Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Notices 56777 

1Section 9 of Public Law 112–28 (August 12, 

2011). 

additional time to submit comments on 

the new administrative trial 

proceedings, the USPTO is now 

extending the period for public 

comment until October 16, 2014. 

Dated: September 17, 2014. 

Michelle K. Lee, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for 

Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of 

the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22695 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0048] 

Request for Information Regarding 

Passenger Use of ATVs 

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) is 

issuing a notice seeking information 

from the public on the prevalence of 

carrying passengers on all-terrain 

vehicles (ATVs) and the feasibility of a 

performance requirement that would 

prevent passengers from being carried 

on ATVs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted by November 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2012– 

0048 by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments in the following 

way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email) except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions in the following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions) 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

(such as a Social Security Number) 

electronically; if furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hope Nesteruk, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, National Product Testing 

and Evaluation Center, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850, 301–987– 

2579; email: hnesteruk@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Since the 1980s, the CPSC has 

addressed ATV safety through various 

activities, including rulemaking, recalls, 

consumer education, media outreach 

following fatal incidents, and litigation. 

Despite these activities, ATV-related 

fatalities continue to be one of the 

largest categories of consumer productrelated deaths. ATV safety, therefore, 

remains an ongoing Commission 

concern. Most recently, to assess the 

impact of passenger use of ATVs, the 

Commission Fiscal Year 2014 Operating 

Plan tasked CPSC staff with ‘‘assessing 

the inclusion of a performance standard 

related to preventing passengers on 

ATVs’’ in the Commission’s open 

rulemaking on ATVs. Accordingly, this 

request for information (RFI) seeks 

information from stakeholders related to 

passenger use of ATVs. CPSC staff will 

use information gathered from this RFI 

to assist in developing recommended 

courses of action for Commission 

consideration as to whether a 

performance requirement to prevent 

passenger use of ATVs is appropriate. 

Interested parties may provide 

information on the prevalence of 

passenger use and the reasons why 

passengers ride on ATVs; potential 

means of preventing passengers from 

being carried on ATVs not intended for 

that purpose; and potential impacts of 

these requirements on the utility of 

ATVs. Interested parties also may 

provide information on possible 

changes to ATV design that may prevent 

passenger use, and information on 

whether these changes could be 

translated into a performance standard. 

II. Background 

A. ATV-Related Activities Since 2006 

In October 2005, the Commission 

published in the Federal Register an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) for ATVs under the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA) and the 

Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(FHSA). Subsequently, in August 2006, 

the Commission issued a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) that 

proposed: 

• Informational and training 

requirements for four-wheeled, adult, 

single-rider and tandem ATVs; 

• Technical performance 

requirements for four-wheeled, adult, 

single-rider and tandem ATVs; 

• Technical requirements for fourwheeled, youth ATVs; and 

• A ban of three-wheeled ATVs. 

The 2006 NPR also directed staff to 

address eight questions concerning 

youth ATVs and four questions 

concerning ATVs generally. 

Since the 2006 NPR on ATVs was 

issued, the U.S. Congress, the 

Commission, and the Specialty Vehicle 

Institute of America (SVIA), have all 

been actively involved in ATV safety 

efforts. For example, SVIA revised the 

voluntary standard twice, and CPSC 

staff conducted research and completed 

studies to respond to the Commission’s 

questions in the NPR. Most 

significantly, Congress passed the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (CPSIA) in August 2008. 

Among other things, section 232 of the 

CPSIA: 

• Required the Commission to make 

mandatory the voluntary standard for 

ATVs, the American National Standard 

for Four Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles 

Equipment Configuration, and 

Performance Requirements, developed 

by the SVIA (ANSI/SVIA–1–2007); 

• Made it unlawful for a 

manufacturer or distributor to import or 

distribute an ATV that did not comply 

with the mandated ATV standard and 

with action plans required by the 

CPSIA; 

• Banned three-wheel ATVs until a 

mandatory standard is promulgated; and 

• Required the Commission to issue a 

final rule on ATVs stemming from the 

2006 NPR. 

The Commission adopted the voluntary 

standard as a mandatory standard in a 

final rule on ATVs in the Federal 

Register on November 14, 2008 (73 FR 

67385). The Commission’s ATV 

regulation is codified at 16 CFR part 

1420 (part 1420) and became effective 

on April 13, 2009. 

