Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5369 

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in 

Alaska to the extent that it justifies 

making a regulatory distinction; and 

4. Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

We prepared an economic evaluation 

of the estimated costs to comply with 

this AD and placed it in the AD docket. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

Adoption of the Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as 

follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

■ 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

2016–02–06 Bell Helicopter Textron 

Canada Limited: Amendment 39–18387; 

Docket No. FAA–2016–2068; Directorate 

Identifier 2016–SW–002–AD. 

(a) Applicability 

This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron 

Canada Limited Model 429 helicopters with 

a tail rotor (T/R) pitch link (link) part number 

(P/N) 429–012–112–101, –101FM, –103, or 

–103FM installed, certificated in any 

category. 

(b) Unsafe Condition 

This AD defines the unsafe condition as 

failure of a T/R link. This condition could 

result in loss of T/R flight control and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. 

(c) Effective Date 

This AD becomes effective February 2, 

2016. 

(d) Compliance 

You are responsible for performing each 

action required by this AD within the 

specified compliance time unless it has 

already been accomplished prior to that time. 

(e) Required Actions 

(1) For T/R link P/N 429–012–112–101 and 

429–012–112–103, within 10 hours time-inservice (TIS): 

(i) Remove each T/R link assembly. Prior 

to cleaning the T/R link bearing bores, using 

10X or higher power magnification, inspect 

each T/R link bearing bore for aluminum 

oxide corrosion extruding from between the 

roll staked lip of the bearing outer race and 

the link bearing bore. Aluminum oxide 

corrosion appears as a white crystalline 

material in contrast with the black finish and 

any accumulated soot. An example of this 

corrosion is shown in Figure 1 of Bell 

Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 429–15–26, 

dated December 7, 2015 (ASB 429–15–26). 

(ii) If there is any aluminum oxide 

corrosion, replace the T/R link before further 

flight. 

(iii) If there is no aluminum oxide 

corrosion, clean each T/R link bearing bore 

with isopropyl alcohol and inspect for 

pitting. 

(A) If there is any pitting, replace the T/ 

R link before further flight. 

(B) If there is no pitting, apply corrosion 

preventative sealant by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 5. 

of Part I, of ASB 429–15–26. 

(2) For all T/R links listed in paragraph (a) 

of this AD, within 50 hours TIS and 

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours 

TIS, using 10X or higher power 

magnification, inspect each T/R link bearing 

bore for missing corrosion preventative 

sealant. If any corrosion preventative sealant 

is missing, perform the actions in paragraph 

(e)(1)(i) through (e)(1)(iii) of this AD before 

further flight. 

(3) Do not install T/R link P/N 429–012– 

112–101 or –103 on any helicopter before 

complying with the actions in paragraph 

(e)(1) of this AD. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Safety Management 

Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, 

Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety 

Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 

76177; telephone (817) 222–5110; email 9- 

ASW-FTW-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a 14 

CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 

14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that 

you notify your principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office or 

certificate holding district office, before 

operating any aircraft complying with this 

AD through an AMOC. 

(g) Additional Information 

The subject of this AD is addressed in 

Transport Canada AD CF–2016–01, dated 

January 5, 2016. You may view the Transport 

Canada AD on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and 

locating it in Docket No. FAA–2016–2068. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 6400, Tail Rotor System. 

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference of 

the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(i) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin 

429–15–26, dated December 7, 2015. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(3) For Bell Helicopter service information 

identified in this final rule, contact Bell 

Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 

Rue de l’Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; 

telephone (450) 437–2862 or (800) 363–8023; 

fax (450) 433–0272; or at http://

www.bellcustomer.com/files/. 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, 

Room 6N–321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http://

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 22, 

2016. 

Scott A. Horn, 

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01747 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1031 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2013–0034] 

Commission Participation and 

Commission Employee Involvement in 

Voluntary Standards Activities 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) is issuing 

this final rule to amend the existing 

regulation on Commission participation 

and employee involvement in voluntary 

standards activities. Currently, 

Commission rules allow employees to 

participate in voluntary standard 

development groups on a non-voting 

basis and do not allow Commission 

employees to accept leadership 

positions in voluntary standard 

development groups. This final rule 

removes these restrictions and allows 

Commission employees to participate as 

voting members and to accept 

leadership positions in voluntary 

standard development groups, subject to 

prior approval by CPSC’s Office of the 

Executive Director (‘‘OEX’’). 

DATES: The final rule will become 

effective on March 3, 2016. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5370 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia K. Adair, Supervisory Program 

Analyst, Office of Hazard Identification 

and Reduction, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone: 301–504–7335; padair@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Many consumer products under the 

Commission’s jurisdiction are covered 

by voluntary standards. Voluntary 

standards provide safety provisions 

addressing potential hazards associated 

with consumer products found in 

locations such as homes, schools, and 

recreational areas. Developing voluntary 

standards may involve multiple 

revisions to a standard within 1 year, or 

over multiple years. Voluntary 

standards development activities for 

consumer products within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction are handled 

primarily by three standards 

development/coordinating 

organizations: ASTM International 

(previously called the American Society 

for Testing and Materials), the American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’), 

and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. 

(‘‘UL’’). Along with industry, consumer 

groups, and product safety experts, 

CPSC staff works with these and other 

organizations to coordinate the 

development of voluntary standards. 

Currently, CPSC staff provides 

technical support to organizations that 

coordinate the development of 

voluntary standards. According to the 

CPSC’s Voluntary Standards Activities 

FY 2014 Annual Report, CPSC staff 

provided technical support or 

monitored voluntary standards activities 

for 83 products in FY 2014. Staff 

participates in the voluntary standards 

development process by providing 

expert advice, technical assistance, and 

information, based on analyses of the 

numbers and causes of deaths, injuries, 

or incidents associated with a product. 

Staff may also conduct CPSC research, 

perform laboratory tests, and provide 

draft language for a voluntary standard. 

The Commission’s involvement and 

staff’s participation in voluntary 

standards activities are governed by the 

Commission’s rule at 16 CFR part 1031, 

Commission Participation and 

Commission Employee Involvement in 

Voluntary Standards Activities (‘‘part 

1031’’). Part 1031 prohibits CPSC staff 

from voting and precludes staff from 

holding leadership positions in 

voluntary standards development 

groups. This final rule amends part 1031 

to eliminate these prohibitions and 

allows CPSC staff to vote and hold 

leadership positions on an optional 

basis, provided that such activities have 

the prior approval of the CPSC’s OEX. 

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

The Consumer Product Safety Act 

(‘‘CPSA’’) gives the Commission 

authority to promulgate mandatory 

safety standards for consumer products. 

15 U.S.C. 2056(a)(1)(A). The 

Commission issued regulations in 1978, 

describing the extent and form of 

Commission involvement in the 

development of voluntary standards (43 

FR 19216 (May 4, 1978)). 

Acknowledging the contribution that 

voluntary standards had made to 

reducing hazards associated with 

consumer products, the Commission 

stated its support for an effective 

voluntary standards program, finding 

that a proper combination of voluntary 

and mandatory standards can increase 

product safety better than either 

mandatory or voluntary activities alone. 

In 1981, Congress amended the CPSA, 

the Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(‘‘FHSA’’), and the Flammable Fabrics 

Act (‘‘FFA’’), to, among other things, 

mandate that the Commission give 

preference to voluntary standards, as 

opposed to promulgating mandatory 

standards, if the Commission 

determines that a voluntary standard 

would eliminate or adequately reduce 

an unreasonable risk of injury and there 

will likely be substantial compliance 

with the voluntary standard. 15 U.S.C. 

2056(b), 15 U.S.C. 1262(g)(2), 15 U.S.C. 

1193(h)(2). In 1989, the Commission 

adopted regulations to reflect the 

policies set forth by the 1981 

amendments, making several changes in 

the agency’s policies on employee 

participation in voluntary standards 

development activities. The 1989 

amendments also combined parts 1031 

(on employee membership and 

participation) and 1032 (on Commission 

involvement) into a revised part 1031, 

titled, Commission Participation and 

Commission Employee Involvement in 

Voluntary Standards Activities. 54 FR 

6646 (Feb. 14, 1989). 

In 2006, the Commission amended 

several provisions of part 1031. 71 FR 

38754 (July 10, 2006). Among other 

things, the 2006 amendments provided 

that Commission employees only 

participate in voluntary standards 

efforts consistent with the Commission’s 

priorities identified in the Commission’s 

operating plan, performance budget, 

mid-year review, or other official 

Commission document. In addition, the 

Commission added a requirement that 

employees with ongoing participation in 

voluntary standards activities report 

regularly to the Voluntary Standards 

Coordinator, to help ensure ongoing 

oversight and coordination. Lastly, the 

2006 amendments added a requirement 

that the CPSC provide notice and the 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on staff’s positions on voluntary 

standards activities. 

B. Recent Statutory Changes Involving 

Voluntary Standards 

In the past, CPSC staff typically 

served on voluntary standards 

committees based on the Commission’s 

priorities. Staff participated without any 

expectation that such voluntary 

standards would necessarily form the 

basis of a mandatory standard. The 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), however, gave 

rise to the expectation that, for certain 

children’s products, voluntary standards 

would form the basis for mandatory 

standards development. For example, 

section 104(b) of the CPSIA requires the 

Commission to promulgate consumer 

product safety standards for durable 

infant or toddler products. These 

standards are to be ‘‘substantially the 

same as’’ applicable voluntary standards 

or more stringent than the voluntary 

standard, if the Commission determines 

that more stringent requirements would 

further reduce the risk of injury 

associated with the product. 

Congress also has addressed 

participation by federal agencies in 

voluntary standards development. 

Public Law 104–113 directed federal 

agencies to ‘‘use technical standards 

that are developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies’’ 

and to ‘‘participate with such bodies in 

the development of technical 

standards.’’ Public Law 104–113, 

12(d)(1) & (2), 110 Stat. 775, 783 (1996), 

15 U.S.C. 272 note. Congress anticipated 

that federal agencies would ‘‘work 

closely’’ with voluntary standards 

organizations, that these organizations 

would ‘‘include active government 

participation,’’ and that agencies would 

‘‘work with these voluntary consensus 

bodies, whenever and wherever 

appropriate.’’ H.R. Rep. 104–390 at 15, 

25 (1995). See also 141 Cong. Rec. 

H14334 (daily ed. December 12, 1995) 

(Statement of Rep. Morella). 

C. GAO Report 

On May 16, 2012, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

(‘‘GAO’’) issued a report titled, 

‘‘Consumer Product Safety Commission: 

A More Active Role in Voluntary 

Standards Development Should Be 

Considered’’ (‘‘GAO Report’’) (available 

at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/

590990.pdf). The GAO Report 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5371 

recommended that the Commission 

review its policy for staff participation 

in voluntary standards development 

activities and determine the feasibility 

of agency staff assuming a more active, 

engaged role in developing voluntary 

standards. Specifically, the GAO Report 

recommended that CPSC staff be 

allowed to vote on balloted provisions 

of voluntary standards and to hold 

leadership positions at various levels of 

standards development organizations, 

including task groups, subcommittees, 

or committees. GAO concluded that 

changing the CPSC’s regulations to 

allow staff to participate more actively 

in voluntary standards activities, 

especially when working with technical 

committees for which CPSC staff can 

provide expertise, and permitting CPSC 

staff to vote on voluntary standards, 

could result in stronger voluntary 

standards, without compromising the 

CPSC’s independence. 

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

In response to the GAO Report 

recommendations, the Commission 

issued a proposed rule (‘‘NPR’’) to 

remove the prohibitions on CPSC staff 

participating as voting members and 

accepting leadership positions in 

voluntary standard development groups. 

78 FR 57818 (Sept. 20, 2013). The NPR 

proposed that CPSC staff participation 

in such activities would receive prior 

approval by OEX. The preamble to the 

NPR stated that when approving staff’s 

participation in such activities, OEX 

should consider the policy concerns set 

forth in 16 CFR 1031.9 (appearance of 

preferential treatment, loss of 

impartiality, compromise of the 

agency’s independence, and a real or 

apparent conflict of interest) and 

balance these concerns against 

Commission priorities, available 

resources, the need for greater staff 

involvement, and the efficiency of the 

voluntary standards process. 78 FR at 

57820. The NPR stated that OEX would 

evaluate each request for staff to 

participate as a voting member or to 

accept a leadership position on a caseby-case basis. Additionally, the 

preamble to the NPR stated that OEX 

would authorize staff to vote on actions 

for a specified voluntary standard but 

would not be approving each individual 

vote. Id. 

E. Rationale for the Rule 

The Commission is finalizing the 

proposed rule without any changes. As 

discussed in the preamble to the NPR, 

the Commission believes that permitting 

CPSC staff the option to vote on a 

voluntary standard and/or accept a 

leadership position in a voluntary 

standard development group may result 

in a more effective voluntary standards 

process and accelerate standards 

development and implementation, 

without compromising the CPSC’s 

independence. Such participation could 

gain CPSC staff additional access to and 

familiarity with the latest technologies, 

and will provide an opportunity for staff 

to help establish standards that will 

advance CPSC’s safety goals. In 

addition, ‘‘full’’ federal government 

participation in standards development 

increases the likelihood that the 

standards can meet both public and 

private sector needs. 141 Cong. Rec. 

H14334 (daily ed. December 12, 1995) 

(Statement of Rep. Morella). 

Additionally, optional staff 

participation in voluntary standard 

development groups by voting and 

taking leadership roles is consistent 

with the guidance in OMB Circular A– 

119 Revised, ‘‘Federal Participation in 

the Development and Use of Voluntary 

Consensus Standards and in Conformity 

Assessment Activities’’ (February 10, 

1998). Among other things, OMB 

Circular A–119 encourages agency 

representatives serving as members of 

voluntary consensus standards bodies to 

‘‘participate actively and on an equal 

basis with other members,’’ and to ‘‘vote 

. . . at each stage of the standards 

development process unless prohibited 

from doing so by law of their agencies.’’ 

When participating as a voting 

member of, or in a leadership position 

on, a voluntary standard development 

group, the Commission directs CPSC 

staff to indicate clearly that any views 

expressed in connection with such 

participation represent CPSC staff’s 

position and may not necessarily 

represent the Commission’s position. 

Making such a disclaimer is consistent 

with current staff practice regarding 

representations in oral and written 

presentations and staff documents 

intended for public release. In these 

contexts, CPSC staff’s views cannot 

serve as a proxy for the Commission’s or 

the agency’s views on any particular 

issue, as stated in the final rule at 

§ 1031.11(c). Similarly, CPSC staff 

serving in leadership positions on a 

voluntary standard development group 

will act in their capacity as CPSC staff 

members, and their views will not 

necessarily represent the views of the 

Commission. In particular, the 

Commission warns that CPSC staff 

participation in a voluntary standard 

development group, even in a 

leadership position, does not provide 

any assurance that the Commission will 

support the resulting voluntary 

standard. 

Removing prohibitions on employees 

voting and serving in leadership 

positions should not result in the 

Commission compromising the policy 

concerns set forth in § 1031.9. 

