Final DNPES S Statements 053012 - Part A

Supporting Statement A For:

Durable Nursery Products Exposure Survey
(CPSC)

May 30, 2012

Jill L. Jenkins, Ph.D., CPSC Project Officer
Economist
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Directorate for Economic Analysis
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: 301-504-6795
Fax: 301-504-0124 and 301-504-0025
[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.

JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................ 1

A.1

Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary ................................ 1

A.2.

Use of Information .................................................................................................................. 1
A.2.1
Research Questions ............................................................................................ 2
A.2.2
Audiences for Data and Results........................................................................ 2
A.2.3
Methods of Dissemination ................................................................................ 3

A.3

Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction ................................................... 3

A.4

Efforts to Identify Duplication .............................................................................................. 4

A.5

Impact on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities ....................................................... 5

A.6

Consequences to the Government of Less Frequent Data Collection ............................ 5

A.7

Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5 ................................ 5

A.8

Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to
Consult Outside Agency.......................................................................................................... 5

A.9

Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents ....................................................... 6

A.10

Assurance of Privacy to the Extent Provided by Law ........................................................ 7

A.11

Justification for Sensitive Questions...................................................................................... 8

A.12

Estimates of Hour Burden Including Annualized Hourly Costs ...................................... 8

A.13

Estimate of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents
or Recordkeepers ...................................................................................................................... 9

A.14

Estimates of Annualized Costs to the Federal Government ........................................... 10

A.15

Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments .......................................................... 10

A.16

Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule.................................. 10
A.16.1
Analysis Plans .................................................................................................... 10
A.16.2
Publication Plans ............................................................................................... 14
A.16.3
Time Schedule ................................................................................................... 14

A.17

Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate ........................................ 14

A.18

Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions ....................... 14

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A:

Letters

Appendix B:

Introductory Text

Appendix C:

Screener Instrument

Appendix D:

Extended Instruments

Appendix E:

Westat Confidentiality Agreement

Appendix F:

Sample Screenshots

Appendix G:

Product Illustrations

A. JUSTIFICATION
A.1. Circumstances that Make the Collection of Information Necessary
On August 14, 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) (PL 110–314) was
enacted. Section 104 (the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, 15 USC 2056a) of
the Act requires the Commission to study and develop safety standards for infant and toddler
products. Congress stated that the durable infant and toddler products the Commission must study
include, but are not limited to: full-size cribs and non-full-size cribs; toddler beds; high chairs,
booster chairs, hook-on chairs; bath seats; gates and other enclosures for confining a child; play
yards; stationary activity centers; infant carriers; strollers; walkers; swings; and bassinets and cradles.
The Commission is required to evaluate the currently existing voluntary standards for durable infant
or toddler products and to promulgate a mandatory standard substantially the same as, or more
stringent than, the applicable voluntary standard. The Commission can prioritize its work on these
products but must begin two rulemakings by August 14, 2009 and promulgate two more rules every
six months until all products have a mandatory safety standard. Once the Commission has issued
these safety standards, it will be illegal to manufacture, sell or import a product that violates the new
safety standard, which could result in either civil or criminal penalties.
A.2. Use of Information
To evaluate the current voluntary standards effectively, CPSC staff requires baseline data collected
before the CPSIA mandatory efforts on durable nursery and toddler products have fully gone into
effect. The Durable Nursery Products Exposure Survey (DNPES or survey) will provide baseline
data on the exposure to, use of, and characteristics of durable infant and toddler products, as well as
the characteristics of users, for which there is currently relatively little systematic data. A follow-up
survey may be conducted in the future, after the current durable infant and toddler products have
been largely replaced with products conforming to the new, CPSIA-mandated standards. The data
may also be used to support: other rulemaking or voluntary processes for children’s products
independent of the CPSIA; compliance activities; and information and education campaigns.
The CPSC is interested in certain basic data (e.g., prevalence of ownership) for all the durable infant
and toddler products mentioned above, but a number of questions are geared to individual infant
and toddler products where there are safety-related behavioral issues in question. For example, with
1

certain products any lapse in supervision of the child using the product by the parent or guardian is
considered dangerous. Most of these products are used for relatively short periods of time in an
infant or toddler’s life, some for only a few months. Furthermore, only 15 percent of households
have children in the five and under age range 1 that is the focus of the DNPES. This necessitates
contacting large numbers of households to obtain sufficient numbers of respondents, particularly for
relatively rare products. Also, survey respondents will be given different product module questions,
with the relatively rare products being far more likely to be selected than the more commonly owned
products to assure sufficient information on each product. 2 Thus, the survey instrument is made of
a central core of questions at the beginning and end of the questionnaire with a series of product
modules in between that vary among the respondents.
A.2.1