In 2011, Congress directed 1 the 

Commission to issue a final rule by 

August 12, 2012, stemming from the 

2006 NPR. However, six years had 

passed since the NPR. Furthermore, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

56778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Notices 

2http://cpsc.gov/PageFiles/26/

Regulations,%20Laws%20Standards/Rulemaking/

ATVs/Final%20ReportATVSafetySummitfinal.pdf. 

3http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-andStatistics/Injury-Statistics/Sports-and-Recreation/

ATVs/ATVSpecialStudyReport.pdf. 

4http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-andStatistics/Injury-Statistics/Sports-and-Recreation/

ATVs/ATVPassengerPilotStudyReport.pdf. 

5A large number of reported incidents did not 

have enough information available to determine 

exactly where the passenger was in relation to the 

driver. 

many of the proposed requirements in 

the 2006 NPR were addressed by the 

combination of part 1420 and 

mandatory action plans. Taken together, 

these requirements addressed, in part or 

in whole, the majority of the safety 

measures that the Commission proposed 

in the 2006 NPR. Thus, the Commission 

voted to host an ATV Safety Summit to 

‘‘provide stakeholders an opportunity to 

present their views on the outstanding 

issues’’ related to ATV safety, in 

addition to providing a forum for 

stakeholders to discuss new innovations 

in ATV safety. The Commission held 

the ATV Safety Summit on October 11 

and 12, 2012, and accepted comments 

through November 14, 2012. A summary 

of these comments is available on 

CPSC’s Web site.2

Most recently, the Commission’s 

Fiscal Year 2014 Operating Plan 

directed staff to perform six activities, as 

resources permit, in preparation for a 

draft NPR on ATVs. The six activities: 

1. Consulting with the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

regarding the categorization of youth 

ATVs, as well as the establishment of 

additional safety standards for ATVs. 

2. Assessing the inclusion in the NPR 

of a performance standard related to 

preventing passengers on ATVs. 

3. Contracting for further testing of a 

child-resistant ATV ignition prototype 

device. 

4. Conducting a literature review and 

develop a testing strategy to evaluate 

steering and stability issues related to 

ATVs. 

5. Conducting a literature review and 

analysis regarding roll-over protection 

systems for ATVs. 

6. Conducting an ATV off-road 

exposure survey (the first year of a 3- 

year effort). 

CPSC staff now seeks input from 

stakeholders related to item 2. 

Specifically, staff seeks information on 

the prevalence of passengers riding on 

ATVs and the feasibility of establishing 

a performance requirement that would 

prevent or reduce the likelihood of 

passengers riding on an ATV. For 

example, a performance requirement 

could prevent an ATV from being able 

to carry a passenger on a seat or cargo 

rack. Note, however, that any law or 

regulation aimed at changing consumer 

use of ATVs, such as a law to prohibit 

ATV use by passengers, would need to 

be addressed at the state level. 

B. CPSC Staff Activities Related to ATV 

Passenger Use ATV-Related Activities 

Since 2006 

In the 2014 fiscal year, CPSC staff 

conducted a pilot study analyzing 

several characteristics of passengerinvolved fatality incidents for 

presentation to the Commission. By 

analyzing ATV fatality data, staff’s pilot 

study was intended to determine: (1) If 

specific passenger locations on the ATV 

are associated with more fatal incidents; 

and (2) if and how passengers affect 

ATV-related fatal incidents. The pilot 

study was intended to assist the 

Commission in deciding whether to 

devote additional resources to the 

development of a performance standard 

for passenger use of ATVs. 

To date, CPSC staff’s review of 

incident reports and other studies 

demonstrates that passengers ride in 

various locations on the ATV, e.g., cargo 

rack and seat, and in front of and behind 

the operator. CPSC staff’s special study 

on ATV-related deaths and emergency 

department-treated injuries 3 shows that 

passengers comprise about 25 percent of 

injured victims. From 2005 through 

2007, about 25 percent of fatalities 

involved ATVs with multiple riders; 

however, a passenger was the victim in 

slightly less than half of those fatalities 

with multiple riders, meaning that about 

10 percent of fatalities are to a passenger 

of an ATV. In addition, the recent pilot 

study of ATV-related fatalities 4 found 

that of 502 reported incidents with more 

than one rider on the ATV, more than 

80 percent involved two riders: a driver 

and a passenger. Of those, about half 

involved both riders on the seat of the 

ATV,5 and the driver was more likely to 

be fatally injured than the passenger. 

Around 10 percent of passenger-related 

fatal incidents involved more than two 

riders (i.e., a driver and two or more 

passengers). When two or more 

passengers were involved, a passenger 

was more likely to be fatally injured. 

III. Information Requested 

This RFI is intended to supplement 

staff’s pilot study to gather information 

from the public on the prevalence of 

carrying passengers on ATVs and the 

feasibility of a performance requirement 

that would prevent passengers from 

being carried on ATVs. CPSC staff’s data 

analysis can only quantify passenger 

location in fatal incidents. Staff’s data 

do not provide information on 

passenger location during normal, nonincident use. In addition, CPSC data 

contain little information about 

aftermarket use of passenger seats or 

information about the need of ATV 

drivers to carry passengers. 

Accordingly, CPSC staff seeks data and 

information concerning three main topic 

areas: (1) The prevalence of passengers 

riding ATVs; (2) the purchase and use 

of aftermarket seats; and (3) the 

feasibility of a performance standard 

that would reduce or eliminate carrying 

passengers on ATVs. Commenters are 

encouraged to answer as few or as many 

of the following questions as they wish. 

A. Prevalence of Passenger Riding 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding the location of ATV 

passengers when riding? That is, where 

are passengers sitting or standing when 

riding ATVs? CPSC’s data are limited to 

information related to injury and fatality 

incidents but does not provide 

information regarding ATV use when an 

incident does not occur. 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding the frequency and duration of 

passengers riding on ATVs that are not 

intended to carry more than one rider? 

Is the frequency and duration of 

passengers riding on ATVs associated 

with the type of ATV use, e.g., trail 

riding, versus utility use, versus hunting 

use? What, if any, data are available 

regarding the frequency and duration of 

drivers alone riding on ATVs that are 

not intended to carry more than one 

rider? 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding why ATV drivers carry 

passengers and the reasons passengers 

ride ATVs? 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding user demand for two-rider 

ATVs, also called Tandem, 2-Up, or 

Type II ATVs? 

• Other than the data from CPSC 

sources, (e.g., reports and databases), 

what, if any, data are available regarding 

injury or risk of injury associated with 

passenger use of ATVs on single-rider 

versus tandem ATVs? This includes, but 

is not limited to, data about the 

mechanism of driver and passenger 

injuries, the disposition of drivers and 

passengers, interactions between the 

driver and passenger in incidents, 

weight of driver and passengers, helmet 

use of drivers and passengers, age/

gender of the driver and passengers, and 

sequence of events in incidents with 

passengers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 184 / Tuesday, September 23, 2014 / Notices 56779 

B. Aftermarket Seats 

Aftermarket seats generally attach to 

cargo racks and are generally marketed 

as being intended for use when the ATV 

is not moving. 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding use of aftermarket seats by 

passengers when the ATV is moving? 

• What, if any, data are available 

regarding injury or risk of injury 

associated with the use of aftermarket 

seats? 

C. Feasibility 

• Can design modifications be made 

to ATVs to prevent passengers? 

• If design modifications are feasible, 

please describe possible design changes 

that could prevent passengers. How 

could such modifications affect the 

usability or utility of the ATV? 

Although CPSC cannot mandate a 

specific design, information regarding 

proof-of-concept designs can inform 

decision making regarding the 

feasibility of a performance 

requirement. 

• Would it be feasible to establish a 

performance standard that would 

prevent consumers from carrying 

passengers or installing aftermarket 

seats capable of carrying passengers 

without significantly adversely affecting 

the usability or utility of the ATV for 

purposes other than carrying 

passengers? 

• How would a performance 

requirement to prevent passenger use of 

ATVs affect two-rider ATVs, also called 

Tandem, 2-Up, or Type II ATVs? Should 

such a requirement apply to two-rider 

ATVs? 

Dated: September 18, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22556 Filed 9–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

[Recommendation 2014–1] 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. 

ACTION: Notice, recommendation. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

2286a(b)(5), the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board has made a 

recommendation to the Secretary of 

Energy concerning the need to take 

actions to improve the emergency 

preparedness and response capability at 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

defense nuclear facilities. 

DATES: Comments, data, views, or 

arguments concerning the 

recommendation are due on or before 

October 23, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning 

this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., 

Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew L. Thibadeau at the address 

above or telephone number (202) 694– 

7000. 

Dated: September 17, 2014. 

Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D., 

Chairman. 

Recommendation 2014–1 to the 

Secretary of Energy 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2286d(a)(3) 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As 

Amended 

Dated: September 2, 2014 

The need for a strong emergency 

preparedness and response program to 

protect the public and workers at the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE) defense 

nuclear facilities is self-evident. Design 

basis accidents resulting from natural 

phenomena hazards and operational 

events do occur and must be addressed. 

Consequently, emergency preparedness 

and response is a key component of the 

safety bases for defense nuclear 

facilities, as evidenced by its inclusion 

as a safety management program in the 

technical safety requirements for these 

facilities and in specific administrative 

controls that reference individual 

elements of emergency response. It is 

the last line of defense to prevent public 

and worker exposure to hazardous 

materials. One of the objectives of DOE’s 

order on emergency preparedness and 

response (Order 151.1C, Emergency 

Management System) is to ‘‘ensure that 

the DOE Emergency Management 

System is ready to respond promptly, 

efficiently, and effectively to any 

emergency involving DOE/[National 

Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA)] facilities, activities, or 

operations, or requiring DOE/NNSA 

assistance.’’ The Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board (Board) believes 

that the requirements in this order that 

establish the basis for emergency 

preparedness and response at DOE sites 

with defense nuclear facilities, as well 

as the current implementation of these 

requirements, must be strengthened to 

ensure the continued protection of 

workers and the public. 

Problems with emergency 

preparedness and response have been 

discussed at Board public hearings and 

meetings over the past three years, as 

well as in Board site representative 

weekly reports and other reviews by 

members of the Board’s technical staff. 

At its hearings, Board members have 

stressed the need for DOE to conduct 

meaningful training and exercises to 

demonstrate site-wide and regional 

coordination in response to 

emergencies. Board members have also 

encouraged DOE to demonstrate its 

ability to respond to events that involve 

multiple facilities at a site and the 

potential for several ‘‘connected’’ 

events, e.g., an earthquake and a 

wildland fire at Los Alamos. 

On March 21, 2014, and March 28, 

2014, the Board communicated to the 

Secretary of Energy its concerns 

regarding shortcomings in the responses 

to a truck fire and radioactive material 

release event at the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

The DOE Accident Investigation Board 

explored and documented these 

shortcomings in its reports. Many of the 

site-specific issues noted at WIPP are 

prevalent at other sites with defense 

nuclear facilities, as documented in the 

attached report. 

The Board has observed that these 

problems can be attributed to the 

inability of sites with defense nuclear 

facilities to consistently demonstrate 

fundamental attributes of a sound 

emergency preparedness and response 

program, e.g., adequately resourced 

emergency preparedness and response 

programs and proper planning and 

training for emergencies. DOE has noted 

these types of problems in reports 

documenting independent assessments 

of its sites and in its annual reports on 

the status of its emergency management 

system. The annual reports also noted a 

lack of progress in addressing these 

problems. 

The Board is concerned that these 

problems stem from DOE’s failure to 

implement existing emergency 

management requirements and to 

periodically update these requirements. 

DOE has not effectively overseen and 

enforced compliance with these 

requirements, which establish the 

baseline for emergency preparedness 

and response at its sites with defense 

nuclear facilities. These requirements 

need to be revised periodically to 

address lessons learned, needed 

improvements to site programs, new 

information from accidents such as 

those at the Deepwater Horizon drilling 

rig and the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear 

Power Plant, and inconsistent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES