.e., the Commission terminates rulemaking if there is a voluntary consumer product safety standard that adequately addresses the risk of injury and enjoys substantial compliance and relies upon that voluntary standard. The agency also conducts preliminary economic assessments - a preliminary evaluation of the possible impacts of the contemplated regulatory action on small businesses. If the preliminary assessment concludes that there will be a significant effect on small businesses, the agency proceeds to conduct a Preliminary Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Though only the mattress rule and the potential rule for upholstered furniture meet the criteria for economically significant rules, CPSC follows Circular A-4 for all of its regulatory analyses. For example, CPSC uses this guidance in preparing the preliminary and final regulatory analyses required by the Consumer Product Safety Act and other statutes under the agency's purview such as those in support of the recently promulgated standard for the flammability (open flame) of mattresses and mattress/foundation sets. 70 Fed. Reg. 2479 (January 13, 2005); 71 Fed. Reg. 13,483 (March 15, 2006).

Evidence: (Commission's statutes requirements regarding reasonable alternatives to proposed regulations and non-regulatory approaches;15 U.S.C. 2058(c)(4); 15 U.S.C. 1262(h)(4); 15 U.S.C. 1193(i)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 2058(b)(2); 15 U.S.C. 1262(g)(2); 15 U.S.C. 1193(h)(2)). The mattress standard is an example of CPSC following statute requirements. (The sensitivity analysis of the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule evidences that CPSC follows the standards for regulatory analysis that is defined in Circular A-4.)

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The CPSC's statutes require that "the benefits expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; and that the regulation imposes the least burdensome requirement which prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury for which the regulation is promulgated." In making the reasonable relationship and least burdensome findings, the Commission considers net benefits as part of the decision of whether or not to pursue a regulatory alternative. In total the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), and the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) require a program design in which the agency considers the use of voluntary standards prior to the promulgation of Federal regulations. If determined to be necessary because of the lack of or inadequacy of a voluntary standard or inadequate compliance with a voluntary standard, CPSC designs regulations to achieve its mission and uses cost benefits analyses for regulations promulgated under these statutes with the goal of maximizing net benefits to the extent practicable. One of the agency's long-term goals, established in 2003, is to reduce the death rate from fires associated with consumer products by 20% of a baseline rate by the year 2013. The Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets establishes performance requirements based on research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Mattresses and mattress and foundation sets ("mattress sets") that comply with the requirements will generate a smaller size fire which will spread more slowly, thus reducing the possibility of the room becoming engulfed in flames. These improved mattresses should result in significant reductions in deaths and injuries associated with the risk of mattress fires. The Commission estimates that the standard could limit the size of mattress fires to the extent that 240 to 270 deaths and 1,150 to 1,330 injuries could potentially be eliminated annually.

Evidence: (CPSC's statutes; 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E) and (F); 15 U.S.C. 1262((i)(2)(B) and (C); 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2)(B) and (C)). (The sensitivity analysis of the Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule addresses CPSC's emphasis on net benefits.)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: CPSC is on track to achieve its goal of a 20% reduction in the death rate from fires involving consumer products by 2013. CPSC is demonstrating some progress towards reaching its carbon monoxide (CO) goal to achieve a 20% reduction in the death rate by 2013, considering the unexpected increase in CO deaths from 2000 to 2001. Given the rapid expansion of the use of generators and the resultant rise in CO poisoning deaths, CPSC will be challenged to achieve its 2013 performance goal.

Evidence: From 1998 to 2001, CPSC reduced the rate of death from fire-related causes by 7.4%. If CPSC continues its progress it should be able to meet or exceed its goal of a 20% reduction in the rate of death from fire-related causes by 2013. From 1999 to 2000, CPSC reduced the rate of death from CO poisoning by 11.7%. Unfortunately, from 2000 to 2001 the rate increased by 15.6%. However, it is important to note that the nation has experienced an unexpected increase in the number of CO deaths from 2000 to 2001 due to the expanding use of portable generators by consumers to provide electricity in the home in the event of a power outage. CPSC has begun an aggressive, multi-faceted effort to address this emerging hazard through consumer education, partnerships with federal, state and local agencies and possible product safety improvements.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The seven annual goals for obtaining industry compliance and facilitating consumer outreach, for fire and carbon monoxide-related hazards, are new for CPSC this year. Therefore, there are no targets for previous years by which to judge performance and the Commission has not yet had the opportunity to manage to these goals. However, CPSC has made several partial achievements (based on year to date information) including: (1) increasing the percent of fire-related cases where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination that a product is defective by 0.7%, (2) increasing the percentage of defective product cases for all hazards where corrective action is taken within 60 business days after notice of staff's preliminary determination by 2.8%, and (3) reaching 9,270,000 more consumers with CPSC's CO safety messages than the previous year.