Research Questions

The DNPES will specifically provide the only source of data available to answer the following
research questions and potentially monitor trends in the answers over time:


Research Question 1: How many people own infant or toddler products? How many infant
or toddler products are in U.S. households? How many infant or toddler products are being
used?



Research Question 2: How do people who own these products acquire, use, discontinue use,
and dispose of them?



Research Question 3: What are people’s perceptions of the safety of infant or toddler
products?

A.2.2

Audiences for Data and Results

The direct audience for data and results will be decision-makers and analysts within the CPSC.
Additionally, selected results from the DNPES will be included in public safety campaigns and in a
variety of other communications from the CPSC to the public, product manufacturers, other
government entities, and voluntary standards organizations, such as ASTM International.
1

Derived from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (March 2009) Table H2: Households, by Type, Age of Members, Region of
Residence, and Age of Householder (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam.html). All households with members 5 years of
age and under (17,751,000) ÷ total households (117,181,000) = 15 percent.

2

The prioritization of products will be updated on a regular basis throughout the DNPES to further assure that each infant or toddler product is
adequately represented.

2

A.2.3

Methods of Dissemination

Portions of the DNPES results will be made available immediately to the public for various
activities, including: ongoing rulemaking activities (including, but not limited to, CPSIA
rulemakings); safety campaigns; voluntary standards activities; and compliance activities, such as
recalls. Publications using the survey results are expected to be ongoing.
A.3 Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction
The initial mailed paper screener will request information on preferred mode of contacts and
determine whether initially sampled respondents are eligible for full DNPES participation (see
Appendix C). Eligible respondents who have children younger than 6 years old in their household
will have Web and phone survey options for completing the full extended DNPES. The mail
screener will be short, eliminating the need for eligibility screening calls and the contact of
individuals who, even if eligible, are uninterested in participating further, thereby reducing
respondent burden. Web and phone administered options will allow for potential respondents to
pick the manner in which they prefer being contacted.
The Web survey (see Appendix F for sample screenshots) and computer-assisted telephone
interviewing (CATI) systems will be employed for individuals who return the mail screener and are
classified as eligible for DNPES participation (i.e., they have children younger than 6 years old in
their household). The most important features of the Web survey and CATI system that reduce
burden are described below. These features not only reduce respondent burden, but also enable
efficient use of DNPES resources and timely capturing of information during the fielding (i.e.,
survey implementation) period.


Skip Patterns. The Web survey and CATI system will automatically guide the respondent or
interviewers (respectively) through the complex skip patterns in the questionnaire, reducing
the potential for respondent or interviewer error and shortening the questionnaire
administration time. The DNPES will include 24 “modules” that ask about different infant or
toddler products, but each respondent will be asked a maximum of 3 of these modules and
the CATI and Web programs will ensure that each respondent only gets asked the portions of
the survey they have been selected for.
3



Receipt Control. The Web and CATI systems will provide for automatic receipt control in a
flexible manner that will be used to produce status reports that allow ongoing monitoring of
the survey’s progress and real-time knowledge of participant status regardless of the mode by
which they respond.

In addition the CATI will employ:


Scheduling. The CATI scheduler will be used to route telephone numbers to interviewers,
maintain a schedule of callback appointments, and reschedule unsuccessful contact attempts
to an appropriate day and time. This system also allows the assignment of random subsets of
the total sample to any experimental conditions embedded in the data collection.

