Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles, 22154-22158 [E9-10981]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22154
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices
by the Federal financial assistance
applicant.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; not-for-profit institutions.
Frequency: On occasion.
Respondent’s Obligation: Required to
retain or obtain benefits.
OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas Fraser,
(202) 395–5887.
Copies of the above information
collection proposal can be obtained by
calling or writing Diana Hynek,
Departmental Paperwork Clearance
Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of
Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
dHynek@doc.gov).
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this
notice to Nicholas Fraser, OMB Desk
Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov.
Dated: May 7, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–11008 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; North Pacific
Groundfish Observer Program Vessel/
Plant Operator’s Comment Form
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before July 13, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 7845,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:14 May 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
directed to Jerald D. Berger, 206–526–
4193 or jerry.berger@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) North Pacific Groundfish
Observer Program (NPGOP) is managed
by the Fisheries Monitoring and
Analysis Division at the Alaska
Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).
NPGOP observers serve aboard
commercial fishing vessels in Alaskan
waters and at processing plants in
Alaska as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act.
NMFS AFSC requests information
from vessel or plant operators who have
had NPGOP observers on their vessels
or at their plants. This information
would be collected on a voluntary basis
as a qualitative survey to provide NMFS
with direct feedback on observer
performance. This information, upon
receipt, will ensure higher data quality,
provide feedback on observer
performance, and offer a direct line of
communication from vessel/plant
operators to the NPGOP management.
II. Method of Collection
Paper survey to be submitted to the
NPGOP at the AFSC via U.S. mail or
facsimile transmission of paper forms.
The survey will also be available on the
Internet.
III. Data
OMB Control No: 0648–0550.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions; and business or other forprofits organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
400.
Estimated Time per Response: 15
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 500.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: May 7, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–11000 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
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 offroad 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.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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, peerreviewed, 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:14 May 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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-ofLife 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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22155
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
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
22156
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:14 May 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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, wronglysized 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 noncomplying 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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 leadacid 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
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices
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 realworld 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:14 May 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22157
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 allterrain 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
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
22158
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:14 May 11, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Department of Education.
The Director, Information
Collection Clearance Division,
Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management, invites
comments on the proposed information
collection requests as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before July 13,
2009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[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