Evidence: (See actuals for performance measures.)

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Commission's efficiency measure is to initiate a Fast Track recall within 20 business days 90% to 95% of the time. CPSC has maintained its performance on this measure since 1999 even though the number of Fast Track reports has increased sharply. In 2005, CPSC staff handled a record number of firm reports of potentially hazardous products and conducted the highest number of defective product recalls in its 30 year history. In addition, staff's new innovative Retailer Reporting Model now provides over 4,000 new summaries of customer complaints to be screened by staff each year. Despite this increased activity, in 2005, the number of Fast Track recalls conducted per FTE increased by 30%. In addition to Fast Track recalls, CPSC demonstrates improved efficiencies through Information Technology (IT) goals. There is a positive correlation between the number of reports and the number of recalls. That is, although not every report will result in a recall, a sizeable increase in the number of reports can be expected to result in a larger number of recalls. For example, a 21% increase in reports (such as through the Retailer Reporting Model) from 2004 to 2005 (450 to 545) has yielded a 15% increase in the number of recalls. That yield may increase as active cases continue to be resolved.

Evidence: CPSC has initiated Fast Track recalls within 20 business days from 94% to 96% of the time. During this short period, however, the number of Fast Tracks has varied substantially. In 2002, the number of Fast Track reports declined (210 vs. 219 in FY 2001) after steadily increasing since the inception of the program in 1997. In 2003, the number of Fast Track reports fell even further (176) to below FY 2000 levels (180). In these two years (2002 and 2003), the Office of Compliance overachieved the 90% efficiency goal even though non-Fast Track reports continued to increase. At this point, the efficiency goal was increased to 95% for FY 2004 and 2005. In FY 2004, the Office of Compliance was able to exceed the goal, despite a sharp increase in the number of Fast Track reports (254, or 44% above FY 2003 levels). In FY 2005, however, the number of Fast Track reports increased again (262) and the number of non-Fast Track reports increased by 44% over FY 2004 (283 vs 196 in 2004). Based on these growth trends, the efficiency goal was set back to the 90% mark for FY 2006 and 2007. Examples of how CPSC demonstrates improved efficiencies through IT annual goals include: (1) the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Since 1998, several automated solutions have been implemented and FOIA requests requiring processing by staff decreased, by over 50% from 1998 through 2004 and by 16% from 2004 through 2005. These automated solutions allowed for the elimination of 4 FTEs in 2005, saving the agency a total of $440,000 annually. Visits to the web page with FOIA on-line access, deployed in 2004, increased by 48% from 2004 through 2005; and (2) the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). After an automated solution was implemented to allow the public to query NEISS data directly on-line and obtain immediate results in 2003, requests for injury information to the Clearinghouse decreased by 20% from 2003 through 2005. This reduction allowed the elimination of one FTE position, saving the agency $110,000 annually. Visits to NEISS on-line increased by 78% from 2003 through 2005.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: CPSC compares favorably to its safety regulatory counterparts at the Federal, state and local levels. While there are peer federal regulatory agencies such as OSHA, FDA, EPA, or NHTSA with certain product safety jurisdictions, none has the broad consumer product jurisdiction of the CPSC. Other agencies with a consumer safety-related mission such as CDC and the US Fire Administration do not have the same authority as CPSC (i.e., they cannot investigate or regulate the breadth of consumer products currently on the market for which CPSC has authority). While there are no known studies that directly compare CPSC to its state counterparts, there are several studies that directly compare rulemaking performance of the CPSC with other Federal regulatory agencies. One such study, Tengs et al (1995), compares the cost per life saved for regulations from five federal regulatory agencies: FAA, CPSC, NHTSA, OSHA, and EPA. Based on that comparison, the Tengs study found that, of the five agencies considered, the CPSC regulations had the second lowest median cost per life saved. This shows that the CPSC's regulatory efforts, relative to other federal regulatory agencies, were highly efficient. Another study that directly compares CPSC to other regulatory agencies is by Morrall (2003). Morrall updated his earlier 1986 study and examined 76 final regulations. Of these regulations, CPSC's child-resistant lighter regulation was the most cost effective regulation (tied with three OSHA regulations and one NHTSA regulation). A third study that directly compares CPSC to other regulatory agencies is by Hahn (2000). In this study, the net benefits of the CPSC regulation described were achieved at a relatively low cost, yielding about $10 in benefits for every $1 in costs. With the exception of DOT, EPA and DOL, each agency represented in the Hahn study averaged fewer benefits for every $1 in regulatory costs than CPSC. The net benefit from the CPSC regulation was $6.4 billion. This net benefit is higher than the average estimated net benefits of $6.1 billion of the regulations from DOL, EPA, HHS, HUD and USDA.

Evidence: CPSC rules are evaluated against other agencies' rules in : 1. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran, DG, Siegel, JE, Weinstein, MC and Graham JD, (1995) Five Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness, Risk Analysis, 15, 369-390; 2. Morrall, John F. III, (2003) Saving Lives: A review of the Record, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper 03-6; and, 3. Hahn, Robert W., Reviving Regulatory Reform: A Global Perspective, (2000) AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: As stated in 2.6, CPSC regularly is subjected to independent evaluations that cover entire programs as well as specific safety standards by its Division of Planning, Budget and Evaluation, technical directorates, and Inspector General. These evaluations enable CPSC to determine the effectiveness of current rules and to modify activities and adjust resources as necessary to properly address the ever changing product safety landscape. An evaluation by Rodgers (2005) on the effectiveness of a baby walker safety standard to prevent stair-fall injuries found that the voluntary standard reduced the rate of emergency room-treated injuries by an estimated 63%. This evaluation supported the Commission's decision to increase compliance efforts including seeking recalls of baby walkers that do not comply with the stair fall protection requirements of the voluntary standard. Additionally, CPSC evaluated its Fast Track program in 2005 and found that 94% of Fast Track recalls were initiated within 20 business days of the initial report to CPSC and 96% of customers reported overall satisfaction. Evaluation of the Fast Track program for timeliness occurs annually and for customer satisfaction every three years.

Evidence: (Gregory B. Rodgers, Elizabeth W. Leland, An evaluation of the effectiveness of a baby walker safety standard to prevent stair-fall injuries, Journal of Safety Research 36 (2005) 327-332.) (An evaluation by Smith et al. (2002) on the effectiveness of the US safety standard for child resistant cigarette lighters found that an estimated 3,300 fires, 100 deaths, 660 injuries and $52.5 million in property loss were prevented by the standard in 1998 alone. The agency is using this information in connection with refining this standard through its systematic rule review process.) (LE Smith, MA Greene, HA Singh, Study of the effectiveness of the US safety standard for child resistant cigarette lighters, Injury Prevention, 2002; 8:192-196.)

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: CPSC compares the incremental costs and benefits of potential regulations with their feasible alternatives, and baseline data. The staff analyses include mandatory rules, voluntary standards in which the agency was heavily involved, and other types of regulatory actions such as legal consent decrees. These analyses are critical factors in determining the implementation of new regulations. Moreover, the agency has a program in place to systematically conduct reviews of all existing rules to determine whether the rules are well structured and effective or if they can be streamlined to minimize regulatory burdens, especially on small entities. The rules to be evaluated are described in the Federal Register, and public comment is solicited. For example, the agency recently issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to consider and solicit input regarding whether revocation or amendment of its 1973 mattress cigarette ignition standard is warranted in light of its new mattress open flame flammability standard.

Evidence: Recent examples of post-regulatory evaluations include the following: (1) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the child-resistant packaging requirements for aspirin - "The Effectiveness of Child-Resistant Packaging for Aspirin" Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 2002; 156(9): 929-933. This study found that child-resistant packaging requirements reduced the child-mortality rate from the accidental ingestion of aspirin by about 35% from levels that would have been expected in the absence of child-resistant packaging; (2) An evaluation of the 1993 lighter mandatory standard -- "Study of the Effectiveness of the US Safety Standard for Child Resistant Lighters" Injury Prevention, 2002; 8: 192-196. This post-regulatory study found a 58% reduction in fires caused by children under age 5 years, which indicated an annual reduction of 100 deaths and 660 injuries associated with the standard; and (3) An evaluation of the 1997 baby walker voluntary standard designed to prevent stair fall injuries - "An evaluation of the effectiveness of a baby walker safety standard to prevent stair-fall injuries" Journal of Safety Research, 2005; 36: 327-332; in addition to "An evaluation of the benefits and costs of safety requirements for baby walker", CPSC staff working paper, available in mimeo. The study published in the Journal of Safety Research showed that the voluntary standard reduced the emergency department injury rate by an estimated 63% (95% CI, 52% to 71%). The staff working paper showed that the net benefits from the standard ranged from $34 to $212 per walker, over its expected useful product life. Based on baby walker sales, aggregate net benefits would range from about $41 million to $254 million annually.