Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 60031 

1Chairman Hal Stratton and Commissioners 

Thomas H. Moore and Nancy A. Nord issued 

statements, copies of which are available from the 

Commission’s Office of the Secretary or from the 

Commission’s Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov. 

by which the bank is chartered, and (ii) 

with respect to a national bank, the 

State in which the main office of the 

bank is located. 

(2) The term ‘‘host State’’ means with 

respect to a bank, a State, other than the 

home State of the bank, in which the 

bank maintains, or seeks to establish 

and maintain, a branch. 

(3) The term ‘‘out-of-State bank’’

means, with respect to any State, a bank 

whose home State is another State. 

(4) The phrase ‘‘activity conducted at 

a branch’’ means an activity of, by, 

through, in, from, or substantially 

involving, a branch. 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, the laws of a host 

State apply to an activity conducted at 

a branch in the host State by an out-ofState, State bank. 

(c) A host State law does not apply to 

an activity conducted at a branch in the 

host State of an out-of-State, State bank 

to the same extent that a Federal court 

or the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency has determined in writing that 

the particular host State law does not 

apply to an activity conducted at a 

branch in the host State of an out-ofState, national bank. If a particular host 

State law does not apply to such activity 

of an out-of-State, State bank because of 

the preceding sentence, the home State 

law of the out-of-State, State bank 

applies. 

(d) Subject to the restrictions of 

subparts A through E of this part 362, 

an out-of-State, State bank that has a 

branch in a host State may conduct any 

activity at such branch that is 

permissible under its home State law, if 

it is either 

(1) Permissible for a bank chartered by 

the host State, or 

(2) Permissible for a branch in the 

host State of an out-of-State, national 

bank. 

(e) Savings provision. No provision of 

this section shall be construed as 

affecting the applicability of—

(1) Any State law of any home State 

under subsection (b), (c), or (d) of 12 

U.S.C. 1831u; or 

(2) Federal law to State banks and 

State bank branches in the home State 

or the host State. 

Dated at Washington DC, this 6th day of 

October, 2005. 

By order of the Board of Directors. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–20582 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter II 

All Terrain Vehicles; Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking; Request for 

Comments and Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is 

considering whether there may be 

unreasonable risks of injury and death 

associated with some all terrain vehicles 

(‘‘ATVs’’). The Commission is 

considering what actions, both 

regulatory and non-regulatory, it could 

take to reduce ATV-related deaths and 

injuries. As described below, the 

Commission has had extensive 

involvement with ATVs since 1984. 

However, in recent years there has been 

a dramatic increase in both the numbers 

of ATVs in use and the numbers of 

ATV-related deaths and injuries. 

According to the Commission’s 2004 

annual report of ATV deaths and 

injuries (the most recent annual report 

issued by the Commission), on 

December 31, 2004, the Commission 

had reports of 6,494 ATV-related deaths 

that have occurred since 1982. Of these, 

2,019 (31 percent of the total) were 

under age 16, and 845 (13 percent of the 

total) were under age 12. The 2004 

annual report states that in 2004 alone, 

an estimated 129,500 four-wheel ATVrelated injuries were treated in hospital 

emergency rooms nationwide. While 

this represents an increase in injuries in 

2004 compared with 2003, the total 

number of four-wheel ATVs in use in 

the United States has increased and the 

estimated risk of injury per 10,000 fourwheel ATVs in use remained essentially 

level over the previous year. 

This advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) initiates a 

rulemaking proceeding under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’) 

and the Federal Hazardous Substances 

Act (‘‘FHSA’’).1 However, the notice 

discusses a broad range of regulatory 

and non-regulatory alternatives that 

could be used to reduce ATV-related 

deaths and injuries. The Commission 

invites public comment on these 

alternatives and any other approaches 

that could reduce ATV-related deaths 

and injuries. The Commission also 

solicits written comments concerning 

the risks of injury associated with ATVs, 

ways these risks could be addressed, 

and the economic impacts of the various 

alternatives discussed. The Commission 

also invites interested persons to submit 

an existing standard, or a statement of 

intent to modify or develop a voluntary 

standard, to address the risk of injury 

described in this ANPR. 

DATES: Written comments and 

submissions in response to this ANPR 

must be received by December 13, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be emailed to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments 

should be captioned ‘‘ATV ANPR.’’

Comments may also be mailed, 

preferably in five copies, to the Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Washington, DC 20207–

0001, or delivered to the Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. Comments 

also may be filed by facsimile to (301) 

504–0127. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Leland, Project Manager, ATV 

Safety Review, Directorate for Economic 

Analysis, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Washington, DC 20207; 

telephone (301) 504–7706 or e-mail: 

eleland@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Commission’s involvement with 

ATVs is longstanding. ATVs first 

appeared on the market in the early 

1970’s. After a marked increase in their 

sales and in ATV-related incidents, the 

Commission became concerned about 

their safety in the early 1980’s. On May 

31, 1985, the Commission published an 

ANPR stating the Commission’s safety 

concerns and outlining a range of 

options the Commission was 

considering to address ATV-related 

hazards. 50 FR 23139. At that time, the 

Commission had reports of 161 ATVrelated fatalities which had occurred 

between January 1982 and April 1985, 

and the estimated number of emergency 

room treated injuries associated with 

ATVs was 66,956 in 1984. The majority 

of ATVs in use at that time were threewheel models. One of the options 

mentioned in the ANPR was proceeding 

under section 12 of the CPSA to declare 

ATVs an imminently hazardous 

consumer product, see 15 U.S.C. 

2061(b)(1). In 1987, the Commission 

filed such a lawsuit against the five 

companies that were major ATV 

distributors at that time. The lawsuit 

was settled by Consent Decrees filed on 

60032 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2The five distributors were American Honda 

Motor Co., Inc., American Suzuki Motor Corp., 

Polaris Industries, L.P., Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 

and Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA. In 1996, Arctic 

Cat, Inc. began manufacturing ATVs and entered 

into an Agreement and Action Plan with the 

Commission in which the company agreed to take 

substantially the same actions as required under the 

Consent Decrees. 

3 In the FR notice, the Commission noted that it 

‘‘specifically reserved its rights under the consent 

decrees to institute certain enforcement or 

rulemaking proceedings in the future.’’ 54 FR 1407. 

4These documents are available on CPSC’s Web 

site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/ 

fedreg/honda.pdf; http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ 

foia98/fedreg/suzuki.pdf; http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

library/foia/foia98/fedreg/kawasaki.pdf; http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/polaris; 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia98/fedreg/ 

yamaha.pdf; http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ 

foia98/fedred/arctic.pdf; and http://www.cpsc.gov/ 

library/foia/foia99/pubcom/bobard.pdf. 

April 28, 1988 that were effective for ten 

years.2

1. The Consent Decrees 

The Consent Decrees included a broad 

range of provisions. In them, the 

distributors agreed to: (1) Halt the 

distribution of three-wheel ATVs, (2) 

attempt ‘‘in good faith’’ to devise a 

voluntary performance standard 

satisfactory to the Commission; (3) label 

ATVs with four types of warnings, the 

language and format of which were 

specified in the Consent Decrees; (4) 

supplement existing owners manuals 

with safety text and illustrations 

specified in the Consent Decrees and to 

prepare new owners manuals with 

specified safety information; (5) provide 

point of purchase safety materials 

meeting guidelines specified by the 

Consent Decrees, including hangtags, a 

safety video, a safety alert for 

dissemination to all purchasers stating 

the number of ATV deaths (to be 

updated annually), a 4 foot by 4 foot 

safety poster for dealers to display 

stating the number of ATV-associated 

fatalities (updated annually); (6) offer a 

rider training course to ATV purchasers 

and members of their immediate 

families at no cost; (7) run prime-time 

television spots on ATV safety; (8) 

include safety messages in all 

subsequent advertising and promotional 

materials and (9) conduct a nationwide 

ATV safety public awareness and media 

campaign. The distributors also agreed 

in the Consent Decrees that they would 

‘‘represent affirmatively’’ that ATVs 

with engine sizes between 70 and 90 cc 

should be used only by those age 12 and 

older, and that ATVs with engine sizes 

larger than 90 cc should be used only 

by those 16 and older. Because 

distributors did not sell their products 

directly to consumers but through 

dealerships (which were not parties to 

the Consent Decrees), distributors 

agreed to ‘‘use their best efforts to 

reasonably assure’’ that ATVs would 

‘‘not be purchased by or for the use of’’

anyone who did not meet the age 

restrictions. While the Consent Decrees 

were in effect, the distributors entered 

into agreements with the Commission 

and the Department of Justice agreeing 

to monitor their dealers to determine 

whether they were complying with the 

age recommendations and to terminate 

the franchises of dealers who repeatedly 

failed to provide the appropriate age 

recommendations. 

2. The Voluntary Standard 

Industry had begun work on a 

voluntary standard before the Consent 

Decrees were in place. Distributors that 

were parties to the Decrees agreed to 

work in good faith to develop a 

voluntary standard that was satisfactory 

to the Commission within four months 

of the signing of the Consent Decrees. 

The five companies, working through 

the Specialty Vehicle Institute of 

America (‘‘SVIA’’), submitted a standard 

for approval as an American National 

Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) standard 

in December 1988. On January 13, 1989, 

the Commission published a notice in 

the Federal Register concluding that the 

voluntary standard was ‘‘satisfactory’’ to 

the Commission.3 54 FR 1407. The 

standard, known as ANSI/SVIA 1–2001, 

The American National Standard for 

Four Wheel All-Terrain Vehicles—

Equipment, Configuration, and 

Performance Requirements, was first 

published in 1990, and was revised in 

2001. The ANSI standard has 

requirements for equipment, 

configuration, and performance of fourwheel ATVs. It does not contain any 

provisions concerning labeling, owners 

manuals or other information to be 

provided to the purchaser because such 

requirements were stated in the Consent 

Decrees that were in effect when the 

ANSI standard was developed. 

Provisions of the ANSI standard are 

discussed in more detail in section D.1 

below. 

3. ATV Action Plans 

The Consent Decrees expired in April 

1998. The Commission entered into 

‘‘Action Plans’’ (also known as letters of 

undertaking) with seven major ATV 

distributors (the five who had been 

parties to the Consent Decrees, plus 

Arctic Cat, Inc. and Bombardier, Inc.) 

See 63 FR 48199 (summarizing Action 

Plans). Except for Bombardier’s, all of 

the Action Plans took effect in April 

1998 at the expiration of the Consent 

Decrees. (Bombardier’s took effect in 

1999 when the company began selling 

ATVs.) The substance of the Action 

Plans is described in letters of 

undertaking submitted by each of the 

companies.4 The letters are not 

identical, but the companies agreed to 

take substantially similar actions. 

Generally, under the Action Plans the 

companies agreed to continue many of 

the actions the Consent Decrees had 

required concerning the age 

recommendations, point of sale 

information (i.e., warning labels, owners 

manuals, hang tags, safety alerts, and 

safety video), advertising and 

promotional materials, training, and 

stopping distribution of three-wheel 

ATVs. The companies also agreed to 

implement an information/education 

program directed primarily at 

discouraging children under 16 from 

operating adult-size ATVs. The Action 

Plans are discussed in greater detail in 

section D.2 below. 

4. Termination of Previous Rulemaking 

As mentioned above, the Commission 

issued an ANPR concerning ATVs in 

1985. However, the Commission chose 

to pursue legal action under section 12 

to address ATV deaths and injuries 

rather than taking regulatory action. In 

1991, the Commission terminated the 

rulemaking proceeding it had started 

with the 1985 ANPR. 56 FR 47166. At 

the time of the rulemaking termination, 

the Consent Decrees were in effect, the 

five ATV distributors had agreed to 

conduct monitoring of dealers’

compliance with the Consent Decrees’

provisions, and ATV-related injuries 

and deaths were declining. The 

termination notice stated that the ATVrelated injury rate for the general 

population (per ATV) had dropped by 

about 50 percent between 1985 and 

1989, and ATV-related fatalities had 

declined from an estimated 347 in 1986 

to about 258 in 1989. Id. At 47170. The 

Commission concluded that under the 

circumstances present at that time, a 

rule was not reasonably necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with ATVs. 

The Commission’s termination of its 

rulemaking proceeding was challenged 

by Consumer Federation of America 

(‘‘CFA’’) and U.S. PIRG arguing that 

withdrawing the ANPR rather than 

pursuing a ban on the sale of new adultsize ATVs for use by children under 16 

was arbitrary and capricious. The court 

upheld the Commission’s decision. 

Consumer Federation Of America v. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

990 F.2d 1298 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The 

court noted that it was reasonable for 

the Commission to determine the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 60033 

effectiveness of the Consent Decrees and 

monitoring activities before considering 

whether additional action would be 

necessary. Id. at 1306. 

5. CFA’s Petition and the Chairman’s 

Memo 

In August 2002, CFA and eight other 

groups requested that the Commission 

take several actions regarding ATVs. 

CPSC docketed the portion of the 

request that met the Commission’s 

docketing requirements in 16 CFR 

1051.5(a). That request asked for a rule 

banning the sale of adult-size four wheel 

ATVs for the use of children under 16 

years old. The staff prepared a briefing 

package analyzing the petition which 

was provided to the Commission on 

February 2, 2005 (available on CPSC’s 

Web site in four parts beginning with 

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/ 

brief/atvpt1.pdf). The staff concluded 

that, given the Commission’s lack of 

authority to regulate the use of ATVs 

and the difficulties of enforcing a sales 

ban, the requested sales ban would 

likely have little impact on reducing 

ATV-related deaths and injuries. 

On June 8, 2005, Chairman Hal 

Stratton delivered a memorandum to the 

staff asking the staff to review all ATV 

safety actions and make 

recommendations on a number of 

issues. The memo directed the staff to 

consider whether: (1) The current ATV 

voluntary standards are adequate in 

light of trends in ATV-related deaths 

and injuries; (2) the current ATV 

voluntary standards or other standards 

pertaining to ATVs should be adopted 

as mandatory standards by the 

Commission; and (3) other actions, 

including rulemaking, should be taken 

to enhance ATV safety. The memo also 

identified several specific issues for the 

staff to review, namely: (1) Pre-sale 

training/certification requirements; (2) 

enhanced warning labels; (3) formal 

notification of safety rules by dealers to 

buyers; (4) the addition of a youth ATV 

model appropriate for 14-year olds; (5) 

written notification of child injury data 

at the time of sale; (6) separate standards 

for vehicles designed for two riders; and 

(7) performance safety standards. The 

memo directed the staff to give 

particular attention to improving the 

safety of young riders. 

The Commission is issuing this ANPR 

as part of the review requested by the 

Chairman. The staff will consider the 

general and specific issues highlighted 

in the Chairman’s memo, as well as any 

other approaches that could reduce 

ATV-related deaths and injuries. This 

ANPR is issued under the authority of 

the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(‘‘CPSA’’), 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., and 

the Federal Hazardous Substances Act 

(‘‘FHSA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1261 et seq. 

B. The Product 

ATVs are motorized vehicles having 

broad, low pressure tires and are 

designed for off-road use. Originally, 

three-wheel ATVs predominated. 

However, since the Consent Decrees, 

only four-wheel ATVs have been 

marketed and sold in the United States 

(although some three-wheel ATVs are 

still in use). 

Sales of ATVs have increased 

dramatically in recent years. Between 

1996 and 2003 annual sales increased 

each year for a cumulative increase of 

about 150 percent to about 800,000 

units in 2003. Annual rates of increase 

in sales may be slowing, but sales 

during 2000–2002 were still at record 

levels compared to the mid-1980s when 

sales were about 500,000 units annually. 

There also appears to be a trend toward 

producing larger ATVs. The engine sizes 

of ATVs currently for sale range from 40 

cc to 760 cc, with at least one company 

planning to have an 800 cc ATV in its 

2006 product line. The 1985 ANPR 

stated that typical ATVs at that time had 

engines between 50 cc and 250 cc. In 

the mid-1990s, new entrants began 

developing and marketing youth ATV 

models. Sales of youth models have 

continued to increase, and in 2002, an 

estimated 80,000 youth ATVs (or about 

10–12 percent of all new ATVs) were 

sold. 

The staff identified 32 domestic and 

foreign manufacturers of model year 

2003 ATVs. About half of these 

manufacturers have business operations 

in the U.S. Some of these produce ATVs 

in the U.S. while others produce ATVs 

abroad but have a U.S. subsidiary or 

affiliate that distributes them in the U.S. 

The remaining 16 of the 32 

manufacturers are foreign manufacturers 

that export ATVs to independently 

owned American importers who 

distribute the ATVs under the name of 

the foreign manufacturer, under their 

own name or under the name of a 

private labeler, or who deal directly 

with the ultimate consumer. Many of 

these foreign manufacturers entered the 

U.S. market in the past five years, 

originally selling only a youth ATV 

model. They are now beginning to 

market and sell adult ATVs as well. 

Most ATVs are sold through 

manufacturers’ networks of dealers. 

About 5000 dealers are affiliated with 

the major ATV distributors. ATVs are 

also sold in such places as lawn and 

garden shops, boat and marine product 

dealerships and farm equipment 

dealerships. ATVs, particularly those 

manufactured by the newer foreign 

entrants, are also now sold on various 

Web sites, through ‘‘big box’’ retailers, 

and in some instances directly to 

consumers by the manufacturer. 

C. The Risk of Injury 

The most recent annual report of ATV 

deaths and injuries that the Commission 

has issued is the 2004 Annual Report 

(issued in September 2005). According 

to that report, the Commission had 

reports of 6,494 ATV-related deaths that 

have occurred since 1982. Of these, 

2,019 (31 percent of the total) were 

under 16 years of age and 845 (13 

percent of the total) were under 12 years 

of age. According to the 2004 Annual 

Report, 569 ATV-related deaths were 

reported to the Commission for 2003. 

Deaths reported to the Commission 

represent a minimum count of ATVrelated deaths. To account for ATVrelated deaths that are not reported to 

the Commission, the staff calculates an 

estimated number of ATV deaths. The 

most recent estimate of ATV-related 

deaths for 2003 is 740. 

CPSC collects information on hospital 

emergency room treated injuries. The 

estimated number of ATV-related 

injuries treated in hospital emergency 

rooms in 2004 was 136,100. This is an 

increase of about eight percent over the 

2003 estimate. The estimated number of 

injuries to children under 16 in 2004 

was 44,700 (about 33 percent of the total 

estimated injuries for 2004). 

The staff also estimates the risk of 

injury and the risk of death per 10,000 

ATVs in use. According to the 2004 

Annual Report, the estimated risk of 

injury for four-wheel ATVs for 2004 was 

187.9 injuries per 10,000 four-wheel 

ATVs in use. A recent high in the 

estimated risk of injury occurred at 

200.9 in 2001. The estimated risk of 

death for four-wheel ATVs in 2003 was 

1.1 deaths per 10,000 four-wheel ATVs 

in use. In 1999, the earliest comparable 

year due to changes in data collection, 

the estimated risk of death was 1.4 

deaths per 10,000 four-wheel ATVs in 

use. 

Based on injury and exposure studies 

conducted in 1997 and, most recently, 

in 2001, the estimated number of ATVrelated injuries treated in hospital 

emergency rooms rose from 52,800 to 

110,100 (a 109 percent increase). 

Injuries to children under 16 rose 60 

percent. During these years, the 

estimated number of ATV drivers rose 

from 12 to 16.3 million (a 36 percent 

increase); the estimated number of 

driving hours rose from 1,580 to 2,360 

million (a 50 percent increase); and the 

estimated number of ATVs rose from 4 

to 5.6 million (a 40 percent increase). 

The chief finding of the 2001 Report 

60034 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5Arctic Cat had established a minimum age of 16 

for its ATVs with engine size greater than 90 cc up 

to 350 cc, and a minimum age of 18 for its ATVs 

with an engine size greater than 350 cc. 6The labels were revised in the mid-1990s based 

on recommendations of the Commission’s Human 

Factors staff. 7The companies also agreed to offer incentives 

for training to first time ATV purchasers without 

prior training (most offer $100 cash, while Honda 

offers entrance into a contest for prizes). 

8This label was required to state that the vehicle 

can be hazardous to operate and that ‘‘severe injury 

or death’’ can result unless specified instructions 

are followed (such as having proper training, 

wearing a helmet etc.). 

was that increases in the estimated 

numbers of drivers, driving hours and 

vehicles did not account for all of the 

increase in the estimated number of 

ATV injuries. 

D. Current Safety Efforts 

1. ANSI Standard 

The ANSI voluntary standard for 

ATVs, ANSI/SVIA 1–2001, was first 

published in 1990 and was revised in 

2001. The ANSI standard defines an 

ATV as a vehicle designed to travel on 

four low pressure tires, having a seat 

designed to be straddled by the 

operator, having handlebars for steering 

control, and intended for use by a single 

operator. Under the standard, ATVs are 

divided into four categories: Category G 

for general recreational and utility use; 

Category S for recreational use by 

experienced operators; Category U 

intended primarily for utility use; and 

Category Y intended for operators under 

16 years old. The Category Y is further 

subdivided into Y–6 for children age 6 

and older and Y–12 for children age 12 

and older. 

General requirements cover service 

and parking brakes, mechanical 

suspension, clutch and gearshift 

controls, engine and fuel cutoff devices, 

throttle controls, lighting, tires, operator 

foot environment, electromagnetic 

compatibility, and sound level limits. 

Vehicle performance requirements are 

specified for service and parking brake 

operation, and pitch stability. In 

addition, for youth ATVs, there are 

requirements for maximum speed 

capability and for speed limiting 

devices. ATVs in the Y–6 category must 

have a speed limit capability of 10 mph 

and a maximum unrestricted speed of 

15 mph. ATVs in the Y–12 category 

must have speed limit capability of 15 

mph and a maximum unrestricted speed 

of 30 mph. The ANSI standard does not 

contain any labeling requirements or 

other provisions concerning safety 

information. 

The major ATV distributors have 

indicated that they comply with the 

voluntary standard. However, the staff 

has not conducted any studies to 

determine the level of compliance by all 

ATV companies. The degree to which 

all ATV companies comply with the 

voluntary standard’s provisions is an 

issue that the staff will examine as it 

pursues its review. Additionally, the 

adequacy of the voluntary standard is an 

issue that the staff will examine in the 

course of its review. 

2. ATV Action Plans 

As explained above, the ATV Action 

Plans are voluntary agreements that the 

seven major ATV distributors have with 

the Commission. Through their Action 

Plans, these distributors agreed to 

continue many of the actions that the 

Consent Decrees required. Specifically, 

the companies agreed to continue to (1) 

abide by the age recommendations in 

the Consent Decrees and to monitor 

their dealers for compliance; 5 (2) use 

the warning labels previously approved 

by the Commission on all ATVs; 6 (3) 

use owners manuals that include the 

substantive informational content 

required under the Consent Decrees; (4) 

use advertising and promotional 

materials that conform to the advertising 

guidelines in the Consent Decrees; (5) 

affix hang tags to their ATVs that 

provide the same substantive safety 

messages as required under the Consent 

Decrees; (6) provide to dealers, for 

dissemination to purchasers, 

information that contains the same 

substantive safety messages as the ATV 

safety alerts required under the Consent 

Decrees (except for Honda); (7) provide 

each purchaser with a safety video with 

the same substantive safety messages as 

required under the Consent Decrees; (8) 

offer free hands-on ATV training to ATV 

purchasers and their immediate 

families; 7 and (9) not market or sell 

three-wheel ATVs. Some of these 

actions are discussed in greater detail 

below. 

Dealer Monitoring. The Consent 

Decrees were signed by the five major 

ATV distributors of the time, but they 

did not bind ATV dealers. The 

distributors agreed to use their best 

efforts to accomplish the goals of the age 

recommendations through their retail 

dealers or other representatives selling 

ATVs. To gauge the level of dealer 

compliance with the age 

recommendations, the Commission 

conducted two surveys. See 56 FR 

47166. In December 1988, the 

Commission surveyed all dealers in 

Virginia and found that approximately 

70 percent were making age 

recommendations that were inconsistent 

with provisions of the Consent Decrees. 

In June and July of 1989, the 

Commission conducted a nationwide 

statistical survey using a sample of 227 

ATV dealers to determine the level of 

compliance with the age 

recommendations. This survey found 

that about 56 percent of dealers 

surveyed were not complying with the 

age recommendations. The Commission 

and the Justice Department negotiated 

with the distributors, and the 

distributors agreed to monitor their 

dealers and take steps to terminate the 

franchises of dealers who repeatedly 

failed to comply with the age 

recommendations. Under the Action 

Plans, ATV distributors continue to 

monitor their dealers. The Commission 

staff has continued to conduct 

monitoring as well. 

From 2000–2003 the seven ATV 

manufacturers with Action Plans 

conducted undercover monitoring and 

reported their results to CPSC. During 

this time period, they reported that in 

76 percent of the undercover monitoring 

visits, dealers were in compliance with 

the age recommendations. During this 

2000–2003 period CPSC staff or its 

contractors also conducted monitoring. 

Of the dealers visited, 60 percent were 

in compliance with the age 

recommendations. The 2004 undercover 

monitoring results show a compliance 

rate of 70 percent of dealers visited. 

Note, however, that the monitoring is 

not a statistical sample and may not be 

representative of a nationwide level of 

compliance. 

Training. The Commission has 

consistently taken the position that ATV 

training is an important aspect of safety. 

The Commission’s studies have shown 

that ATV drivers who receive formal 

ATV training have a lower risk of injury 

than those who do not receive formal 

training. Yet, according to the 2001 

exposure study, only 7 percent of all 

ATV drivers had received formal 

training. 

Under the Action Plans, 

manufacturers agreed to continue to 

provide free hands-on training to 

purchasers and family members as had 

been required under the Consent 

Decrees. Most of these companies 

provide training through the ATV Safety 

Institute (‘‘ASI’’). Usually within 48 

hours of purchase, ASI contacts the new 

owner (and family) to give them 

information about available rider 

training courses and encouraging them 

to enroll. Courses are available at nearly 

1,000 locations in the U.S. 

Warning Labels. The Consent Decrees 

required that manufacturers affix four 

warning labels to ATVs: (1) A general 

warning label,8 (2) a warning label 

stating that operating the ATV if you are 

under the appropriate age (12 or 16 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 60035 

depending on the ATV) increases the 

chance of injury or death, (3) a warning 

label stating that riding as a passenger 

can cause the ATV to go out of control, 

and (4) a warning label (or labels) 

warning against use of improper air 

pressure in the ATV’s tires and against 

overloading. The Consent Decrees 

specified the precise wording, format 

and location for these warnings based 

on information and advice from CPSC 

staff. In the mid-1990s, the content of 

the warning labels was revised, in 

consultation with CPSC staff. In the 

Action Plans the companies agreed to 

continue using the warning labels 

required under the Consent Decrees (as 

modified by the mid-90s revisions). As 

part of its review, the staff will examine 

the adequacy of the Action Plans. 

3. Corrective Actions 

Under section 15 of the CPSA, if the 

Commission determines that a product 

presents a substantial product hazard 

the Commission may order the 

manufacturer, distributor or retailer of 

the product to repair the problem in the 

product, replace the product, or refund 

the purchase price of the product. 15 

U.S.C. 2064(d). Most corrective actions 

(often called recalls) are undertaken 

voluntarily by the manufacturer of a 

product. There have been numerous 

recalls of ATVs covering a variety of 

mechanical problems—about 50 

between July 2001 and August 2005 (see 

Commission’s Web site http:// 

www.cpsc.gov). 

E. Regulatory and Non-Regulatory 

Alternatives To Address the Risks of 

Injury 

The Chairman’s memo directed the 

staff to conduct a broad review of 

existing ATV safety measures and make 

recommendations to reduce ATVrelated deaths and injuries. The memo 

requested the staff to consider 

rulemaking as well as other activities. 

Following is a discussion of options 

available to the Commission and issues 

raised by the Chairman’s memo. 

1. Rulemaking. As directed by the 

Chairman’s memo, the staff will 

examine the possibility of rulemaking to 

make aspects of the voluntary standard 

or of the Voluntary Action Plans 

mandatory requirements, or to issue 

other mandatory requirements. 

Under section 7 of the CPSA, the 

Commission has the authority to issue a 

consumer product safety standard 

consisting of performance requirements 

for the product and/or requirements that 

the product be marked with or 

accompanied by warnings or 

instructions when such requirements 

are reasonably necessary to prevent or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with the product. Such a rule 

could also include a certification 

requirement as authorized by section 14 

of the CPSA. 

Under section 8 of the CPSA, 15 

U.S.C. 2057, the Commission has the 

authority to act if the Commission finds 

that no feasible consumer product safety 

rule would adequately protect the 

public from an unreasonable risk of 

injury associated with ATVs. 

Additionally, under section 12 of the 

CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2061, the Commission 

has authority to file an action in Federal 

district court against an imminently 

hazardous consumer product, against 

the manufacturer, distributor or retailer 

of such a product, or against both. 

With regard to ATVs intended for use 

by children, section 3(e) of the FHSA 

authorizes the Commission to issue a 

rule declaring ATVs that do not meet 

specified requirements to be hazardous 

substances if they present a mechanical 

hazard as defined by section 2(s) of the 

FHSA. An article that is intended for 

children and is or contains a hazardous 

substance is banned under section 

2(q)(1)(A) of the FHSA. In addition, 

section 10 of the FHSA could be used 

by the Commission as the basis for 

establishing a certification requirement 

for ATVs. 

2. Voluntary standard. As discussed 

above, the current voluntary standard 

for ATVs, ANSI/SVIA–1–2001, contains 

requirements for equipment, 

configuration, and performance of fourwheel ATVs. The staff will consider 

whether any possible changes or 

additions to the voluntary standard 

could help reduce ATV-related deaths 

and injuries. 

3. Corrective Actions under Section 

15. The Commission has authority 

under section 15 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 

2064, to pursue corrective actions on a 

case-by-case basis if the Commission 

determines that a product presents a 

substantial product hazard. 

4. Submission of Performance and 

Technical Data. Section 27(e) of the 

CPSA authorizes the Commission to 

require (by rule) that manufacturers 

provide the Commission with 

performance and technical data related 

to performance and safety. The 

Commission also may require that 

manufacturers provide such 

performance and technical data to 

prospective purchasers. The staff will 

consider whether a rule under section 

27(e) could help reduce ATV-related 

deaths and injuries. 

5. Information and Education. Section 

5 of the CPSA authorizes the 

Commission to disseminate information 

to the public concerning data and 

information related to the causes and 

prevention of death and injury 

associated with consumer products. The 

staff will consider whether an 

information and education (‘‘I&E’’) 

program could be developed that would 

help reduce ATV-related deaths and 

injuries and what such a program might 

include. 

In accordance with the Chairman’s 

memo, the staff will also consider the 

need for and possible means to 

accomplish the following proposals 

mentioned in the Chairman’s memo: 

(1) Pre-sale training/certification 

requirements; 

(2) Formal notification of safety rules 

by dealers to buyers; 

(3) The addition of a youth ATV 

model appropriate for 14-year olds; 

(4) Written notification of child injury 

data at the time of sale; and 

(5) Separate standards for tandem 

(two up) vehicles. 

F. Request for Information and 

Comments 

This ANPR is the first step in a review 

of ATV activities to develop regulatory 

and/or non-regulatory actions that will 

reduce ATV-related deaths and injuries. 

The proceeding could result in a 

mandatory rule for ATVs. All interested 

persons are invited to submit to the 

Commission their comments on any 

aspect of the alternatives discussed 

above. 

In accordance with section 9(a) of the 

CPSA, the Commission solicits: 

1. Written comments with respect to 

the risk of injury identified by the 

Commission, the regulatory alternatives 

being considered, and other possible 

alternatives for addressing the risk. 

2. Any existing standard or portion of 

a standard which could be issued as a 

proposed regulation. 

3. A statement of intention to modify 

or develop a voluntary standard to 

address the risk of injury discussed in 

this notice, along with a description of 

a plan (including a schedule) to do so. 

In addition, the Commission is 

interested in receiving the following 

information: 

1. Research suggesting a maximum 

safe speed for teens for any off-road 

vehicle; 

2. Information about the adequacy of 

age/size guidelines for today’s youth; 

3. Technical reports of testing, 

evaluation and analysis of the dynamic 

stability, braking and handling 

characteristics of ATVs currently on the 

market; 

4. Technical reports or standards that 

describe the minimum performance 

requirements for stability, braking and 

handling characteristics for ATVs; 

60036 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 198 / Friday, October 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5. Technical information on test and 

evaluation methods for defining ATV 

characteristics that are specifically 

relevant to the vehicles’ stability. 

6. Technical information on motion 

sensing technology that can be used to 

measure displacement, velocity, and 

acceleration of both the test operator 

and test vehicle. 

7. Technical reports and evaluations 

of any prototype ATVs with enhanced 

safety designs. 

8. Technical reports and evaluations 

of ATV low pressure tire performance 

on various surfaces. 

9. Information about ATV rider 

training programs, including 

descriptions of these programs, copies 

of materials used, expertise of 

instructors, consumer reactions to the 

programs, evaluations of the 

effectiveness of these programs, etc. 

10. Information about ATV rider 

training and education programs 

(including public service campaigns, 

videos, school materials, Web sites, etc.) 

targeted to children and teenagers and/ 

or targeted to parents and any 

evaluations of the effectiveness of these 

programs. 

11. Studies, reports, focus group 

information, etc. dealing with children 

and teenagers’ attitudes and/or behavior 

regarding ATVs or other off-road 

vehicles. 

12. Information about the feasibility 

and marketability of a transitional ATV 

geared to larger children and/or small 

adults, and the effect such an ATV 

might have on safety. 

13. Information about the 

applicability of sensor technology to 

improve the safety of ATVs; 

14. Studies documenting the 

effectiveness of state and local 

legislation; 

15. Studies documenting the 

effectiveness of ATV helmet use; and 

16. Information about tandem ATVs, 

particularly their similarities to and 

differences from traditional ATVs. 

17. All other relevant information and 

suggestions about ways in which ATV 

safety might be improved, including 

proposals and specific suggestions for 

greater public information efforts, 

enhanced safety activities by ATV 

dealers, associations and clubs, etc. 

Comments should be e-mailed to 

cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. and should be 

captioned ‘‘ATV ANPR.’’ Comments 

may also be mailed, preferably in five 

copies, to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC 20207–0001, or 

delivered to the Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone 

(301) 504–0800. Comments also may be 

filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127. 

All comments and submissions should 

be received no later than December 13, 

2005. 

Dated: October 7, 2005. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–20557 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Use of Ancillary Service Endorsement 

for Mailing Certain Types of Checks 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service is 

withdrawing a proposed rule that would 

require ancillary service endorsements 

on mailpieces containing certain types 

of checks. 

DATES: Withdrawal effective October 14, 

2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Chatfield, Mailing Standards, 

United States Postal Service, 202–268–

7278. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register on October 27, 2004 (69 FR 

6263), the Postal Service presented for 

public comment a proposed revision to 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) to require the use of ancillary 

service endorsements on mailpieces 

containing certain types of checks 

mailed at Standard Mail postage rates. 

The proposed revision was intended to 

protect postal customers. 

We received comments from the 

financial industry discussing a number 

of safeguards for customers that reduce 

the incidence of fraud and the misuse of 

information on these checks. We have 

concluded that the requirements in our 

proposal are unnecessary, and we 

withdraw our proposal. 

Neva R. Watson, 

Attorney, Legislative. 

[FR Doc. 05–20563 Filed 10–13–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0009; FRL–7975–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay 

United Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Monterey Bay United 

Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX) and sulfur compounds emitted by 

various sources. We are proposing to 

approve a local rule to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR–

2005–CA–0009, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and