Generally, before any substantive issue 

is balloted on a voluntary standards 

committee, the committee is given the 

opportunity to discuss the proposals in 

detail. Currently, Commission staff 

engages in these discussions, such that 

the technical opinions of staff are 

known before a proposed change in a 

voluntary standard is balloted. 

Accordingly, CPSC staff’s ability to vote 

on such ballots should not 

fundamentally alter current procedures 

in a manner that impinges on the 

Commission’s independence. Rather, 

staff’s ability to vote on a voluntary 

standard may improve the credibility 

and efficiency of the standard. 

Additionally, not only can OEX 

consider policy concerns when deciding 

whether to authorize staff participation 

in voluntary standards activities as 

voting members or in leadership roles, 

but OEX’s approval also can impose 

constraints or limitations tailored to 

specific circumstances, such as 

measures to avoid undue influence or 

any appearance of impropriety. 

Finally, to serve in a leadership 

position on a voluntary standards 

development group, CPSC staff must 

agree to follow the procedures set forth 

by the voluntary standards development 

group for leadership positions. Staff’s 

leadership role may involve helping the 

development group to run more 

smoothly and assisting the committee in 

achieving timely deliberations. 

II. Response to Comments 

CPSC received 14 comments 

regarding the NPR that address 29 

separate issues. Comments submitted in 

response to the NPR are available at: 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

under the docket number of the 

rulemaking, CPSC–2013–0034. We 

summarize the comments received on 

the NPR and CPSC’s responses below. 

To make identification of the comments 

and our responses easier, we numbered 

the comments and responses, and 

placed the word ‘‘Comment’’ before 

each comment summary, and the word 

‘‘Response’’ before the Commission’s 

response. 

A. Support for Greater Staff 

Participation in a Voting Capacity or in 

a Leadership Role in Voluntary 

Standards 

Comment 1: A commenter noted that, 

‘‘involvement of CPSC personnel in 

voluntary standards activities ensures 

that the agency and other affected 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5372 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

stakeholders (standards developers, 

industry, consumers, etc.) can address 

safety needs in an open forum, thereby 

reducing the likelihood that mandatory 

rulemaking will be necessary. Such 

rulemaking is often time-consuming, 

can preclude more robust stakeholder 

input and participation, and may not be 

able to react and adapt to changing 

market dynamics on a rolling basis.’’ 

Other commenters echoed the 

conclusion that staff engagement 

produces ‘‘better, more protective and 

timelier voluntary standards’’ and those 

members with voting privileges are 

often more engaged in the process. 

Response 1: The Commission agrees 

that there are benefits to staff 

participation in voluntary standards 

organizations. Staff participation in a 

voluntary standards body facilitates 

more open, efficient interactions with 

stakeholders and such communication 

with stakeholders yields effective 

injury-prevention strategies for 

consumers. Sometimes, staff’s 

participation in the voluntary standards 

process may be more efficient and 

timely in reducing safety hazards than 

mandatory rulemaking. For example, 

the ability to update standards quickly 

is an important benefit of voluntary 

standards. However, the ability to create 

mandatory rules is an important part of 

product safety. The Commission, not 

CPSC staff, generally determines when 

to follow a voluntary standard and 

when to initiate rulemaking, often based 

on staff’s recommendations. Together, 

staff’s participation in voluntary 

standards development and the 

Commission’s rulemaking ability help 

fulfill the Commission’s mission to 

prevent serious injury and death to 

consumers from unreasonable risks 

associated with consumer products. The 

Commission previously observed that 

an effective voluntary standards 

program, along with mandatory 

standards, can increase product safety 

better than either mandatory or 

voluntary standards alone (43 FR 19216 

(May 4, 1978)). 

Comment 2: A commenter expressed 

concern that staff’s inability to 

‘‘officially’’ represent CPSC in voluntary 

standards development activities might 

be perceived negatively by other 

standards development group 

participants who expect that individuals 

in the group represent the views of their 

organizations. 

Response 2: CPSC staff currently 

provides input to voluntary standards 

development groups; this input 

represents the views and expertise of 

Commission staff, not the Commission. 

The fact that staff cannot represent the 

views of the Commission will not 

change if staff participates in voting. 

Leadership responsibilities in a 

voluntary standards organization are 

determined by each organization and 

generally require impartiality. A CPSC 

staff leader will be subject to all the 

rules and regulations of the voluntary 

standards, as any other member in the 

same role. 

Comment 3: A commenter noted that 

staff from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) participates 

and votes in voluntary standards 

development groups and has held 

leadership positions. 

Response 3: As GAO’s report noted, 

CPSC’s existing policy on voting and 

holding leadership positions in 

voluntary standards organizations is 

more restrictive than OMB’s guidance 

on voluntary standard’s participation in 

OMB Circular A–119 Revised, ‘‘Federal 

Participation in the Development and 

Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards 

and in Conformity Assessment 

Activities’’ (February 10, 1998). Each 

agency independently decides on an 

appropriate policy for voluntary 

standards activities. 

B. Concerns With Greater Staff 

Participation in a Voting Capacity or in 

a Leadership Role in Voluntary 

Standards 

Comment 4: Some commenters stated 

that allowing staff to vote in voluntary 

standards development activities would 

‘‘compromise the CPSC’s objectivity and 

have a ‘chilling effect’ on candid 

discussions needed to develop the most 

effective standards.’’ The commenters 

do not see the benefit of allowing staff 

to vote when an ‘‘abstention with 

comment’’ serves to provide substantive 

staff input. 

Response 4: Staff currently expresses 

its opinions of ballot items in voluntary 

standards development activities 

through an abstention with comment, 

participation in meetings, email 

communications, conference calls, and 

formal letters submitted to the standards 

development groups. At this time, the 

Commission is not aware of any 

instances in which expressions of 

opinion adversely affected discussions. 

Allowing staff to express staff’s views 

through a vote may increase the speed 

and efficiency of staff communicating 

during standards development 

meetings. In addition to ballot votes, 

dozens of proposals can be made and 

voted on during any given standards 

development meeting. Allowing staff to 

cast a vote like other members can 

provide instant feedback about staff 

opinions. 

Comment 5: A commenter expressed 

concern that CPSC staff’s negative vote 

could effectively negate the legitimacy 

and effectiveness of an entire standard, 

even when a standard has the full 

support of an entire committee. The 

commenter expressed concern that 

allowing CPSC staff to vote could cause 

manufacturers to decline altogether 

from participating in voluntary 

standards development. 

Response 5: The Commission 

disagrees. Staff regularly expresses its 

approval or disapproval of proposals in 

presentations and letters during 

standards development activities, 

usually verbally, but often in the form 

of a written ‘‘abstention with comment.’’ 

Even when staff provides negative 

feedback, voluntary standards 

development groups continue their 

work. 

Comment 6: Several commenters 

suggested that any CPSC staff position 

on a subject could be seen as an official 

Commission position, implying that 

staff’s usual disclaimer cannot be 

effective. One commenter stated that the 

Commission should vote on every 

position taken by a staffer and expressed 

concern that a CPSC staff member 

stating a view that was ‘‘materially 

different from one or more 

Commissioners, could create a conflict 

with an ultimate Commission 

determination.’’ 

Response 6: The Commission is 

comprised of five individual 

Commissioners. Accordingly, every 

Commissioner may not always agree 

with the recommendations or opinions 

of staff. The Commission’s official 

position is determined by a majority 

vote of the five Commissioners. CPSC 

staff routinely expresses its opinions 

about proposals in voluntary standards 

activities with the disclaimer that staff 

cannot represent the Commission’s 

opinions. The disclaimer that staff 

cannot ‘‘represent the views of the 

Commission’’ is generally understood 

within voluntary standards 

organizations and will be included as 

part of the comments attached to a staff 

vote if there is any indication that staff 

opinion could be misinterpreted as 

representing the views of the 

Commission. 

Comment 7: A commenter noted that 

CPSC’s current policy preventing staff 

from voting in and leading voluntary 

standards activities ensures that the 

CPSC ‘‘maintain[s] its independence as 

an impartial participant . . .’’ 

Response 7: The Commission’s 

decision to permit the option for staff 

representatives to vote or hold 

leadership positions should not prevent 

the Commission from maintaining its 

independence. CPSC’s regulation at 16 

CFR 1031.13(e) states: ‘‘Involvement by 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5373 

1http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/Regs.pdf—ASTM 

International, Regulations Governing ASTM 

Technical Committees, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, PA, October, 2013. 

Commission officials and employees in 

voluntary standards bodies or 

standards-development groups does not, 

of itself, connote Commission agreement 

with, or endorsement of, decisions 

reached, approved or published by such 

bodies or groups.’’ The final rule 

requires OEX to approve staff 

participation, and to consider whether 

‘‘loss of impartiality’’ would be an issue 

in each case. 

Comment 8: A commenter asserted 

that having staff in leadership positions 

of voluntary standards development 

groups would have ‘‘a chilling effect’’ 

on participation because, ‘‘it is difficult 

to believe that any manufacturer 

representative would ever risk the ire of 

CPSC (a potential enforcement action?) 

against its company by voicing 

disagreement with a CPSC committee or 

subcommittee chair or voting against a 

CPSC position.’’ 

Response 8: According to CPSC staff, 

staff’s experience participating in 

voluntary standards development 

groups does not support the 

commenter’s claim. CPSC staff regularly 

engages in full and vigorous debates 

about staff’s views in standards 

development meetings where a 

subcommittee disregards or votes 

against CPSC staff’s position. 

Organizations, such as ASTM, have 

stated that leaders are subject to rules 

that maintain the development of 

consensus standards in accordance with 

rigorous democratic procedures that 

ensure open and balanced participation, 

due process, and consensus. Members 

may monitor, critique, and correct any 

actions of a subcommittee or task group 

chairman according to the rules and bylaws of the standards development 

organization. Additionally, although 

each organization may differ, leaders are 

nominated and appointed according to 

the standards development 

organization’s rules and procedures. For 

example, UL employs UL staff to lead 

UL’s standards technical panels. ASTM 

members elect a chairman who appoints 

subcommittee chairmen from the 

general membership, subject to the 

approval of ASTM’s Executive 

Subcommittee (Section 6.3.1, ASTM, 

2013).1 Task group leaders are 

appointed during subcommittee 

meetings. 

Under the final rule, CPSC staff could 

be nominated and appointed to 

leadership roles only after the approval 

of the standards development 

organization that makes the invitation. 

OEX will subsequently need to approve 

staff participation. The final rule gives 

standards development organizations 

the option to offer a leadership role to 

CPSC staff and for OEX to review and 

approve each offer on a case-by-case 

basis. Furthermore, execution of a 

leadership role is subject to the bylaws 

of the pertinent standards development 

organization, many of which require 

impartiality of people in leadership 

positions. 

Comment 9: Commenters argued that 

having CPSC staff in a leadership role in 

a voluntary standards development 

group could create the practice or 

appearance of undue influence if staff is 

allowed, for example, to schedule 

meetings, set agendas, and decide the 

direction of the conversation on the 

voluntary standard. 

Response 9: Standards development 

organizations have rules and bylaws 

that govern and protect the validity of 

their respective consensus-building 

procedures. Although the leader of a 

committee can have influence over the 

scheduling of meetings and discussions, 

the agenda and direction of the 

conversation are governed and selected 

by the committee members. Every 

proposal made by a member of the 

group must be voted on and approved 

by the members, and any irregularities 

in procedures are open to challenge by 

any member, as specified in the 

standards organization’s rules of 

conduct or bylaws. Chairmen or other 

leaders cannot dictate the content or 

wording of a voluntary standard, nor 

can they move proposals forward 

without group consensus. Removing the 

prohibition will not alter or affect these 

rules and principles. 

Comment 10: A commenter asserted 

that the Commission has not shown ‘‘a 

reason why prohibiting staff from 

accepting leadership positions is no 

longer necessary.’’ Another commenter 

termed the reasons for the proposed 

rule, ‘‘a mystery.’’ 

Response 10: As noted above, a GAO 

report recommended that the 

Commission review its policy for 

participating in voluntary standards 

development activities and determine 

the feasibility of agency staff assuming 

a more active, engaged role in 

developing voluntary standards. The 

GAO concluded that CPSC had 

interpreted its level of participation 

more strictly than OMB guidance 

specified for activities such as voting on 

standards and taking leadership 

positions. Other participants in 

voluntary standards development 

activities familiar with CPSC 

contributions agreed with OMB that 

‘‘earlier and more active participation 

could increase CPSC’s efficiency and 

effectiveness in developing standards’’ 

(p. 10, GAO–12–582). After reviewing 

the GAO report, the Commission agreed 

with CPSC staff, that in certain limited 

circumstances, if CPSC staff is allowed 

to vote or serve in leadership positions, 

CPSC staff’s participation may advance 

efficient development of safety 

standards. Importantly, removing the 

prohibition against these activities from 

part 1031 does not require CPSC staff to 

vote or to serve as leaders; however, 

removing the prohibition does provide a 

framework for CPSC to consider, on a 

case-by-case basis, whether staff should 

undertake such activities. 

C. Potential Legal Issues With Greater 

Staff Participation Identified by 

Commenters 

Comment 11: Several commenters 

argued that allowing staff members to 

vote would ‘‘usurp the regulatory 

process, effectively allowing the CPSC 

to develop a de facto ‘mandatory 

standard’ outside of the notice and 

comment rulemaking process in 

violation of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, as such vote would 

likely be given significant weight.’’ The 

commenters further asserted that, if staff 

assumes a leadership role in a voluntary 

standards development group, such a 

role would equate to an ‘‘end run’’ 

around the normal rulemaking 

safeguards that are needed to give small 

businesses a voice in the creation of a 

mandatory rule. 

Response 11: The Commission 

disagrees. Voluntary standards are not 

mandatory standards. Allowing staff to 

serve in leadership positions in a 

voluntary standards development group 

will not alter or circumvent any 

procedures for mandatory rulemaking. If 

the Commission engages in mandatory 

rulemaking, the Commission will 

continue to follow the appropriate 

notice and comment rulemaking 

procedures. 

Comment 12: A commenter noted that 

the CPSIA requires the Commission to 

make some voluntary standards into 

mandatory rules and expresses concern 

that a ‘‘blurring’’ is occurring between 

the needed distinction between 

voluntary standards versus CPSCmandated regulations. The commenter 

is concerned that this perceived 

‘‘blurring’’ of the distinction between 

voluntary and mandatory standards is a 

‘‘slippery slope that could undermine 

the legitimacy, independence, and 

effectiveness of the entire voluntary 

standards framework.’’ 

Response 12: Several provisions of the 

CPSIA mandated or provided for the 

Commission to adopt as mandatory 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5374 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations, certain voluntary standards, 

such as those for toys, durable infant 

and toddler products, and all-terrain 

vehicles. In these circumstances, there 

is a closer link between voluntary 

standards and mandatory CPSC 

standards than in other situations. 

However, the Commission follows 

appropriate rulemaking procedures 

when issuing a mandatory rule and 

clearly distinguishes between the staff’s 

activities with a voluntary standards 

development group and the 

Commission’s promulgation of a 

mandatory rule. Allowing staff to hold 

leadership positions or vote will not 

conflict with the rulemaking process. 

Most of CPSC staff’s work with 

voluntary standards groups is outside of 

the unique circumstances of these 

provisions of the CPSIA and does not 

involve any rulemaking activity. Staff is 

engaged in the voluntary standards 

process for a range of other consumer 

products. Rather than ‘‘undermining the 

legitimacy’’ of the voluntary standards 

framework, CPSC staff, in addition to 

stakeholder engagement in the 

voluntary standards process, has added 

to the legitimacy and credibility of the 

voluntary standards process. 

Participation by all concerned 

stakeholders collectively to develop 

safety standards is the most effective 

way to mitigate the risk of injury 

through the sharing of information, such 

as testing and data. 

Comment 13: A commenter suggested 

that the language of the NPR sounds like 

the Commission believes that voluntary 

standards development is ‘‘some kind of 

precursor to mandatory rulemaking or a 

substitute for an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’).’’ 

Response 13: In the case of section 

104 of the CPSIA, voluntary standards 

are the basis for the Commission’s 

rulemaking for a durable infant or 

toddler product. Congress required the 

Commission to issue mandatory rules 

for certain durable infant and toddler 

products that are substantially the same 

as, or more stringent than, the voluntary 

standard for such products. Congress 

directed the Commission to issue such 

rules under section 553 of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 

rather than the Commission’s 

rulemaking authority under sections 7 

and 9 of the CPSA. In effect, Congress 

directed certain juvenile product 

voluntary standards to become 

precursors of mandatory rules, but still 

required the Commission to use notice 

and comment rulemaking to make such 

standards mandatory rules. Congress 

also made voluntary standards for both 

toys and ATVs mandatory CPSC rules. 

Voluntary standards are important to 

CPSC, as demonstrated by the large 

number of voluntary standards 

committees staff participates in 

annually. However, staff involvement in 

a voluntary standard committee is not a 

precursor to a mandatory rule. When the 

Commission engages in rulemaking 

under the CPSA, the Commission must 

consider the efficacy of any existing 

voluntary standards to address the risk 

of injury or death identified, and 

whether products substantially comply 

with the voluntary standard. 

Comment 14: A commenter stated that 

the proposed rule would have a 

‘‘chilling effect’’ on participating in the 

development of standards because ‘‘.

. . . the plaintiffs’ bar will likely 

attempt to argue in product liability 

cases that a negative CPSC vote suggests 

that a voluntary standard (that was 

properly adopted through, for example, 

the ANSI or ASTM process) is still 

‘unsafe.’ ’’ 

Response 14: If lawyers wanted to 

make an argument based on an 

individual CPSC staffer’s opinion, 

lawyers could do that today, based on 

staff’s communications with a voluntary 

standards development group. Staff 

regularly and openly expresses opinions 

about voluntary standards in documents 

easily obtained and during open 

meetings. Expressing the same opinion 

in a vote will not change this dynamic. 

Comment 15: A commenter stated that 

one of the provisions of the Regulations 

Governing ASTM Technical Committees 

(Section 19.2.5) is that ‘‘. . . no 

subcommittee or task group shall make 

any effort to bring about the 

standardization of any product or 

service for the purpose or with the effect 

of (a) preventing the manufacture or sale 

of any product or service not 

conforming to a specified standard. 

. . .’’ The commenter argued that 

agency staff would violate this ASTM 

requirement if the proposed rule were 

approved. 

Response 15: The Commission 

disagrees with the commenter. CPSC 

staff’s voting or holding leadership 

positions will have no effect on ASTM’s 

requirements or procedures used for 

standards development. All members, 

including CPSC staff participating in the 

ASTM subcommittees are required to 

follow the rules of standard 

development set out by ASTM. 

Under the CPSA, the Commission 

must rely on a voluntary consumer 

product safety standard rather than 

promulgate a mandatory standard when 

compliance with the voluntary standard 

would eliminate or adequately reduce 

the risk of injury and it is likely there 

will be substantial compliance with the 

voluntary standard. Under section 104 

of the CPSIA, the Commission is 

required to issue a mandatory regulation 

for certain durable infant or toddler 

products that is the same as, or more 

stringent than, the voluntary standard if 

the Commission determines that more 

stringent standards would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

such products. Contrary to the 

commenter’s assertion, voluntary 

standards do not ‘‘immediately become 

a mandatory standard.’’ The 

Commission can only issue a final 

mandatory rule if the Commission 

follows the notice and comment 

rulemaking procedures under the APA 

or is otherwise instructed by Congress. 

Rulemaking can occur in parallel to the 

voluntary standards development 

process, but cannot be replaced by the 

voluntary standards development 

process. 

Comment 16: One commenter 

recommended that, if staff is given the 

opportunity to vote on a ballot item, and 

staff casts a negative vote that is later 

deemed nonpersuasive by the 

subcommittee, then staff’s 

recommendation or suggestion should 

not be included in any final mandatory 

standard that incorporates the standard 

by reference. 

Response 16: This comment refers to 

the ASTM practice of allowing a 

subcommittee to find a negative vote 

nonpersuasive, thereby overriding the 

negative vote and allowing a ballot to 

pass, even though the ballot does not 

have the consensus of all voters. The 

commenter is confusing the roles of 

CPSC staff and the Commission. CPSC 

staff’s opinions and suggestions are just 

that, they are the staff’s opinions and 

suggestions, not the opinions and 

suggestions of the Commission. The 

creation of a mandatory standard, even 

one with origins in a voluntary 

standard, is separate from voluntary 

standards development and requires 

action by the Commission. Neither 

opinions of CPSC staff, nor the opinions 

of the standards organization members, 

can bind the Commission to any 

decision about a mandatory standard. 

CPSC rulemaking must be conducted 

following the appropriate statutory 

rulemaking procedure. Furthermore, the 

commenter’s suggestion goes against 

separation of the voluntary and 

mandatory standards processes 

discussed previously. 

Comment 17: Commenters suggested 

that staff leadership and voting in 

voluntary standards development 

activities might activate certain 

requirements of the APA. These 

requirements ‘‘could hinder or cripple 

the process’’ of developing a standard. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5375 

2Principles for Federal Engagement in Standards 

Activities to Address National Priorities (Jan. 17, 

2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12- 

08.pdf (last accessed March 25, 2014). 

Response 17: CPSC staff voting and/ 

or accepting a leadership position in a 

standards development organization 

does not implicate the APA. Procedural 

requirements of the APA do not apply 

to voluntary standard proceedings but 

only to rulemaking undertaken by the 

Commission through its statutory 

procedures. 

Comment 18: A commenter suggested 

that staff leadership in standards 

development activities might trigger the 

need to follow the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (‘‘FACA’’). 

Response 18: FACA is not implicated 

by CPSC staff serving in a leadership 

position in a voluntary standards 

development group. FACA defines an 

‘‘advisory committee,’’ in relevant part, 

as one that is ‘‘established or utilized by 

one or more agencies, in the interest of 

obtaining advice or recommendations 

for the President or one or more 

agencies or officers of the Federal 

Government . . .’’ 5 U.S.C. 3 App. 2. 

Voluntary standards organizations, 

committees, and subcommittees are not 

‘‘established or utilized’’ by the 

Commission or CPSC staff. Voluntary 

standards committees exist to create and 

revise voluntary standards, irrespective 

of whether CPSC staff serves in a 

leadership function. Additionally, 

neither the Commission, nor staff, is 

establishing or utilizing a voluntary 

standards development group to advise 

the agency on any matter. 

Comment 19: A commenter suggested 

that staff leadership roles might trigger 

certain requirements of the Sunshine 

Act (‘‘SA’’), such as calendar notices 

and the accommodation of additional 

public participation beyond members 

who regularly contribute to standards 

development activities. The commenter 

was concerned that SA obligations 

would suppress participation and raise 

the costs of holding meetings for 

standards development organizations. 

Response 19: The SA, 5 U.S.C. 552b, 

does not apply to staff serving in 

leadership positions in a voluntary 

standards development group. As 

provided in the Commission’s 

regulations implementing the SA, 16 

CFR 1013.1, SA requirements only 

apply to Commissioners, not to staff. 

The CPSC does have a meetings policy 

for the agency that applies to CPSC staff, 

as well as Commissioners. 16 CFR part 

1012. The meetings policy fosters 

transparency and openness. Under the 

meetings policy, certain meetings 

involving CPSC staff (such as meetings 

concerning the development of 

voluntary standards) must be open to 

the public and must be noticed in 

CPSC’s public calendar. The 

Commission’s voluntary standards 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1031 

explicitly reference and incorporate the 

meetings policy requiring CPSC 

employees to comply with applicable 

provisions. 16 CFR 1031.11(f) and 

1031.13(c). CPSC staff has followed this 

meetings policy since its 1981 

implementation when participating in 

the voluntary standards development 

process, including routinely posting 

voluntary standards organization 

meeting notices on the CPSC’s public 

calendar and creating meeting logs to 

record participation. 

Comment 20: A commenter wrote that 

staff participation on technical 

committees ‘‘could impede the ability of 

these committees to function effectively 

by precluding industry participants 

from discussing or disclosing privileged 

information.’’ The commenter 

recommended allowing technical 

committee meetings to be closed to the 

public to facilitate ‘‘the open, honest 

dialogue and self-critical analysis that 

are the cornerstones of voluntary 

standard development.’’ 

Response 20: The final rule allows 

CPSC staff to vote on ballot items and 

to hold leadership positions. These 

revisions do not alter standards 

organizations’ procedural rules or the 

CPSC’s meetings policy (discussed in 

the previous response). 

D. Other Procedural and Burden 

Considerations 

Comment 21: A commenter 

recommended that CPSC staff 

engagement be consistent with the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(‘‘OSTP’’) guidance,2 namely: 

1. Produce timely, effective standards 

and efficient conformity assessment 

schemes that are essential to addressing 

an identified need; 

2. Achieve cost-efficient, timely, and 

effective solutions to legitimate 

regulatory procurement and policy 

objectives; 

3. Promote standards and 

standardization schemes that promote 

and sustain innovation and foster 

competition; 

4. Enhance U.S. growth and 

competitiveness and ensure nondiscrimination, consistent with 

international obligations; and 

5. Facilitate international trade and 

avoid the creation of unnecessary 

obstacles to trade. 

The commenter also recommended 

that CPSC staff only accept leadership 

positions when the standard is a 

national priority and consistent with 

CPSC’s current operating plan. Even 

then, the commenter recommended that 

leadership roles should be the 

exception, not the rule. 

Response 21: The Commission 

believes that the final rule will 

contribute to the objectives outlined in 

the OSTP guidance. OEX will approve 

staff participation on a case-by-case 

basis, based on the considerations 

outlined in the rule. The Commission 

expects that standards organizations 

will only extend an invitation for staff 

to take leadership positions during 

exceptional circumstances because 

many willing standard organization 

members are often available for taking 

leadership roles in standards 

organizations. 

Comment 22: Another commenter 

suggested that the Commission should 

be involved in the decision to approve 

staff participation because it is a policy 

decision, not just a budgetary concern. 

Response 22: The Chairman, not the 

Commission, is responsible for 

allocating staff resources. 15 U.S.C. 

2053(f)(1). The Executive Director, as 

chief operating officer, manages staff’s 

work. 16 CFR 1000.18. Staff’s work 

includes participation in voluntary 

standards activities, whether on a voting 

or non-voting basis and whether in a 

leadership or non-leadership capacity. 

Comment 23: A commenter 

questioned the criteria OEX would 

apply to determine when it was 

advisable for staff to participate actively 

in a standards initiative. What rules for 

gaining approval would be set and what 

criteria would OEX apply in the 

decision? 

Response 23: OEX will approve staff 

participation on a case-by-case basis, 

based on the considerations outlined in 

the rule, namely the policy concerns set 

forth in 16 CFR 1031.9: 

• An appearance of preferential 

treatment, 

• loss of impartiality, 

• compromise of the agency’s 

independence, and 

• a real or apparent conflict of 

interest. 

Policy concerns in 16 CFR 1031.9 

should be balanced against Commission 

priorities, available resources, and the 

need for greater staff involvement, 

among other things. Nominations for 

leadership roles will be subject to the 

rules set by the standards development 

organization, and an OEX decision will 

be rendered in a timely manner. 

Comment 24: Commenters strongly 

encouraged the Commission to ensure 

that the personnel assigned to 

participate in voluntary standards 

development groups have the technical 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5376 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

qualifications to address the entire 

subject of the standard, as opposed to a 

political appointee without relevant 

background training. Another 

commenter echoed this concern and 

also recommended that staff 

participation should involve regular 

attendance at meetings so that any votes 

cast by staff would be fully informed. 

Response 24: Staff members approved 

by OEX to hold leadership positions 

will be qualified to fulfill the 

responsibilities of their positions. 

CPSC’s regulation at 16 CFR 1031.12 

prohibits certain Commission personnel 

who have final decision-making 

responsibilities, such as political 

appointees, from becoming members of 

a voluntary standards development 

group. 

Comment 25: A commenter suggested 

that the procedures governing the 

chairman of a voluntary standards 

committee only allow that person to 

vote when there is a tie on a proposal. 

The commenter claimed that this would 

undermine one of the objectives of the 

rule. 

Response 25: The chairman’s role in 

a voluntary standard committee is 

defined by each organization’s by-laws, 

policies, and procedures. Anyone from 

CPSC staff taking a leadership role in a 

standards organization is required to 

adhere to those bylaws and policies. If 

this role is defined in standards 

organization bylaws and policies as one 

of a facilitator, then, staff will work to 

facilitate open discussion and debate, in 

accordance with the defined role of a 

chairman, and will avoid casting a vote 

when in that role. 

Comment 26: Some commenters 

expressed concern that the proposed 

rule could affect the ability of staff to 

monitor and informally participate in 

the greatest number of voluntary 

standards. Leadership roles demand 

significant resources and administrative 

responsibilities that may not be of 

significant interest to the Commission. 

Response 26: The Commission 

understands and agrees that leadership 

roles can be demanding and that the 

Commission’s resources are limited. 

Some leadership roles, such as leading 

a small task group, may take less time 

and fewer resources and be an 

appropriate use of staff’s time. For a 

staff member already committed to 

participating in a task group, serving as 

chairman may not involve a significant 

amount of extra time and preparation. 

However, as noted previously, resource 

demands and availability will be factors 

considered by the OEX when deciding 

on a request for staff to hold a 

leadership position. 

Comment 27: A commenter noted that 

the policy of limited staff participation 

in voluntary standards development 

activities was, in part, to reduce the 

financial burden on the government. 

The commenter did not see how lifting 

the prohibitions on staff participation in 

voluntary standards development 

activities would reduce the financial 

burdens on the government. 

Response 27: The final rule allows 

staff participation in a leadership role 

on a voluntary standards development 

group with OEX approval after taking 

into consideration a variety of factors, 

which may include resource 

availability. The level of participation in 

the voluntary standards process and the 

necessary commitment of time and 

resources can vary from situation to 

situation, and will be taken into account 

by OEX in considering approval. 

Implementing or revising mandatory 

standards can be costly in terms of the 

time and resources required to achieve 

a product safety objective. Participation 

in the voluntary standards development 

process is often a cost-efficient means to 

achieve the Commission’s product 

safety objectives when the result is an 

effective standard with industry 

compliance. Implementing or revising 

an effective voluntary standard is in the 

interest of the Commission, consumers, 

and the industry. 

Comment 28: A commenter expressed 

concern that using staff in leadership 

roles could slow down the development 

of voluntary standards because those 

staffers would need to maintain their 

daily duties at the Commission. 

Response 28: Before approving staff to 

serve in a leadership position, the OEX 

will consider many factors, including 

the employee’s then current duties and 

activities. Leaders in voluntary 

standards development groups typically 

have other duties at their place of 

employment, and if a leader is unable to 

fulfill his/her duties, the standards 

organization has procedures for 

replacing the leader to get the work 

completed on a timely basis. These 

procedures will apply to staff in 

leadership roles as well. For standards 

organizations that use volunteers in 

leadership roles (rather than voluntary 

standards development groups led by 

paid employees like UL), having another 

committee member who is allowed to 

volunteer for leadership duties will be 

beneficial during times of increased 

activity. 

Comment 29: Several commenters 

noted that if staff took leadership 

positions in voluntary standards 

activities and the government was shut 

down, then the standards development 

process would be slowed down. 

Response 29: Government shut downs 

are not common; however, the inability 

of staff to participate in voluntary 

standards activities based on this 

situation are similar to other 

circumstances, such as health-related 

issues, which can prohibit any person 

from fulfilling their duties on a 

committee. In the event of a leadership 

lapse, voluntary standards organizations 

have standing procedures for replacing 

leaders who cannot complete their 

duties. 

III. Description of the Final Rule 

Following is a section-by-section 

description of the changes to part 1031. 

These changes are the same as those set 

out in the proposed rule. 

Section 1031.10(b)—Existing 

§ 1031.10(b), regarding definitions, lists 

the types of activities that may comprise 

‘‘employee involvement’’ in voluntary 

standards development activities. 

Section 1031.10(b) of the final rule 

expands the list of activities to include: 

‘‘participating as a voting member of, or 

in a leadership position on, a voluntary 

standard development group, when 

authorized,’’ to recognize that such 

activities are part of the term ‘‘employee 

involvement.’’ 

Section 1031.11(c)—Existing 

§ 1031.11(c), regarding procedural 

safeguards, states that involvement in 

voluntary standards activities by 

Commission officials and employees is 

predicated on an understanding by the 

voluntary standards group that such 

involvement is on a non-voting basis. 

The final rule deletes this provision as 

inconsistent with the goal of allowing 

employees the option, with prior 

approval, to participate as voting 

members of a voluntary standards 

committee. 

Section 1031.11(d)—Existing 

§ 1031.11(d), regarding procedural 

safeguards, states: ‘‘[i]n no case shall 

Commission employees or officials vote 

or otherwise formally indicate approval 

or disapproval of a voluntary standard 

during the course of a voluntary 

standard development process.’’ The 

final rule renumbers this section to 

§ 1031.11(c), and revises the content to 

remove the existing language, which is 

inconsistent with allowing Commission 

employees the option, with prior 

approval, to vote. The final rule 

provides that employees authorized to 

participate as voting members of a 

voluntary standard development group 

represent the position of CPSC staff. 

Such votes do not necessarily represent 

the opinions or views of the 

Commission, and would not be binding 

on the Commission. 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 5377 

Section 1031.11(e)—Existing 

§ 1031.11(e), on procedural safeguards, 

states that Commission officials and 

employees cannot accept voluntary 

standards committee leadership 

positions, except that the Voluntary 

Standards Coordinator may accept 

leadership positions with the governing 

bodies of standards-making entities with 

the approval of the Executive Director. 

The final rule renumbers this provision 

to § 1031.11(d), and revises the language 

to state that Commission officials or 

employees may accept leadership 

positions in voluntary standards 

development groups or leadership 

positions with the governing bodies of 

standards-making entities, when 

authorized with prior approval by the 

Office of the Executive Director. 

Section 1031.11(f)—The final rule 

renumbers existing § 1031.11(f) to 

§ 1031.11(e). 

Section 1031.12(b)—Existing 

§ 1031.12(b), on membership criteria, 

states that all officials and employees 

not discussed in § 1031.12(a) [which 

lists Commissioners and employees who 

may not become members of voluntary 

standards groups because they either 

make or advise on final agency 

decisions] may be advisory, non-voting 

members of voluntary standards 

development and advisory groups with 

the prior approval of the Executive 

Director, including the Voluntary 

Standards Coordinator. Section 

1031.12(b) of the final rule revises the 

language to provide that all other 

officials and employees not covered 

under § 1031.12(a) may participate as 

voting members or accept leadership 

positions in voluntary standard 

development groups, when authorized 

with the prior approval of the Office of 

the Executive Director. Section 

1031.12(b) of the final rule removes the 

reference to the Voluntary Standards 

Coordinator because such person is not 

prohibited from becoming a member of 

a voluntary standards group in 

§ 1031.12(a). Thus, the Voluntary 

Standards Coordinator would fall 

within the class of persons discussed in 

final § 1031.12(b) who may serve as a 

voting member and hold leadership 

positions, as authorized. 

Section 1031.12(c)—Existing 

§ 1031.12(c) references the Executive 

Director as the management official with 

the authority to approve staff serving as 

members of a voluntary standards 

organization or group. Section 

1031.12(c) of the final rule removes the 

reference to the ‘‘Executive Director’’ 

and replaces it with ‘‘Office of the 

Executive Director’’ to reflect that prior 

approval for membership in voluntary 

standards activities must be approved 

by the Office of the Executive Director. 

IV. Environmental Impact 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). This final rule solely involves 

Commission procedure, and therefore, is 

not expected to have an adverse impact 

on the environment. The final rule 

generally falls within the categorical 

exclusion in 16 CFR 1021.5(c), 

eliminating the need for an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires agencies conduct 

regulatory impact analyses to assess the 

potential economic impact on small 

entities, including small businesses, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Commission provided such 

a certification in the NPR because the 

rule would not impose any new 

requirements on businesses, including 

small businesses nor require any greater 

governmental participation in voluntary 

standards. The Commission did not 

receive any comments related to the 

certification, and the final rule does not 

differ from the proposed rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that 

the final rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final rule does not require any 

stakeholder to create, maintain, or 

disclose information. Thus, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520) is not implicated in 

this rulemaking. 

VII. Effective Date 

The APA generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). Because the final rule 

solely affects Commission procedure 

and does not require stakeholders to 

take any action, the final rule is effective 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1031 

Business and industry, Consumer 

protection, Voluntary standards. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission amends 16 

CFR part 1031 as follows: 

PART 1031—COMMISSION 

PARTICIPATION AND COMMISSION 

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT IN 

VOLUNTARY STANDARDS ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1031 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051–2083; 15 U.S.C. 

1261–1276; 15 U.S.C. 1191–1204; Sec. 3, 104, 

106, 223 Pub. L. 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016, 

3017 (2008), Sec. 3, 4 Pub. L. 112–28 (2011). 

■ 2. In § 1031.10 paragraph (b), revise 

the third sentence to read as follows: 

§ 1031.10 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Employee involvement may 

include regularly attending meetings of 

a standards development committee or 

group, taking an active part in 

discussions and technical debates, 

expressing opinions, expending other 

resources in support of a voluntary 

standard development activity, and 

participating as a voting member of, or 

in a leadership position on, a voluntary 

standard development group, when 

authorized. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 1031.11, remove paragraph (f) 

and revise paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1031.11 Procedural safeguards. 

* * * * * 

(c) Commission officials or employees 

who are authorized to participate as a 

voting member of a voluntary standard 

development group represent the 

position of CPSC staff. Such votes or 

opinions do not bind the Commission in 

any way or necessarily represent the 

opinions or views of the Commission, 

but rather, solely represent the views of 

the CPSC staff. 

(d) Commission employees and 

officials who are involved in the 

development of voluntary standards 

may accept leadership positions in 

voluntary standard development groups 

(e.g., committee chairman or secretary) 

or leadership positions with the 

governing bodies of standard-making 

entities, when authorized with the prior 

approval of the Office of the Executive 

Director. 

(e) Attendance of Commission 

personnel at voluntary standards 

meetings shall be noted in the public 

calendar, and meeting summaries shall 

be submitted to the Office of the 

Secretary, as required by the 

Commission’s meetings policy, 16 CFR 

part 1012. 

■ 4. In § 1031.12: 

■ a. Revise paragraph (b). 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5378 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1 18 CFR 1b.21(g-h), 2.55(c)(1)(ii)(C), 

157.203(d)(1)(iii)(D), and 380.15(c)(1)(ii)(C) (2015). 

2 18 CFR 1b.21 (2015). 

3 Id. 

4 Instant Final Rule Transferring Certain 

Enforcement Hotline Matters to the Dispute 

Resolution Service, 75 FR 21503, at 21504 (April 26, 

2010); FERC Stat. & Regs. ¶ 31,308 (2010) (crossreferenced at 131 FERC ¶ 61,018 (2010)). 

5 Id. These include calls to OEP’s Division of 

Hydropower Administration and Compliance 

(DHAC) regarding compliance with hydroelectric 

project licensing conditions which DHAC elects to 

refer to DRS. 

6 18 CFR 157.203(d)(1)(iii) (2015). 

7 18 CFR 157.203(d)(1)(iii)(D) (2015). 

8Notwithstanding the name of the helpline, in 

accordance with section 1b.21(g), any person 

affected by a jurisdictional project—whether a 

landowner or not—may make use of the Landowner 

Helpline. 

■ b. In paragraph (c), remove the phrase: 

‘‘Executive Director,’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘Office of the Executive Director’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 1031.12 Membership criteria. 

* * * * * 

(b) All other officials and employees 

not covered under § 1031.12(a) may 

participate as voting members or accept 

leadership positions in voluntary 

standard development groups, when 

authorized with the prior approval of 

the Office of the Executive Director. 

* * * * * 

Dated: January 27, 2016. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2016–01778 Filed 2–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Parts 1b, 2, 157, and 380 

[Docket No. RM15–26–000; Order No. 821] 

Transferring Certain Dispute 

Resolution Service Matters to the 

Commission’s Landowner Helpline 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy 

(DOE). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is revising 

its regulations to reflect an internal 

reorganization. On June 14, 2013, the 

Dispute Resolution Service moved from 

the Commission’s Office of 

Administrative Litigation (OAL) to the 

Commission’s Office of Administrative 

Law Judges (OALJ), and the resulting 

new office was named the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges and Dispute 

Resolution (OALJDR). On January 11, 

2015, the Commission designated a 

Landowner Helpline function in the 

OALJDR. The revised regulations 

substitute the Commission’s recently 

established Landowner Helpline in 

place of the Commission’s Dispute 

Resolution Service (DRS) as the contact 

for handling dispute-related calls, 

emails, and letters, pertaining to the 

construction and operation of 

jurisdictional infrastructure projects. 

This revision does not preclude 

disputants from utilizing other means to 

address disputes at the Commission. 

The transfer of responsibility for 

dispute-related calls, emails, and letters 

pertaining to infrastructure projects to 

the Landowner Helpline reflects an 

allocation of dedicated resources to 

serve the public interest. 

DATES: This rule will become effective 

March 3, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Sharp, Office of the General 

Counsel, 888 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20426, 202–502–6461, 

thomas.sharp@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Order No. 821 

Final Rule 

(Issued January 21, 2016) 

1. 1. By this instant Final Rule, the 

Commission is revising its regulations 1

to substitute the Commission’s recently 

established Landowner Helpline in 

place of the Commission’s Dispute 

Resolution Service (DRS) as the point of 

contact for dispute-related calls, emails, 

and letters, pertaining to the 

construction or operation of 

jurisdictional natural gas and 

hydroelectric projects. The Commission 

is implementing this Final Rule as a 

result of a recent internal 

reorganization, which designated a 

Landowner Helpline function in the 

Commission’s Office of Administrative 

Law Judges and Dispute Resolution 

(OALJDR). 

I. Background 

2. The Commission’s Enforcement 

Hotline has been in existence since June 

1987. In April 1999, the Enforcement 

Hotline was codified under section 

1b.21 of the Commission’s regulations.2

In addition to providing information to 

the public, and informal, non-binding 

staff opinions, any person may seek the 

Enforcement Hotline’s assistance in the 

informal resolution of a dispute, 

provided that the dispute is not before 

the Commission in a docketed 

proceeding.3 The Enforcement Hotline 

is staffed by personnel from the Division 

of Investigations in the Office of 

Enforcement. 

3. On April 15, 2010, the Commission 

substituted the DRS, with its expertise 

in conflict resolution, for the 

Enforcement Hotline as the contact for 

landowners that have unresolved 

disputes with natural gas companies 

following use of the companies’ 

environmental complaint resolution 

procedure.4 The Commission also 

transferred the responsibility of disputerelated calls pertaining to the 

construction and operation of 

hydroelectric projects to DRS.5

4. The Commission’s regulations 

require that natural gas companies 

seeking automatic authorization for 

replacement facilities or blanket 

certificate authorization for a project 

under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) must 

provide all affected landowners with a 

description of the company’s 

environmental complaint resolution 

procedures, including company contact 

telephone numbers which landowners 

can use to identify and resolve 

environmental mitigation problems and 

concerns during construction of the 

project and restoration of the right-ofway.6 Companies must also provide 

affected landowners with the current 

telephone number and email address of 

the DRS and instruct them that if they 

are not satisfied with the company’s 

response to their complaints, they may 

contact the DRS.7

5. Going forward, the above-described 

DRS responsibilities will be handled by 

the new OALJDR Landowner Helpline. 

II. Discussion 

6. This Final Rule amends 18 CFR 

157.203(d)(1)(iii)(D) to substitute the 

Commission’s recently established 

Landowner Helpline for the DRS 

Helpline as the contact for members of 

the public that have unresolved 

disputes with pipeline companies 

following use of the pipeline 

companies’ environmental complaint 

resolution procedure.8 This Final Rule 

also removes and renumbers 18 CFR 

1b.21 (g) and (h) to create 18 CFR 1b.22 

(a) and (b), which substitutes the 

Commission’s recently established 

Landowner Helpline for the DRS 

Helpline as the contact for any person 

affected by either the construction or 

operation of natural gas facilities under 

the NGA or by the construction or 

operation of a project under the Federal 

Power Act (FPA), who may wish to seek 

the informal resolution of a dispute. 

This final rule makes this same 

substitution in 18 CFR 2.55(c)(1)(ii)(C) 

and 18 CFR 380.15(c)(1)(ii)(C). These 


wgreen on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES