Notice2026-03655
Withdrawal of Final Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical Life
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 24, 2026
Issuing agencies
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Abstract
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is withdrawing its Final Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical Life, published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2024. After further review, the Commission has determined that the methodology assigning a Value per Statistical Life (VSL) for individuals under 18 years of age at twice the VSL for adults creates significant legal, analytical, and policy issues. These issues include misalignment with prevailing federal guidance of VSL, methodological deficiencies in the supporting evidence, heightened litigation risk, and the appearance of improperly inflating benefits in order to support desired regulatory outcomes. The Commission is returning to its prior VSL methodology, which is consistent with methodologies used by other federal agencies, and committing to a process that is empirically supported, analytically rigorous, legally defensible, and publicly credible.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8845-8847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03655]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC-2023-0013]
Withdrawal of Final Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical
Life
AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) is withdrawing its Final Guidance for Estimating Value per
Statistical Life, published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2024.
After further review, the Commission has determined that the
methodology assigning a Value per Statistical Life (VSL) for
individuals under 18 years of age at twice the VSL for adults creates
significant legal, analytical, and policy issues. These issues include
misalignment with prevailing federal guidance of VSL, methodological
deficiencies in the supporting evidence, heightened litigation risk,
and the appearance of improperly inflating benefits in order to support
desired regulatory outcomes. The Commission is returning to its prior
VSL methodology, which is consistent with methodologies used by other
federal agencies, and committing to a process that is empirically
supported, analytically rigorous, legally defensible, and publicly
credible.
DATES: The Final Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical Life,
published April 18, 2024 at 89 FR 27740, is withdrawn as of February
24, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rohit Khanna, Acting Associate
Executive Director, Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
telephone: 301-987-2508; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0c2dbd8d1deded1f0d3c0c3d39ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="31435a59505f5f5071524142521f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Value per Statistical Life is a widely used parameter in
benefit-cost analysis, including regulatory analysis, that represents
an individual's willingness to pay for a small reduction of their risk
of fatality. On April 18, 2024, the Commission issued a notice of
availability announcing the issuance of Final Guidance for CPSC's
application of the VSL in the agency's analyses of benefits and costs
and in particular for its regulatory analysis. 89 FR 27740-01, Notice
of Availability of Final Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical
Life (NOA). The Final Guidance attempted to standardize the application
of VSL in the Commission's regulatory benefit-cost analyses, specifying
among other provisions that, for purposes of sensitivity analysis, the
VSL for individuals under the age of 18 would be set at twice the adult
VSL (the ``double-VSL-for-minors'' methodology).
Following publication of draft guidance on March 24, 2023 (88 FR
17826), stakeholders had raised substantial concerns regarding the
empirical basis for the double-VSL-for-minors methodology, its legal
sustainability, and policy implications.\1\ These concerns were echoed
in public comments, including from commenters who supported the
concept,\2\ and in economic literature surveying more than 60 VSL
studies across multiple countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., W. Kip Viscusi, Vanderbilt U. Law Sch., Comment
on Proposed Draft Guidance for Estimating Value per Statistical Life
(May 25, 2023), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2023-0013-0007">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2023-0013-0007</a> (``There is no sound rationale for CPSC's proposed approach.'')
\2\ See, e.g., Lisa Robinson, Ctr. For Health Decision Sci. &
Ctr. For Risk Analysis, Harvard T.H. Chan Sch. Of Pub. Health,
Comments on Proposed Draft Guidance for Estimating Value per
Statistical Life (May 23, 2023), <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2023-0013-0006">https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2023-0013-0006</a> (``For children, CPSC proposes to double
the adult VSL estimates as part of its primary results, based on the
findings of Industrial Economics (2018) and Robinson et al. (2019).
However, both documents indicate that this ratio is uncertain due to
the limitations of the available research.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Withdrawal
Upon further review, the Commission has determined that the double-
VSL-for-minors methodology is inconsistent with the VSL methodologies
adopted by other government agencies, is based on a handful of stated-
preference studies that provide only a slim empirical foundation for
adopting such a novel approach, establishes arbitrary age cut-offs
without sufficient justification or empirical support, and would impose
unnecessary legal risk for any CPSC rulemakings that relied upon the
novel methodology.
1. Inconsistency With Other Federal Agencies
In the notice of availability announcing the issuance of the Final
Guidance, the Commission noted that that the double-VSL-for-minors
methodology ``differs from other established VSL guidance,'' and that
``[o]ther government economists have applied a uniform VSL to all
fatalities that fall within the scope of the regulation being
assessed.'' 89 FR 27740.\3\ The Commission acknowledged that this
approach ``has the advantage of simplicity.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See also Thomas J. Kniesner and W. Kip Viscusi, ``Is a
Child's Life Twice as Valuable as an Adult's?'' Regulation, Summer
2023 (referenced in Comment ID CPSC-2023-0013-0007) (hereinafter,
Kniesner & Viscusi) (``government agencies do not make distinctions
related to differences in the VSL by age, but instead treat
mortality risks symmetrically'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The notice of availability noted that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and other executive branch agencies and departments have
published guidelines on the application of VSL; the VSL parameters set
forth in these guidelines are concentrated substantially below the $26
million VSL (for minors) established in CPSC's Final Guidance.\4\
However, the Commission asserted that ``CPSC, as an independent agency,
is not subject to these guidelines.'' 89 FR 27740.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For example, in OMB's Circular A-4, the VSL range's upper
bound is $10 million (in 2001 dollars, or roughly $16 million in
2023 dollars).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that this view is inconsistent with Article II
of the U.S. Constitution that vests all executive power in the
President and charges that he or she faithfully execute the laws.\5\
[[Page 8846]]
Moreover, even aside from whether the Commission is subject to
guidelines provided by OMB and other executive branch agencies and
departments, the justification offered in the notice of availability
for the Commission establishing its own novel standard did not
sufficiently account for the benefits of consistent application of
principles across the whole of government. Continuing to apply the
novel VSL methodology described in the Final Guidance is inconsistent
with recent executive orders to restore accountability of regulatory
agencies to the American people and promote the unified and coherent
execution of Federal law.\6\ Therefore, the Commission finds that the
Final Guidance improperly deviates from this long-standing interagency
best practice without sufficient justification or compelling evidence
to justify the departure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Const. art II, Sec. 1, cl. 1; U.S. Const. art II,
Sec. 2, cl. 5.
\6\ Exec. Order No. 14215, 90 FR 10447 (Feb. 24, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Insufficient Empirical Basis
In comments provided in response to the publication of draft
guidance, one commenter noted that the available evidence with respect
to children is quite sparse, particularly when compared to the large
volume of literature on VSL more generally, that the Commission based
the VSL guidance on a review of only five stated preference articles
that were based on four surveys, and that even if reliable, the studies
``constitute a very slim empirical foundation for a major shift in
benefit assessment practices.'' \7\ Another commenter, a co-author of
the report and journal article on which the Commission relied, noted
that the number of studies that provide comparable estimates of the
value of fatal risk reductions for adults and children remains
relatively small and the validity of those results is unclear in many
cases.\8\ The commenter stated that the magnitude of any difference
between children and adults and the extent to which it varies by age of
the child are both uncertain due to limitations in the available
research, and that more research is needed to support adjustment
factors that could be used in the primary results.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Kniesner & Viscusi, supra note 3.
\8\ Comment from Lisa Robinson, supra note 2.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission finds that the available empirical evidence is
insufficient to support adoption of a novel double-VSL-for-minors
methodology. The underlying Industrial Economics (2018) report, which
informed the work on the 2024 VSL Guidance, relied on only four stated-
preference studies--several by the same authors--involving disparate,
non-representative populations, such as parents in Milan, Italy, and
Orlando, Florida, half of which were outside of the U.S.\10\ As one
commenter noted, assessments of VSL vary greatly by country and the
age-related differences in the relative value of risks to children may
vary as well.\11\ The Industrial Economics (2018) report itself
acknowledged that some observed differentials between adult and child
VSL are not statistically significant, meaning that those studies could
not rule out that observed differences were the result of random
chance. None of the cited studies examined product safety contexts or
injury types relevant to CPSC's jurisdiction. Rather, they involved
illness deaths due to cancer, respiratory disease and foodborne
illness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Kniesner & Viscusi, supra note 3.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Arbitrary Age Cut-Off
The Commission also finds that the Final Guidance is not
sufficiently clear and specific and creates an arbitrary ``cliff'' or
``cutoff'' at age 18. First, the Final Guidance does not define the
specific age cutoff for ``child'' versus ``adult,'' despite significant
variation in relevant statutory and regulatory definitions (e.g.,
Consumer Product Safety Act uses age 12; ASTM F963 uses under 14; legal
adulthood for purposes of voting eligibility is 18; the standard
drinking age is 21). Without a clear definition, the methodology is
arbitrary and impedes reproducibility. Second, as commenters noted, the
double-VSL-for-minors methodology creates an arbitrary ``cliff'' in
which the value associated with small changes in risk to a person's
life decreases in half the day they turn 18.\12\ Such a cliff is
without empirical support or logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, e.g., Comment from Lisa Robinson, supra note 2
(``[T]he CPSC approach assumes that the value of reducing mortality
risks immediately drops substantially as an individual reaches age
18. . . . [I]t seems unrealistic to assume that values . . .
suddenly halve on the child's 18th birthday, then remain constant
until the end of life.''); see also id. (``it is unclear why CPSC
has rejected alternative, more commonly used approaches that . . .
avoid the `cliff' created by assuming a sharp decrease in values as
an individual turns 18'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if a higher VSL for minors were empirically justified,
applying the identical multiplier to all minors of any age--infants,
toddlers, pre-teens, and adolescents--disregards material differences
in life expectancy and risk valuation within this diverse population. A
commenter noted that the reviews upon which CPSC based the double-VSL-
for-minors methodology acknowledge that the extent with which the ratio
of child-to-adult values varies depending on the age of the child is
uncertain, and that it seems unrealistic to assume that values do not
change as a child grows from birth to age 18.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, meta-analyses of labor, product, and housing market data
indicate median U.S. VSL values of approximately $7 million,\14\ with
variation driven largely by income, risk type, and labor market
characteristics--not age alone. The literature provides only limited
and inconclusive support for a systematic doubling of VSL for minors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ W. Kip Viscusi & Joseph E. Aldy, The Value of a Statistical
Life: A Critical Review of Market Estimates Throughout the World,
Nat'l Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 9487, available at
<a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w9487">www.nber.org/papers/w9487</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the other end of the age spectrum, the Commission finds that the
``normative framework'' adopted in the Final Guidance could result in
the Commission inadvertently de-prioritizing regulations intended to
protect the lives of senior citizens--another group whose needs
Congress specifically mandated the Commission consider.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Section 9(e) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(e) (``In the
promulgation of such a rule the Commission shall also consider and
take into account the special needs of elderly and handicapped
persons to determine the extent to which such persons may be
adversely affected by such rule .''); see also Kniesner & Viscusi,
supra (``The Final Guidance suggested that the potential for using a
lower VSL for seniors is an active area of research. . . . Adopting
a lower VSL for senior citizens, it will once again use out-of-the-
mainstream practices for regulatory analysis. Ever since the outcry
that resulted when the Environmental Protection Agency used a
``senior discount'' to value mortality risks for people over age 65
in its 2003 analysis of the Clear Skies initiative, government
agencies have steered clear of devaluing the lives of senior
citizens.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Heightened Litigation Risk
The Commission finds that the double-VSL-for-minors methodology
imposes unnecessary risk for CPSC rulemakings that rely upon the novel
methodology. Courts have recently vacated CPSC rules where deficiencies
in benefit-cost methodology undermined the rule's legal foundation,
such as in Window Covering Manufacturers Association v. CPSC, No. 22-
1300 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (``. . . the number of arithmetic mistakes
undermines the Commission's analysis and suggests that greater care is
warranted on remand''). Introducing a novel and controversial
multiplier without robust empirical support increases the likelihood of
judicial
[[Page 8847]]
invalidation, with the attendant loss of consumer protections.
Moreover, applying a flat multiplier to all individuals under a certain
age introduces the appearance that the agency is artificially
exaggerating the regulatory benefits of a policy, potentially biasing
policy decisions toward over-regulation and distorting resource
allocation. As noted in the economic literature, such inflation can
undermine the credibility and defensibility of benefit-cost
analyses.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Kniesner & Viscusi, supra note 3 (``Doubling the VSL for
children boosts the apparent attractiveness of the regulation. . .
.''); see also id. (``[T]he CPSC may advocate whatever VSL multiple
is needed to create the illusion of a desirable policy in order to
make undesirable regulations appear to be worthwhile.''); see also
id. (``Any future efforts to improve the mortality risk calculations
for government regulations affecting children or other demographic
groups should be based on solid empirical evidence rather than an
attempt to justify regulations that would not otherwise pass muster
based on economic efficiency considerations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that the methodology the CPSC uses to
calculate benefits of a proposed regulatory action is a distinct issue
from the policy considerations that may animate the agency's choice of
regulatory priorities. As one commenter noted, CPSC may pursue and
prioritize policies that differ from what is implied purely by the
results of benefit-cost analysis based on other policy considerations
like the particular effects on certain vulnerable sub-population. The
Commission notes its ability to pay special attention to specific
subpopulations, including children, without the double-VSL-for-minors
methodology. In specific instances, Congress has waived the cost-
benefit analysis requirement altogether to facilitate rulemaking. Most
recently, Congress waived these requirements in Reese's Law (Pub. L.
117-171), and it did so categorically in Sections 104 and 106 of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-314).
Where CPSC is required by law to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, it
should accurately reflect the costs and benefits of proposed
regulations. The Commission should not attempt to conceal those policy
considerations by placing a thumb on the benefit-cost scale in favor of
its preferred policy. Manipulating data, assigning arbitrary costs and
benefits, or otherwise gaming the process to ensure a particular
outcome places agency rules at significant risk and undermines public
trust in the institution.
III. Effect of Withdrawal
Withdrawal of the VSL Guidance reinstates the Commission's prior
practice of relying on a single VSL estimate applicable to all age
groups, adjusted for inflation, and other relevant economic factors,
thus improving consistency with prevailing federal methodologies and
OMB guidance (the latter of which CPSC is now subject to per E.O.
14215).
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2026-03655 Filed 2-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 24, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.