Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles, 22154-22158 [E9-10981]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22154-22158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10981]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Youth Motorized 
Recreational Vehicles

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Stay of enforcement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the decision of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or ``Commission'') to stay enforcement of 
section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
(``CPSIA''), Public Law 110-314 with regard to certain parts and youth 
motorized vehicles that contain those parts. Specifically, the 
Commission is staying enforcement of the specified lead level as it 
pertains to certain parts of youth all-terrain vehicles, youth off-road 
motorcycles and youth snowmobiles (``Youth Motorized Recreational 
Vehicles'' or ``Vehicles''), specifically battery terminals containing 
up to 100 percent lead, and components made with metal alloys, 
including steel containing up to 0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 
0.4 percent lead, and copper with up to 4.0 percent lead, and the 
vehicles that contain them.
    This stay will remain in effect until May 1, 2011, unless prior to 
that time the Commission, based upon evidence submitted to it, decides 
to continue the stay for an additional period of time with regard to 
all or some of the vehicles.

DATES: This stay of enforcement is effective on May 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John ``Gib'' Mullan, Assistant 
Executive Director for Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 
20814; e-mail jmullan@cpsc.gov.

[[Page 22155]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 14, 2008, Congress enacted the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA''), Public Law 110-314, 122 Stat. 
3016. Section 101(a) of the CPSIA phases in declining limits on 
allowable lead content in children's products (defined as a consumer 
product designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or 
younger), starting on February 10, 2009 with 600 ppm and decreasing to 
300 ppm on August 14, 2009. On August 15, 2011, the lead limit will be 
100 ppm unless the Commission determines that a limit of 100 ppm is not 
technologically feasible for a product or a product category. The law 
does contain certain exclusions from the lead limits. One is for 
component parts that contain more than the allowable lead content but 
where the component is not accessible to a child through normal and 
reasonably foreseeable use and abuse. The Commission can also 
determine, for certain electronic devices, that it is not 
technologically feasible for them to comply immediately with the lead 
limits and shall establish a schedule by which such devices shall be in 
full compliance unless the Commission determines that full compliance 
will not be technologically feasible for such devices within a schedule 
set by the Commission. The Commission may also, under section 101(b)(1) 
exclude a specific product or material that exceeds the lead limits if 
the Commission determines on the basis of the best available, 
objective, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that lead in such product 
or material will neither: (1) Result in the absorption of any lead into 
the human body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable 
use and abuse of such product by a child, including swallowing, 
mouthing, breaking, or other children's activities, and the aging of 
the product; nor (2) have any other adverse impact on public health or 
safety.
    On March 11, 2009, the Commission issued a final rule on procedures 
and requirements for seeking, inter alia, an exclusion under section 
101(b)(1) of the CPSIA for materials and products that exceed the lead 
content limits. 74 FR 10475. The final rule set forth: (1) That a 
request for exclusion must be accompanied by evidence that will meet 
the statutory test for the exclusion outlined above; and (2) that the 
EXHR staff would evaluate the evidence and provide a scientific 
recommendation to the Commission as to whether the party submitting the 
request had met this statutory test.
    The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA), Polaris 
Industries, Inc., American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Arctic Cat Inc., 
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, 
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, and the 
Motorcycle Industry Council filed a petition to exclude a class of 
materials under section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. The petition was 
submitted prior to March 11, 2009, the date of the issuance of the 
final rule on procedures or requirements for seeking an exclusion under 
section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. The Commission has decided to treat 
this petition as a request for exclusion under these procedures. The 
petitioners sought exclusion for certain parts of their youth motorized 
recreational vehicles including battery terminals containing up to 100 
percent lead, and components made with metal alloys, including steel 
containing up to 0.35 percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 percent 
lead, and copper with up to 4 percent lead. Specified components 
include: Tire valve stems, fittings and connectors made with copper 
(and brass) alloys; brake and clutch levers and other brake components, 
throttle controls, engine housings, and carburetors made with aluminum 
alloys; and fasteners, frames and structural or engine components made 
with steel alloys.
    The petitioners submitted an exposure study, extrapolated from the 
``best-available existing data'' based on an analysis of the lead in 
metal jewelry (for an aluminum and a brass alloy) and a faucet (for a 
brass alloy). This study concluded ``estimated lead intakes from 
motorized recreational vehicle components are well below background 
intakes of lead from food and water, and * * * such intake will not 
result in a measurable impact on blood lead levels in children * * *.''
    The petitioners also asserted that steel, aluminum, and copper 
alloys containing lead are necessary for the functional purpose of the 
equipment and replacement-part components, including, but not limited 
to, lead batteries, fittings and connectors, engine housing, chassis 
parts, frames, drive lines, spoke nipples, tire valve stems, cables and 
hoses, brake levers and other brake system component clutch levers, and 
throttle controls. For support, they point to the European Union's End-
of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive exemptions for lead in steel, aluminum 
and copper alloys and lead batteries (January 2008) and the Restriction 
of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment 
(RoHS) Directive (EU Directive 2002/95/EC, January 27, 2003), which are 
based on the contribution of lead to the machinability, strength and 
corrosion resistance, and the availability (or lack thereof) of 
substitute materials that do not contain lead.
    The Commission denied the petitioners' request for exclusion under 
section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. However, for the reasons discussed 
below, the Commission has decided to issue a temporary stay of 
enforcement.

II. Discussion

    The petitioners provided no data on the lead content of the actual 
components in the vehicles for which they are seeking exclusion (other 
than that some battery terminals could be up to 100 percent lead). 
There was no attempt to differentiate among the types of vehicles or 
the various manufacturers in the petition, which makes it impossible 
for the Commission to know the actual state of affairs with regard to 
these vehicles. The petition was filed before the Commission issued its 
final rule on procedures and requirements, and therefore, before the 
petitioners knew how the Commission would interpret the language in 
section 101(b)(1). Thus they presented information that the lead 
exposure from their components would neither result in any measurable 
increase in blood lead level (a conclusion that the Commission has 
since determined is not dispositive of the absorption analysis in 
section 101(b)(1), although certainly important to scientists 
considering the risk of lead exposure), nor have any adverse impact on 
public health and safety. As noted above, the exposure study was not 
based on actual measurements or analysis of youth motorized 
recreational vehicle component parts and the materials may or may not 
be sufficiently similar to serve as a reasonable basis for the 
evaluation. Children riding these vehicles will interact with the metal 
brake and clutch levers and the throttle controls and may also interact 
with the tire valve stem and with certain of the other component parts. 
The study submitted by the petitioners did conclude that some lead 
would be ingested by a child who touched component parts containing 
lead in the amount the report determined to be comparable to a child 
handling the brake levers and the valve stem of a vehicle. The 
Commission has determined that some portion of ingested lead will be 
absorbed into the body, however small the absorbed amount. Because the 
petitioners' study

[[Page 22156]]

indicated that children's use of youth motorized recreational vehicles 
could result in intake of lead, and therefore absorption, the petition 
does not meet the statutory requirement for exclusion set out in 
section 101(b)(1)(A).
    Petitioners also analogize their situation to the technological 
feasibility criterion in the electronics device exclusion for their 
reliance on the ELV and RoHS exemptions for batteries and certain metal 
alloys. However, no such criterion is specified in section 101(b). The 
ELV and the RoHS Directives are focused on reducing hazardous waste in 
landfills and encouraging recycling of these hazardous waste products 
and thus have quite different purposes than the lead provisions of the 
CPSIA, which focus on protecting children from unnecessary exposure to 
lead through contact with it in children's products. Nevertheless, the 
Commission recognizes that unless it takes some action with regard to 
the information provided by the petitioners, the riders of these 
vehicles--children 12 and younger--would likely face a more serious and 
immediate risk of injury or death. For the reasons discussed in more 
detail below, the Commission is today announcing a time-limited stay of 
enforcement with regard to certain parts and the vehicles that contain 
these parts.
    The petitioners allege, and the Commission believes it could bear 
out that if any period of time passes in which youth motorized 
recreational vehicles are not available for sale (or existing ones are 
not able to be serviced) that some parents would allow their children 
to instead ride adult models or over-sized and over-powered versions of 
the youth models. Our work on ATVs has shown that the vast majority of 
the deaths of children from driving ATVs occur on adult-sized models. 
Part of the Commission's work in its ongoing ATV rulemaking is to 
encourage the development of accurately sized and powered vehicles for 
children so they will not ride an adult model. Some manufacturers have 
told the Commission that they have instructed their dealers to remove 
youth motorized recreational vehicles from their showrooms and to not 
sell them. The Commission has received reports of dealers refusing to 
do routine maintenance on previously sold youth vehicles. Finally, one 
manufacturer has written to the Commission informing it that they are 
relabeling their Y-6+ and their Y-10+ youth vehicles to Y-12+ and they 
are advising their dealers they can remove the speed limiting devices 
from these vehicles. Due to the long lead time in designing and 
manufacturing these motor vehicles, it would likely be model year 2011 
or 2012 before a complying youth ATV could be on the market (ignoring 
for a moment the other issues concerning the feasibility of making a 
completely complying vehicle). This safety dilemma applies equally to 
vehicles that have already been made and are in inventory with dealers 
or have already been sold and are in the hands of resellers or 
consumers. If parents of youth riders are unable to buy youth-sized 
vehicles (whether new or used) they may very well choose to allow their 
children to ride adult or over-powered, wrongly-sized versions of youth 
ATVs. Because used ATVs need periodic maintenance and repair, an 
inability to obtain certain replacement parts could lead to these 
vehicles becoming inoperable. If no youth-sized substitutes are 
available, this would similarly lead to parents consenting to their 
children crossing over to adult-sized machines before they are 
physically and mentally capable of safely operating them. While it 
might be possible to change out some of the non-complying components on 
existing vehicles, for many of the components that is simply not an 
option. Thus replacement parts that have the same amount of lead 
content (or less) as the original part are included in our enforcement 
stay.
    The other safety-related allegation made by the petitioners is that 
a certain amount of lead is needed in some component parts of their 
vehicles for ``functionality, durability and other reasons that are 
safety critical to the components.'' See Statement of David Murray, 
Counsel for Yamaha, at the March 11, 2009, public meeting on ATVs and 
other youth motorized recreational vehicles.
    The petitioners again point to the ELV Directive for their support 
of this contention. However, the ELV report's exemption for steel for 
machining purposes containing up to 0.35% lead by weight seems to rest 
more on the easier machining properties of leaded steel than on safety 
considerations. The ELV report deals with leaded steels versus unleaded 
steels, rather than an analysis of how much lead is actually needed for 
any particular application. Galvanized steel does, according to the 
report, have advantages in corrosion resistance, which could have 
safety implications. The exemption for aluminum for machining purposes 
with a lead content up to 0.4% by weight was granted due to its higher 
resistance to corrosion and to the extent it is used in brake and 
clutch systems and perhaps certain other applications, such an 
exemption would appear to be safety related. The granting of the 
exemption for copper alloy containing up to 4% lead by weight, like 
steel for machining purposes, appears to be chiefly because the lead 
makes the copper more easily machinable. The ELV report noted that the 
presence of lead did not significantly affect the strength or corrosion 
resistance of the copper alloy. The petitioners do state that the 
enhanced machinability of copper alloys ``permits the creation of deep 
grooves in threaded parts such as valve stems that are needed to ensure 
secure cap and air valve fitment for safety reasons.'' See Petition for 
Temporary Final Rule to Exclude a Class of Materials Under Section 
101(b) of the Consumer product Safety Improvement Act, dated January 
27, 2009, at 13. For the last ELV review, the copper industry was asked 
to indicate the applications in which the unavoidable use of lead had 
safety implications, but their response had not been received at the 
time the report was written. Thus the report's conclusion on copper 
alloys was that they were not able to carry out an in-depth evaluation 
based on the information that was made available to them and that the 
exemption should continue until a full assessment is carried out. The 
exemption for lead in batteries noted that the substitution of lead in 
lead-acid batteries is ``not possible'' and that avoiding the use of 
lead would require an alternative battery system. The report's 
conclusion was that lead-free alternatives to lead-acid batteries would 
reduce the functionality and reliability of vehicles and that the use 
of lead in this function is unavoidable at this time. It did note, 
however, that research was being actively pursued to develop a 
substitute for lead in this application.
    Another argument advanced by the petitioners and also supported by 
the ELV report is that for certain alloys no acceptable substitutes 
exist or if they exist, they do not exist in sufficient quantities to 
satisfy the global requirements. The ELV report found, for example, 
that there was as yet no technically feasible way to remove lead from 
aluminum.
    The Commission staff had very little time to assess these issues 
independently. Therefore, the ELV report's analysis, which was strictly 
limited to the technological feasibility of a substitute for lead and 
not on the higher cost of a viable substitute, is instructive. To the 
extent that these alloys are required for safety reasons related to 
functionality, greater durability, or corrosion resistance, removing 
the lead from those alloys could result in a vehicle that is more

[[Page 22157]]

prone to structural breakage, premature brake failure, or other defects 
that could present a risk of death or serious injury. For example, 
failure of a less durable brake lever may result in an inability to 
stop or control a vehicle and result in death or serious injury to the 
child operating the vehicle. In contrast, Congress has eliminated the 
risk analysis associated with the absorption of lead. Yet, while we 
acknowledge that there are adverse health effects associated with lead 
poisoning or elevated blood lead levels, we also must acknowledge that, 
based on our experience with these vehicles and current available 
information, the risk of death or serious injury associated with broken 
or defective vehicle parts is both more likely and more significant 
than any risks associated with possible absorption of lead. In such 
circumstances, enforcement discretion is the only means for the 
Commission to protect riders of youth ATVs.
    The petitioners did not address what level of lead is necessary for 
their various components to meet acceptable functionality, durability 
and corrosion criteria. The industry, at the March 2009 public meeting 
indicated that in terms of the uncontrollable variability of the lead 
content in the metal alloys they buy, the 600 ppm limit was ``probably 
not an issue.'' It would, however, be a problem when the lead limit 
drops to 300 ppm in August of this year. The statement was also made at 
that meeting that they were seeking exclusions for these metal alloys 
``at or below'' the levels established by the European Union. But how 
much below the EU level they can go toward the statutory limit without 
compromising safety is something they do not appear to know at this 
time. A spokeswoman for the industry stated at the public meeting that 
it should not take several years for the industry to test the metal 
alloys, but it will take some time because certain considerations such 
as the aging of the materials will have to be taken into account. She 
also asserted that all of the members of their coalition were willing 
to move to low lead alloys if they can be shown to be appropriate for 
real-world applications under real-world stresses.
    The petitioners appear to be in various stages of attempting to 
comply with the lead limits. They stated at the March public meeting 
that their clients have been working diligently to remove, substitute 
or shield from accessibility, non-complying, lead-containing components 
in their vehicles. They appear to have removed lead from the vinyl 
components of their vehicles, such as the handlebar grips and the 
seats. One of the largest makers of youth ATVs stated that their 
battery is in a recessed compartment and that they could put a cover 
over it and screw it in place. Under the Commission's accessibility 
proposals, that should qualify to make the engine components 
inaccessible and remove the 100 percent lead terminals as a matter of 
concern for their vehicles. Another spokesman at the meeting assured 
our staff that the industry members represented there were all 
exploring the issue of encasing their batteries. It was also noted that 
small motorcycles do not have batteries. A snowmobile manufacturer 
indicated at that same meeting that they had sent retrofit kits to all 
of their dealers to switch out a substitute ``for those few 
components'' that did not meet the lead limits. They additionally put a 
latch on the hood to make the engine inaccessible to children. They 
may, therefore, not need relief for their future production. A 
spokesman for the petitioners indicated they thought they could make 
other parts, such as the valve stem and some cable systems 
inaccessible. Thus even some of the parts that contain metal alloys 
that the petitioners were seeking exclusion for could, with time, be 
made compliant.
    In the interim final rule on electronic devices where the 
Commission referenced the exemptions in the RoHs Directive, the 
Commission stated that it ``expects that manufacturers will continue to 
assess the technological feasibility of making electronic devices that 
have accessible component parts which contain lead above the lead 
content limits inaccessible, and make such component parts inaccessible 
whenever possible.'' Similarly, the stay of enforcement is issued with 
the expectation that manufacturers will not simply rely on the 
continued stay of enforcement for a particular metal alloy, but will 
explore other ways in which to comply with the lead limits. A periodic 
review is required in RoHS and ELV, a process the industry appears to 
embrace. As long as manufacturers are alleging that it is 
technologically infeasible for certain components to comply with the 
CPSIA either through being made inaccessible or otherwise, they must be 
required to periodically justify, with specificity as to the components 
and alloys from which the components are made, the continued need for 
enforcement abeyance.
    In carrying out its responsibilities to protect the public, it is 
the Commission's role to take a broader view of any product and 
evaluate a safety versus safety tradeoff presented by a product's 
design when one appears. The Commission currently lacks the information 
it needs to make a vehicle by vehicle assessment of this industry's 
state of compliance with the lead limits. The industry needs more time 
to gather this information, taking into account their on-going work in 
this area, and the Commission needs time to review that information. 
Even a time-limited stay that has as its goals moving these vehicles 
toward compliance in a fashion that does not drive children to a 
riskier alternative and systematically reducing the lead content of 
these vehicles to the lowest level possible from a safety standpoint is 
not our preferred way to handle these types of issues. However, given 
the alternatives available to us and the information received thus far, 
we feel that this procedure is not inconsistent with the overall intent 
of the CPSIA, which is to protect consumers, particularly our children, 
from serious risk of harm, when the result of forcing compliance with 
the provisions within the original time constraints could result in a 
more immediate and potentially more serious hazard than a limited stay 
of enforcement.
    To afford the manufacturers an appropriate amount of time to 
continue the testing they are already doing and to conduct any research 
and development necessary to bring component parts into compliance with 
the CPSIA and to identify any parts that are either technologically 
infeasible to bring into compliance during the stay period or identify 
those where such compliance, while technologically feasible, would 
expose children to other and greater safety risks, the stay will remain 
in effect until May 1, 2011.

III. The Stay

    The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission hereby stays 
enforcement of section 101(a) of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (``CPSIA'') and related provisions with respect 
to certain parts of motorized recreational vehicles designed or 
intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger, namely 
youth all-terrain vehicles, youth off-road motorcycles and youth 
snowmobiles, until May 1, 2011, upon the following conditions:
    A. The stay shall apply to youth all-terrain vehicles, youth off-
road motorcycles and youth snowmobiles (``Youth Motorized Recreational 
Vehicles'' or ``Vehicles'') that were manufactured before February 10, 
2009, and to Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles made on or after 
that date through April 30, 2011. The stay with regard to Youth 
Motorized Recreational Vehicles made during this time period

[[Page 22158]]

shall remain in effect for the life of those Vehicles.
    B. The stay shall apply only to the following types of original 
equipment parts for Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles: battery 
terminals containing up to 100 percent lead, and components made with 
metal alloys, including steel containing up to 0.35 percent lead, 
aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, and copper with up to 4.0 percent 
lead.
    C. The stay shall also apply to any metal part sold separately as a 
replacement for one of the parts described above, provided that the 
lead content in the replacement part is less than or equal to the lead 
content in the part originally installed on the Vehicles.
    D. Each manufacturer (which can include a distributor where 
appropriate) who is covered by the stay shall file with the Secretary 
of the Commission, not later than 60 days after the publication of this 
stay in the Federal Register, a report identifying each model of Youth 
Motorized Recreational Vehicles it has produced between March 1, 2008 
and March 1, 2009. For each such model, the manufacturer shall give the 
production volume by calendar month and shall list each component part 
that is made of metal and that is accessible to children, the material 
specification for each part, and a measurement of the lead content of 
representative samples of each part in parts per million (ppm). The 
lead content measurement may be by x-ray fluorescence or the method 
posted on the Commission Web site to test for lead in metal for 
certification purposes.
    E. No later than November 1, 2009, each manufacturer covered by the 
stay shall present a comprehensive plan to the Commission describing 
how and when it intends to reduce the lead exposure from each part 
described in paragraph D above whose measured lead content exceeds 300 
parts per million. The plan shall set forth the steps the manufacturer 
intends to take to limit children's lead exposure in future production 
and an estimated schedule for achieving such reductions. The 
manufacturer should include a discussion of any adverse safety impacts 
that could result from accelerating the estimated schedule. If some 
Vehicles have been modified after January 27, 2009, to reduce the lead 
content of certain parts or to make certain parts inaccessible, the 
manufacturer should outline those changes in general terms and the 
dates such changes were made.
    F. Manufacturers who have timely submitted both the report in 
paragraph D and the plan in paragraph E above, who need additional time 
to complete their plan prior to the expiration of the stay may seek an 
extension of the stay. They shall, no later than December 1, 2010, file 
a request with the Secretary of the Commission for an extension 
containing all of the information described in paragraph D above, 
including an update of the production volume by month for each 
previously listed model and for any new youth model introduced after 
the date of the prior report, lead content measurements taken within 90 
days of the report submission for each part to be subject to the stay 
extension and a revised timetable for the reduction of lead exposure 
from those parts. The report shall detail the manufacturer's progress 
in reducing children's exposure to lead from each part containing more 
than 300 ppm, specifying what actions have been taken with regard to 
each affected part. The report will also explain why any parts that 
remain above 300 ppm have not able to be made inaccessible, substituted 
with another material, or made with a complying level of lead.
    G. Any report submitted under paragraph F shall also identify the 
Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles by model that the manufacturer 
intends to produce on or after May 1, 2011. The manufacturer shall 
provide a listing of each component part that is expected to be used in 
the production Vehicles if its lead content is expected to exceed 100 
ppm and will be accessible to children. For each such part the 
manufacturer shall explain why it is not feasible to make the part 
inaccessible or why it is not technologically feasible to reduce the 
lead content to 100 ppm or lower.
    H. While the stay is in effect for particular Vehicles, the Office 
of Compliance shall not prosecute any person for any violation of laws 
administered by the Commission based on the lead content of any part 
of, or replacement part for, those Vehicles to which the stay applies, 
including provisions relating to certification of compliance, reporting 
of noncompliances, or the sale, offering for sale, importation or 
exportation.
    I. While the stay is in effect for particular Vehicles, the 
Commission will not refuse admission into the United States of such 
Vehicles based on the lead content of any part of such Vehicles to 
which the stay applies or any replacement part for such Vehicles as 
described in paragraph C.
    J. This stay does not apply to Vehicles that are stockpiled by the 
manufacturer. Stockpiling shall be determined on a model-by-model 
basis. Vehicles shall be deemed to be stockpiled if their production in 
the six-month period ending on April 30, 2011 exceeds by more than 
fifteen percent the production of that model or its predecessor during 
the six-month period ending on April 30, 2010. The production of new 
models must not exceed by more than fifteen percent the production of 
similar models by the same manufacturer.
    K. The Commission hereby delegates to the Assistant Executive 
Director, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, authority to 
implement the stay of enforcement as specified here and the authority 
to modify provisions in individual cases where necessary due to unique 
or unforeseen circumstances.
    The stay in no way limits the Commission's ability to take action 
with regard to Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles for other safety-
related issues including, but not limited to, failure to comply with 
the ban on lead-containing paint or with the American National Standard 
for Four Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles Equipment Configuration, and 
Performance Requirements developed by the Specialty Vehicle Institute 
of America effective on April 13, 2009 and the requirement to comply in 
all respects with an action plan on file with the Commission as set 
forth in the CPSIA.

    Dated: May 1, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-10981 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P