A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication
CPSC staff continuously seeks information from commercial market research and public health
studies to support CPSC compliance, information and education, and voluntary standards activities
in the area of durable nursery products. The only commercial studies we are aware of that address
any of the DNPES research questions are the American Baby Group Baby Product Tracking Study and
the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health departments.
The Baby Product Tracking Study has historically been conducted every three years by the American
Baby Group. This survey represents convenience samples of new and expecting mothers and does
not represent an unbiased statistical sample. The sample of 3,600 new and expectant mothers is
drawn from American Baby magazine’s mailing lists. The survey also focuses completely on infant
products and does not address durable toddler products which are of specific interest under section
104 of the CPSIA. Additionally, the American Baby Surveys concentrate on purchases of infant
products and do not measure the prevalence of these products, or the many behavioral issues of
interest to CPSC staff.
PRAMS is a surveillance project of the CDC and state health departments. PRAMS collects statespecific, population-based data on maternal attitudes and experiences before, during, and shortly
after pregnancy. PRAMS does measure some of the same behavioral issues as the DNPES, such as
the practice of infants co-sleeping with their parents and the presence of bedding and other items
placed on infant sleeping surfaces, such as cribs. However, it does so for a narrow age group.
4

A.5 Impact on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities
The DNPES will not affect small businesses, as they are not involved in the survey.
A.6. Consequence to the Government of Less Frequent Data Collection
This is a request for a one-time survey to establish a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of
current voluntary standards. A second follow-up survey may be conducted at a later date to evaluate
the new mandatory standards after they have reached some level of effectiveness. If the DNPES
were not conducted, the CPSC would lack data to evaluate the CPSIA-mandated standards and
would also lack data on other behavioral issues unrelated to the CPSIA.
A.7 Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5
There are no special circumstances that would require collection to be conducted in a manner
inconsistent with 5 CFR 1320.5.
A.8 Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside
Agency
A.

The 60-Day Federal Register Notice for the DNPES was published on August, 19, 2010

(Volume 75, Number 160, p. 51245). Comments were solicited on the proposed information
collection. No public comments were received. The 30-Day Federal Register Notice for the
DNPES was published on April 11, 2011. Any comments were directed to OMB.
B.

Since 2009, the Agency has consulted with the following staff at Westat regarding this

information collection:
Jon Wivagg, Ph.D.
Senior Study Director, Westat
Phone: (240) 328-3977 Email: [email protected]
Martha Stapleton, MA.
Senior Study Director, Westat
5

Phone: (301) 251-4382 Email: [email protected]
Regina Yudd, Ph.D.
Senior Study Director, Westat
Phone: (301) 738-3510 Email: [email protected]
On the CPSC’s side, those consulted in the development process include:
1. Economists
a. William Zamula (301-504-7709)
b. Jill Jenkins (301-504-6795)
2. Statisticians
a. Kathleen Stralka (301-504-7416)
b. Kevin Gipson (301-504-7415)
c. Risana Chowdhury (301-504-7334)
3. Physiologist
a. Suad Wanna-Nakamura (301-504-7252)
4. Engineering Psychologists
a. Jonathan Midgett (301-504-7692)
b. Celestine Kiss (301-504-7739)
5. Engineers
a. Patricia Edwards (301-504-7577)
b. Han Lim (301-504-7538)
It is anticipated that additional statisticians and economists may be charged with analyzing portions
of the data collected and that various other CPSC offices and employees may be involved in
summarizing and presenting the information collected.
A.9 Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents
Return postage for the return of the screener to the Coordinating Center will be provided via the use
of pre-stamped Business Return Permits on the return envelopes. Respondents will not receive any
gift or payment for their participation in the survey. However, respondents who participate in the
cognitive testing or usability testing of the survey instrument will receive $40 for their participation.
Cognitive testing and usability testing require a higher level of burden on respondents because these
6

activities require them to be available at a particular time and place and require a significant amount
of their time (up to 90 minutes). Furthermore, cognitive and usability testing require respondents to
offer extensive feedback that describes their thought process rather than just basic recall of factual
information or a summary of their opinion. The $40 payment will facilitate recruitment of cognitive
and usability testing respondents and help motivate them to provide the level of feedback needed to
make the results of cognitive and usability testing useful. The DNPES will involve up to three
rounds of cognitive testing with each round involving up to nine participants. It will also involve
usability testing with up to twenty participants over one or two rounds. Thus, a maximum of 47
individuals will receive this $40 payment.
A.10 Assurance of Privacy to the Extent Provided by Law
Volunteers who participate in the DNPES will be subject to assurances and safeguards as provided
by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a), which requires the safeguarding of individuals against
invasion of privacy. The Privacy Act also provides for the confidential treatment of records
maintained by a Federal agency according to either the individual’s name or some other identifier.
Participation in the DNPES is voluntary and respondents will be so informed before completing the
screener and beginning the survey. Subjects are informed of the measures taken to protect their
privacy, to the extent provided by law, in the introductory letter (Appendix A). Additionally,
respondents are informed again of measures taken to protect their privacy, to the extent provided by
law, prior to beginning the telephone interview or the Web survey. The CATI survey instrument
includes a statement of privacy, to the extent provided by law, in the introductory language read to
sampled persons. The Web survey will include a similar statement in the introductory language that
the respondent reads prior to beginning the survey (Appendix B).
Respondent names, phone numbers, and email addresses are the only information in identifiable
form (IIF) and will only be used by CPSC’s contractor (Westat) to screen and conduct interviews
with participants. Access to Westat (the contractor) Data Collection Center network is restricted
only to authorized individuals and access restrictions are defined for each individual based on
his/her role. Access to data requires the entry of a valid account username and password. Westat
staff receives data security training and signs an assurance of confidentiality of survey data
(Appendix E). All Westat staff complete required annual privacy and security training and sign a
document pledging confidentially and maintaining privacy. The training includes information and
7

data security factors, using information sources responsibly, employee responsibilities, and how to
report instances where violation of data security is suspected.
After the survey effort is complete, names, phone numbers, and email addresses will not remain
linked to the data and will not be provided to the CPSC. Survey respondents will have a unique ID
number and analysis will be conducted on data sets that include only respondent ID numbers. All
data will be securely stored in locked file cabinets or password-protected computers, and accessible
only to Westat project staff. Names, phone numbers, and emails of respondents will not be kept in
a system of records, and will be destroyed at the end of the survey.
A.11 Justification for Sensitive Questions
Most questions asked on the DNPES are not typically considered sensitive. Potentially sensitive
questions include those on the respondent’s ownership and utilization of infant and toddler
products, first names and ages of their children, and sleeping habits of their children. All of these
topics are essential to the objectives of the DNPES.
DNPES procedures will be designed to make respondents feel as comfortable as possible in
answering these questions. These procedures will involve assuring respondents of the privacy of
their responses, to the extent provided by law, and of the voluntary nature of their participation in
the survey or any of its components, including specific questions that they may prefer not to answer.
Furthermore, participants’ names will not appear on any survey documents containing data. A
crosswalk between study ID and participant name will be kept in a secured electronic file and will be
accessible only to those working on the survey. Electronic interview data will be identified by the
unique survey ID only. The linkage between survey ID and personal identifiers will be destroyed
upon completion of the DNPES.
A.12 Estimates of Hour Burden Including Annualized Hourly Costs
Estimates of hour burden and costs to respondents for the DNPES are shown in Table A-1. The
mail household screener will take approximately 5 minutes (.0833 hours) to complete.

The

telephone extended interview or Web survey will take approximately 35 minutes (.5833 hours) to
complete. Each cognitive interview will take approximately one hour and each usability test will also
take approximately one hour.

The total estimate of respondent burden is 2,592.6 hours.
8

Respondent costs were calculated using the estimate for all workers in private industry in Table 9 of
the June 2010 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, published on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Web site. The total compensation hourly rate is $27.64. The cost to the respondents for
the total burden is estimated to be $71,935; that is, $27.64 per hour for 2,602.6 burden hours.

Table A-1. Estimate of respondent burden for DNPES

Type of respondent

Estimated

Frequency

Average

Annual

number of

of

hours per

hour

respondents

response

response

burden

Respondent cost**

Cognitive Tester

27

1

1.0

27.0

$746

Usability Tester

20

1

1.0

20.0

$553

16,667

1

0.0833

1,388.9

$38,390

1,500

1

0.5833

875.0

$24,185

500

1

0.5833

291.7

$8,062

2,602.6

$71,935

Mail Screener
Telephone
Interview
Web Survey
Total

16,714*

*The 1,500 telephone interviews and 500 Web surveys will come from respondents who complete
the mail screener.
**Hourly total compensation (wages+benefits) = $27.64.
Drafts of the mail screener and survey instruments can be found in Appendices C and D.
There are no other costs to respondents and no respondent recordkeeping requirements associated
with the field test. 3
A.13 Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Recordkeepers
There are no costs to respondents beyond those presented in Section A.12. There are no operating,
maintenance, or capital costs associated with the collection.

3

The field test refers to an initial limited rollout of the survey that will be used to test its effectiveness before rolling out the remainder of the
survey.

9

A.14 Estimates of Annualized Costs to the Federal Government
Two task orders to design and conduct the DNPES were issued to Westat, Inc. under contract
number CPSC-D-09-0004 for $114,220 and $614,873, respectively. Salary and benefits costs for
government personnel assigned to this study are estimated at $297,670 based on 21 months of staff
time at an average level of GS-14 step 5 (($119,238/.701) ÷ 12 months) x 21 months), using a 70.1
percent ratio of wages and salary to total compensation from Table 1 of the June 2010 Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation, published on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Therefore,

estimated cost to the government is $1,026,763. However, since the study extends over three years,
the annualized cost is $342,254.
A.15 Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments
This is a new collection of information.
A.16 Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Projected Time Schedule
A.16.1

Analysis Plans

Analysis products from the contractor will include a final technical report describing the DNPES
methodology. The CPSC may also have the contractor prepare a summary report. Further analysis
to be conducted by CPSC staff will include:
1) Estimate the prevalence of, and exposure to, 24 different infant products in U.S. households.
Prevalence (i.e., ownership) data will be collected from all respondents for each of the 24
infant and toddler products. Exposure (i.e., usage) data (referred to as “intensity of usage” in
the original submission) embodies several dimensions of product use, and the relevant
dimensions will vary according to product. Generally, exposure will be captured by the
responses to several questions in the survey, questions that have been tailored to each
specific product. These questions cover such dimensions as: the number of particular
products in use in the household, the frequency of use, and, in some cases, the duration of
use. The intent of these questions is to provide information on household exposure to
product risk, information beyond whether a household simply owns a product.

10

As a specific example, consider the case of high chairs. To capture the exposure, the survey
asks how many high chairs a household owns and how many they use. Additionally, for the
most frequently used high chair, the survey asks how frequently the high chair is used (for
example, every day) and the duration of use (for example, 30 minutes). From the
information collected, it will be straightforward to compute “exposure” as “minutes in use
per day,” a measure that can be compared across households, as well as for other products
where “minutes in use per day” can be computed similarly. Obviously, such a measure
captures household exposure to a product-related risk more meaningfully than a simple
question of whether the household owns a product.
The 95 percent CI half-width will vary from product to product depending upon the level of
exposure captured and evaluated. Using high chairs as an example once again, prevalence
and frequency of use data would have an estimated sample size of 1,800 (see below).
Therefore, assuming a design effect of 1 (i.e., no variation in household weights), the 95
percent CI half-width would be 2.4 percent. Questions about duration of use would be
asked of a subset of those 1,800 respondents. As discussed below, the survey will target a
minimum of 250 completes for each product module. However, only current or past users
will be asked about duration of use, future users would not be asked this question.
Therefore, it is likely that the actual number of completes for duration of high chair use will
be lower than 250, even though respondent selection for modules will be biased toward
current and past users. Assuming a sample of at least 200, which is lower than actually
anticipated) would give a 95 percent CI half-width of 7 percent.
2) Estimate the injury rates of the products based on their prevalence, exposure (usage), and

characteristics and comparing them with the CPSC injury data. As an example illustrating
how the data will be used, consider the case of infant bath seats. One long-standing policy
issue for the agency has been whether an infant death is more likely to occur with the use of
an infant bath seat versus the use of only a bath tub. If an infant death is more likely to
occur with the use of a bath tub only, then efforts to ban infant bath seats or reduce their
use could have the undesired consequence of increasing the risk of infant bathing deaths,
which would be the exact opposite of the CPSC’s policy goals. The rate of death associated
with these products would be compared on a per-child basis:

11

number of bathtub only - related deaths
number of bathseat deaths
vs.
number of children using bathtubs only number of children using bathseats
For the numerators, the agency compiles death data from a variety of sources.

However,

the agency lacks the information needed to estimate the denominators in the above
calculation, which is the number of children using only bath tubs versus the number using
bath seats. The denominators can be estimated using data from the complete survey sample
of approximately 1,800 (see below). Therefore the 95 percent CI half-width would be 2.4
percent, assuming a design effect of 1 (i.e., no variation in household weights). Margins of
error for the numerators vary too widely between products to be estimated without
undertaking a full analysis.
In addition to the simple injury rate calculations described above, the survey results could be
used to conduct a formal logistic analysis of the factors associated with nursery product
risks. Such an analysis could be done if the exposure survey data can be compared to
parallel injury data that might be collected from a survey of injuries reported through the
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). In order to conduct this type of
analysis, we would need to compare the characteristics of injured victims (from the parallel
injury survey) with the characteristics of non-injured users (from the exposure survey).
Consequently, to do this type of analysis, we must be able to exclude cases from the
exposure survey in which children were injured. That is why we want to collect information
on whether the children using nursery products were injured. From a policy standpoint, this
type of analysis has proven useful to the agency in the past because it provides information
on the types of situations where injury is more likely to occur, which, in turn, allows us to
target regulatory efforts, as well as informational and educational campaigns, more
efficiently.
3) Develop models for the expected useful life of durable nursery products using study findings
on acquisition and disposal of products and prevalence of ownership. How long a product
was used can be calculated from when the respondent started using it and when they
stopped using it. Combined with responses to questions regarding how a product was
acquired, whether it was new or second-hand when acquired, the age of the product when
acquired, what was done with the product when it was no longer being used (for example,
loaned out or stored), will allow CPSC staff to model the expected useful life of each durable
nursery product.
12

4) Analyze product characteristics, user characteristics, and various behaviors for use in
developing voluntary standards, information and education campaigns, and compliance
activities. For example, sleep environments with additional soft bedding is a known hazard
for young infants. Information collected by the DNPES will assist staff in better directing
our educational and outreach campaigns to populations most at risk.
The CPSC has undertaken measures to ensure that the current sample design and size will be
sufficient to support the envisioned analyses. Using available data (from American Baby Group and
elsewhere), we have made preliminary estimates of the prevalence of ownership of each product in
the general population. While these preliminary estimates are not based on a probability-based
sample, they are useful for selecting the product modules each respondent will be asked to complete.
These selection rates will be updated, however, as the survey is rolled out. Therefore, if we initially
believe that few respondents will be eligible for one module but end up with numerous completes,
we will shift priorities to ask respondents about products for which we have fewer completes first.
We plan to make these updates on an ongoing basis. The product selection rates used for each
household will be stored for later use in weighting responses to produce national estimates.
In this manner, we will target a minimum of 250 completes for each product module. This means
that products used less often will be selected at a much higher rate than more commonly used
products.

This should allow for making estimates about a particular product with adequate

precision, such as, for example, the number of baby sling users reporting a death or injury. For an
estimated 50 percent proportion, a sample size of 250 would give a 95 percent CI half-width of 6.3
percent, assuming a design effect of 1 (i.e., no variation in household weights).
Of course, there may be products for which there are fewer eligible respondents. For example,
except for a few products, respondents are eligible only if they use/used the product at least a few
times a week. Therefore, it is possible that we could end up with fewer respondents in some cases
and, in the extreme case, too few respondents for a particular product module to do any modeling
using the product-specific questions in the product module. However, the prevalence can be
estimated for all product modules because the precision for each prevalence rate is based on the
number of households completing the inventory portion of the questionnaire (i.e., the section that
asks whether the household uses or has used each of the 24 products). This is expected to be about
1,800 households (16,667 completed screeners * 0.132 eligibility rate * 0.80 extended questionnaire
response rate = 1,760).
13

A.16.2

Publication Plans

Portions of the DNPES results will be made available immediately to the public as part of various
activities, including: ongoing rulemaking activities (including, but not limited to, CPSIA
rulemakings); safety campaigns; voluntary standards activities; and compliance activities, such as
recalls. Publications using the survey results are expected to be ongoing.
A.16.3

Time Schedule

The time schedule for data collection is dependent on the timing of OMB clearance. Our project
time schedule for the completion of DNPES after OMB approval is given below in Table A.16.
TABLE A.16. PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR DNPES
Component

Time after OMB approval

Start collection

Within 2 months of OMB approval

Data collection

1-11 months after approval

Data editing

2-13 months after approval

Data analysis

2-18 months after approval

Publication

18-22 months after approval

A.17 Reasons(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate
CPSC is not seeking an exception to the display of the OMB expiration date.
A.18 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
CPSC is not requesting an exception to the certification requirements.

14