Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Bicycles and Related Products, 31254-31258 [E9-15449]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
31254
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices
Dated: June 25, 2009.
Jeffrey Anspacher,
Acting Director, Office of Competition and
Economic Analysis.
[FR Doc. E9–15487 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and
Technology
[Docket Number: 0906181063–91064–01]
Request for Comments on ‘‘Report to
NIST on the Smart Grid Interoperability
Standards Roadmap’’ (Contract No.
SB1341–09–CN–0031—Deliverable 7)
National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) seeks
comments on a report, entitled ‘‘Report
to NIST on the Smart Grid
Interoperability Standards Roadmap’’
(the ‘‘EPRI Report’’), prepared by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
under a contract (Contract No. SB1341–
09–CN–0031—Deliverable 7) awarded to
engage Smart Grid stakeholders in the
development of a draft interim
standards roadmap. NIST will consider
the EPRI Report, and comments
received on the EPRI Report, in the
development of NIST’s interim
‘‘roadmap’’ for Smart Grid
interoperability standards, a
responsibility assigned to NIST under
the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007. All comments submitted
should reference this notice.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
sent to: George Arnold, 100 Bureau
Drive, Stop 8100, National Institute of
Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899–8100.
Electronic comments may be sent to:
smartgridcomments@nist.gov.
The report is available at: https://
www.nist.gov/smartgrid/
InterimSmartGridRoadmap
NISTRestructure.pdf and at https://
collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/
view/SmartGrid/WebHome.
Additional information may be found
at: https://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Arnold, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop
8100, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
20899–8100, telephone (301) 975–5627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1305 of the Energy Independence and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:55 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (Pub. L.
110–140) requires the Director of NIST
‘‘to coordinate the development of a
framework that includes protocols and
model standards for information
management to achieve interoperability
of smart grid devices and systems.’’ The
Smart Grid is an important component
of the Administration’s comprehensive
plan to reduce U.S. dependence on
foreign oil, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, create jobs, and help U.S.
industry lead in the global race to
develop and apply clean energy
technology. President Obama has set
ambitious short and long-term goals,
necessitating quick action and sustained
progress in implementing the
components, systems, and networks that
will make up the Smart Grid.
In April 2009, NIST announced a
three-phase plan to expedite
development of interoperability
standards for the Smart Grid. The EPRI
Report is an input to the first phase of
the NIST plan, in which NIST has
sought to engage utilities, equipment
suppliers, consumers, standards
developers, and other stakeholders in a
public process to identify Smart Grid
interoperability standards and priorities
for development of new standards. The
full NIST plan is available at https://
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/smartgrid_
041309.html.
Under a contract (Contract No.
SB1341–09–CN–0031) that NIST
awarded earlier this year in connection
with the first phase of the NIST plan,
EPRI technical experts compiled and
refined inputs from a variety of Smart
Grid stakeholders. These inputs
included technical contributions made
at two EPRI-facilitated, two-day, public
workshops (April 28–29, 2009, in
Reston, Va; and May 19–20, 2009, in
National Harbor, Md.). The EPRI Report
also incorporates contributions from six
expert working groups established by
NIST in 2008, and from a cybersecurity
coordination task group established in
2009. Hundreds of individuals,
representing a broad range of
stakeholders, have participated in the
roadmapping process to date.
The EPRI Report contains material
gathered and refined by the contractor
using its technical expertise. The EPRI
Report is not a formally reviewed and
approved NIST publication. Rather, it is
one of many inputs into the ongoing
NIST-coordinated roadmapping process.
NIST is now reviewing EPRI’s
synthesis of stakeholder inputs received
through the end of May 2009, as
presented in the EPRI Report. NIST also
will review the comments received from
the public on the EPRI Report.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NIST will use the EPRI Report and
public comments as inputs in drafting
an initial NIST Smart Grid
Interoperability Framework. The NIST
Framework, which is intended to be a
living document, will describe a highlevel architecture, identify an initial set
of key standards, and provide a
roadmap for development of new or
revised standards needed to realize the
Smart Grid. Release 1.0 of the NIST
Smart Grid Interoperability Standards
Framework is expected to be available
in September.
Authority: Section 1305 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.
L. 110–140).
Request for Comments: NIST seeks
comments on EPRI’s ‘‘Report to NIST on
the Smart Grid Interoperability
Standards Roadmap.’’ Comments should
include a reference to this Federal
Register notice. After evaluating the
report and comments submitted in
response to this request, as well as other
inputs, NIST will draft an initial NIST
Smart Grid Interoperability Framework,
in accordance with responsibilities
assigned to NIST under the EISA.
Dated: June 25, 2009.
Patrick Gallagher,
Deputy Director, NIST.
[FR Doc. E9–15467 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–13–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Notice of Stay of Enforcement
Pertaining to Bicycles and Related
Products
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Stay of enforcement.
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
is announcing its decision to stay
enforcement of section 101 (a) of the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement
Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) with regard to
certain parts of bicycles, jogger strollers,
and bicycle trailers designed or
intended primarily for children 12 years
of age or younger. The Commission is
staying enforcement of the specified
lead level as it pertains to certain parts
of these products, specifically
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.
DATES: This stay of enforcement is
effective on June 30, 2009 and will
remain in effect until July 1, 2011. The
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices
Commission may, based on evidence
submitted to the Commission as
described in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION portion of this document,
decide to continue the stay for an
additional period of time.
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
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 also, under section 101
(b)(1) of the CPSIA may 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:55 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 Office
of Hazard Identification and Reduction
(‘‘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 Bicycle Product Suppliers
Association (‘‘BPSA’’) filed a petition to
exclude a class of materials for certain
parts of bicycles, jogger strollers, and
bicycle trailers intended for children
ages 12 and younger 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
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, but are not limited to: Tire
valve stems, spoke nipples, brake levers,
and brake lever bushings.
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
bicycle and related product 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 * * * .’’ Exposure
Evaluation of Manufactured
Components in Consideration for
Exclusion from the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA),
Gradient Corporation (January 26, 2009).
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. For
support, they point to the European
Union’s End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV)
Directive exemptions for lead in steel,
¨
aluminum and copper alloys (OkoInstitut e.V., Final Report: Adaptation to
Scientific and Technical Progress of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31255
Annex II, Directive 2000/53/EC, §§ 4.2,
4.4, and 4.5, (Jan. 16, 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 data
suggesting that the components in
children’s bicycles and related products
contain lead in amounts not greater than
those permitted under the RoHS and
ELV Directives. As noted earlier in Part
I of this document, 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) of the CPSIA. 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. The
exposure study was not based on actual
measurements or analysis of the
component parts of children’s bicycles
and related products and the materials
may or may not be sufficiently similar
to the bicycle component parts to serve
as a reasonable basis for the evaluation.
Children riding these bicycles and
related products will touch the brake
levers, and may also touch the tire valve
stem and with other component parts.
The petitioners’ study 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 a bicycle’s brake levers and
valve stems. The Commission staff has
looked at this modeling data and has
stated that if ingestion of lead occurs,
some portion of the ingested lead will
be absorbed into the body, however
small the absorbed amount. Because the
petitioners’ study indicated that
children’s use of a bicycle or related
products could result in intake of lead,
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31256
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices
and therefore absorption, the petition
did not meet the statutory requirement
for exclusion set out in section
101(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA.
The petitioners also analogized their
situation to the technological feasibility
criterion in the electronics device
exclusion for their reliance on the ELV
and RoHS exemptions for certain metal
alloys and components. 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 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 bicycles—children 12
and younger—could likely face a more
serious and immediate risk of injury or
death. Therefore, the Commission is
today announcing a time-limited stay of
enforcement with regard to certain
components of children’s bicycles and
related products.
The petitioners allege, and the
Commission believes it could bear out,
that if any period of time passes in
which youth bicycles are not available
for sale, some parents would allow their
children to ride adult bicycles. The
Commission recognizes that correctly
sizing the bicycle to the rider is an
important safety consideration and
includes this recommendation in its
bicycle safety messages. Children who
cannot comfortably reach the pedals or
who have to use the more complicated
braking and gear shift mechanisms
found on adult bicycles are at greater
risk of injury than children riding
properly sized and equipped bicycles.
In a comprehensive study of bicycle
riding done by the Commission staff in
the early 1990s, several reasons were
cited for the higher rates of injury
among child riders. The primary reasons
were cognitive and physical immaturity.
The study also found that one of the
factors in children’s injuries was ‘‘riding
the wrong size bicycle.’’
This safety dilemma applies equally
to bicycles 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 with children aged 12 and
younger are unable to buy youth-sized
bicycles (whether new or used) they
may very well choose to allow their
children to ride adult bicycles. Bicycles
need periodic maintenance and repair.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:55 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
An inability to obtain certain
replacement parts could lead to these
bicycles becoming inoperable, or being
ridden with worn parts. If no substitute
parts are available, this would similarly
lead to some parents consenting to their
children riding adult bicycles 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 bicycles, 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 petitioners allege that a certain
amount of lead is needed in some
component parts of their vehicles for
machinability, strength, corrosion
resistance and functionality. The
petitioners point to the ELV Directive
for their support of this contention.
However, the ELV Directive’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 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 28,
2009, at 11. For the last ELV review, the
copper industry was asked to indicate
the applications in which the
unavoidable use of lead had safety
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
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. In addition, at a public
meeting with the BPSA held on March
11, 2009, petitioners claimed that new
bicycles ‘‘still need to rely on recycled
materials for frame, brake levers,
associated components, etc.’’ and that,
‘‘recycling that material allows for an
uncontrollable potential for trace
amounts of lead greater than the CPSIA
limits, especially as the limits step
down to 300 parts per million.’’ See
Statement of John Nedeau, President,
BPSA, at the March 11, 2009, Public
Meeting on Bicycles. The meeting is
available for viewing at https://
www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/
bicycles.html.
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. The ELV report found, for
example, that there was as yet no
technologically feasible way to remove
lead from aluminum. 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 bicycle that is more
prone to structural breakage, premature
brake failure, or other defects that could
present a risk of injury that should be
evaluated to ensure such substitutions
do not result in unintended or
unforeseen defects. For example, failure
of a less durable brake lever may result
in an inability to stop or control a
bicycle and could result in an injury to
the child operating the bicycle. 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, there
may be a greater risk of injury to
children if the removal of lead from
these components results in structural
weakness or other defects, such as brake
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices
or frame failure, which can cause the
rider to lose control of the bicycle and/
or crash which are more significant than
any risks associated with the possible
absorption of lead. To the extent jogger
strollers and bicycle trailers designed or
intended primarily for children 12 years
of age or younger contain components
made with the same metal alloys needed
for durability and corrosion resistance,
the failure of these components would
present similar risks of injury to the
children riding in them as would a
component failure in a bicycle. In such
circumstances, enforcement discretion
is the only means for the Commission to
protect children.
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 11,
2009 public meeting indicated that in
terms of the uncontrollable variability of
the lead content in the metal alloys they
buy, ‘‘the ongoing challenge is the
variability in the recycled materials and
the upcoming 300 ppm standard’’ in
August of this year. ‘‘We’re concerned
that even though we specify this and
even though we check for it, inevitably
some of it may get through.’’ Comments
of Bob Burns and John Nedeau, March
11, 2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles.
The petitioners appeared to be in
various stages of attempting to comply
with the lead limits. They stated at the
March 11, 2009 public meeting that they
have been working diligently to remove,
substitute or make essential leadcontaining components inaccessible.
Comments of John Nedeau, March 11,
2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles. For
example, they discussed changes in the
design of the tire valve by extending the
rubber on the stem further up towards
the brass valve and placing the cap on
the stem securely. Bob Burns stated that
such changes would result in the stem/
cap combination passing the use and
abuse torque test. In addition, they have
been working on the exterior portion of
the brass valve to contain less than 300
ppm lead. However, issues still
remained with the accessible inner
portion on the valve, or the valve core,
the machinability of which is critical for
air retention. Despite industry attempts,
they have not yet been able to source a
valve core that is below the 600 or 300
parts per million standard. Comments of
Bob Burns, March 11, 2009, Public
Meeting on Bicycles. The industry also
stated that bicycles are different from
ATVs and that there is a high-end
industry and a low-end industry.
According to Bob Burns, lower-priced,
heavier bicycles are more likely to have
recycled or less refined materials and it
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:55 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
may not be possible to use virgin alloys.
Although he indicated that higher end
bicycle manufacturers may be able to
source compliant metals, he questioned
whether sourcing compliant metals
would be competitively feasible in the
lower price markets. Id.
In carrying out its responsibilities to
protect the public, the Commission
must consider the more immediate
safety issue that needs to be addressed
and that is presented by requiring the
immediate change in construction
materials for bicycles that would be
needed to comply with the CPSIA. The
Commission currently lacks the
information it needs to make a thorough
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. 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 July 1, 2011. The
stay of enforcement here 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 before the
stay expires on July 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 bicycles, jogger strollers, and bicycle
trailers designed or intended primarily
for children 12 years of age or younger,
until July 1, 2011, upon the following
conditions:
A. The stay shall apply to bicycles,
jogger strollers, and bicycle trailers
(‘‘Bicycles and Related Products’’) that
were manufactured before February 10,
2009, and to Bicycles and Related
Products made on or after that date
through June 30, 2011. The stay with
regard to Bicycles and Related Products
made during this time period shall
remain in effect for the life of those
products.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31257
B. The stay shall apply only to the
following types of original equipment
parts for Bicycles and Related Products:
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 Bicycles
and Related Products.
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 Bicycle or Related Product it
has produced between May 1, 2008 and
May 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 December 31, 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 manufacturer should
include a discussion of any adverse
safety impacts that could result from
accelerating the estimated schedule. If
some Bicycles or Related Products have
been modified after January 28, 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 31,
2010, file a request with the Secretary of
the Commission for an extension
containing a revised timetable for the
reduction of lead exposure from those
parts. The report shall detail the
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
31258
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices
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
been 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
Bicycles and Related Products by model
that the manufacturer intends to
produce on or after July 1, 2011. The
manufacturer shall provide a listing of
each component part that is expected to
be used in the production 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 Bicycles and Related
Products, 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 Bicycles and Related Products 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 Bicycles and Related
Products, the Commission will not
refuse admission into the United States
of such Bicycles and Related Products
based on the lead content of any part of
such Bicycles and Related Products to
which the stay applies or any
replacement part for such Bicycles and
Related Products as described in
paragraph C.
J. This stay does not apply to Bicycles
and Related Products that are stockpiled
by the manufacturer, as that term is
defined by 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2), and
stockpiling is strictly prohibited.
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 Bicycles and Related Products
for other safety-related issues including,
but not limited to, failure to comply
with the ban on lead-containing paint.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:55 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
Dated: June 25, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. E9–15449 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335–01–P
Monday, July 6, 2009
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault
in the Military Services
AGENCY: DoD; Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and
Readiness).
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act of
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended),
the Government in the Sunshine Act of
1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and
41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of
Defense announces that the following
Federal advisory committee meetings of
the Defense Task Force on Sexual
Assault in the Military Services
(hereafter referred to as the Task Force)
will take place:
Due to scheduling difficulties the
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in
the Military Services was unable to
finalize its agenda in time to publish
notice of its meetings in the Federal
Register for the 15-calendar days
required by 41 CFR 102–3.150(a).
Accordingly, the Committee
Management Officer for the Department
of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102–
3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day
notification requirement.
DATES: Monday, July 6, 2009; Tuesday,
July 7, 2009; Wednesday, July 8, 2009;
Wednesday, July 22, 2009; Thursday,
July 23, 2009; and Friday, July 24, 2009.
The time for all meetings is 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time
(hereafter referred to as EDT).
ADDRESSES: Marymount Room, King
Conference Room 204 and King
Conference Room 205, Embassy Suites
Hotel, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Molnar, Deputy to the
Executive Director; 2850 Eisenhower
Avenue, Suite 100, Alexandria, Virginia,
22314; phone (888) 325–6640; fax (703)
325–6710;
michael.molnar@wso.whs.mil.
Purpose of
Meetings: The purpose of these meetings
is to obtain and discuss information on
the Task Force’s congressionally
mandated task to examine matters
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
related to sexual assault in the Military
Services through briefings from, and
discussion with, Task Force staff,
subject-matter experts, document
review, and preparation of the Task
Force report.
Agenda:
8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. Welcome,
Administrative Remarks.
8:05 a.m.–8:10 a.m. Opening Remarks.
8:10 a.m.–8:15 a.m. Plan of the Day.
8:15 a.m.–9 a.m. Subcommittee Work.
9 a.m.–10:30 a.m. Department of
Defense Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response Data Collection and
Reporting System Briefing.
10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. Break.
10:45 a.m.–12 p.m. Subcommittee Work.
12 p.m.–1 p.m. Noon Meal.
1 p.m.–1:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
1:20 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Break.
1:30 p.m.–4 p.m. Subcommittee Work.
4 p.m.–4:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
4:20 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Wrap Up.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. Welcome,
Administrative Remarks.
8:05 a.m.–8:10 a.m. Opening Remarks.
8:10 a.m.–9:30 a.m. Subcommittee
Work.
9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. Break.
12 p.m.–1 p.m. Noon Meal.
1 p.m.–1:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
1:20 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Break.
1:30 p.m.–4 p.m. Subcommittee Work.
4 p.m.–4:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
4:20 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Wrap Up.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. Welcome,
Administrative Remarks.
8:05 a.m.–8:10 a.m. Opening Remarks.
8:10 a.m.–9:30 a.m. Subcommittee
Work.
9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. Break.
12 p.m.–1 p.m. Noon Meal.
1 p.m.–1:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
1:20 p.m.–1:30 p.m. Break.
1:30 p.m.–4 p.m. Subcommittee Work.
4 p.m.–4:20 p.m. Cross Check between
Subcommittees.
4:20 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Wrap Up.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
8 a.m.–8:05 a.m. Welcome,
Administrative Remarks.
8:05 a.m.–8:10 a.m. Opening Remarks.
8:10 a.m.–9:30 a.m. Subcommittee
Work.
9:30 a.m.–9:45 a.m. Break.
12 p.m.–1 p.m. Noon Meal.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31254-31258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15449]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Bicycles and Related
Products
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Stay of enforcement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or
``Commission'') is announcing its decision to stay enforcement of
section 101 (a) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(``CPSIA'') with regard to certain parts of bicycles, jogger strollers,
and bicycle trailers designed or intended primarily for children 12
years of age or younger. The Commission is staying enforcement of the
specified lead level as it pertains to certain parts of these products,
specifically 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.
DATES: This stay of enforcement is effective on June 30, 2009 and will
remain in effect until July 1, 2011. The
[[Page 31255]]
Commission may, based on evidence submitted to the Commission as
described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this document,
decide to continue the stay for an additional period of time.
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.
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 also, under section 101 (b)(1) of
the CPSIA may 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
Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction (``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 Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (``BPSA'') filed a
petition to exclude a class of materials for certain parts of bicycles,
jogger strollers, and bicycle trailers intended for children ages 12
and younger 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 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, but are not limited to: Tire valve stems, spoke
nipples, brake levers, and brake lever bushings.
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
bicycle and related product 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 * * *
.'' Exposure Evaluation of Manufactured Components in Consideration for
Exclusion from the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA),
Gradient Corporation (January 26, 2009).
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. For support, they point to
the European Union's End-of-Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive exemptions
for lead in steel, aluminum and copper alloys ([Ouml]ko-Institut e.V.,
Final Report: Adaptation to Scientific and Technical Progress of Annex
II, Directive 2000/53/EC, Sec. Sec. 4.2, 4.4, and 4.5, (Jan. 16,
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 data suggesting that the components in
children's bicycles and related products contain lead in amounts not
greater than those permitted under the RoHS and ELV Directives. As
noted earlier in Part I of this document, 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) of the CPSIA. 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. The exposure study
was not based on actual measurements or analysis of the component parts
of children's bicycles and related products and the materials may or
may not be sufficiently similar to the bicycle component parts to serve
as a reasonable basis for the evaluation. Children riding these
bicycles and related products will touch the brake levers, and may also
touch the tire valve stem and with other component parts. The
petitioners' study 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 a bicycle's
brake levers and valve stems. The Commission staff has looked at this
modeling data and has stated that if ingestion of lead occurs, some
portion of the ingested lead will be absorbed into the body, however
small the absorbed amount. Because the petitioners' study indicated
that children's use of a bicycle or related products could result in
intake of lead,
[[Page 31256]]
and therefore absorption, the petition did not meet the statutory
requirement for exclusion set out in section 101(b)(1)(A) of the CPSIA.
The petitioners also analogized their situation to the
technological feasibility criterion in the electronics device exclusion
for their reliance on the ELV and RoHS exemptions for certain metal
alloys and components. 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 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 bicycles--children 12 and younger--could likely face a
more serious and immediate risk of injury or death. Therefore, the
Commission is today announcing a time-limited stay of enforcement with
regard to certain components of children's bicycles and related
products.
The petitioners allege, and the Commission believes it could bear
out, that if any period of time passes in which youth bicycles are not
available for sale, some parents would allow their children to ride
adult bicycles. The Commission recognizes that correctly sizing the
bicycle to the rider is an important safety consideration and includes
this recommendation in its bicycle safety messages. Children who cannot
comfortably reach the pedals or who have to use the more complicated
braking and gear shift mechanisms found on adult bicycles are at
greater risk of injury than children riding properly sized and equipped
bicycles. In a comprehensive study of bicycle riding done by the
Commission staff in the early 1990s, several reasons were cited for the
higher rates of injury among child riders. The primary reasons were
cognitive and physical immaturity. The study also found that one of the
factors in children's injuries was ``riding the wrong size bicycle.''
This safety dilemma applies equally to bicycles 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 with
children aged 12 and younger are unable to buy youth-sized bicycles
(whether new or used) they may very well choose to allow their children
to ride adult bicycles. Bicycles need periodic maintenance and repair.
An inability to obtain certain replacement parts could lead to these
bicycles becoming inoperable, or being ridden with worn parts. If no
substitute parts are available, this would similarly lead to some
parents consenting to their children riding adult bicycles 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 bicycles, 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 petitioners allege that a certain amount of lead is needed in
some component parts of their vehicles for machinability, strength,
corrosion resistance and functionality. The petitioners point to the
ELV Directive for their support of this contention. However, the ELV
Directive'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 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 28, 2009, at 11. 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.
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. In addition, at a public meeting with
the BPSA held on March 11, 2009, petitioners claimed that new bicycles
``still need to rely on recycled materials for frame, brake levers,
associated components, etc.'' and that, ``recycling that material
allows for an uncontrollable potential for trace amounts of lead
greater than the CPSIA limits, especially as the limits step down to
300 parts per million.'' See Statement of John Nedeau, President, BPSA,
at the March 11, 2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles. The meeting is
available for viewing at https://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/bicycles.html.
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. The ELV
report found, for example, that there was as yet no technologically
feasible way to remove lead from aluminum. 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 bicycle that is more prone to structural
breakage, premature brake failure, or other defects that could present
a risk of injury that should be evaluated to ensure such substitutions
do not result in unintended or unforeseen defects. For example, failure
of a less durable brake lever may result in an inability to stop or
control a bicycle and could result in an injury to the child operating
the bicycle. 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, there may be
a greater risk of injury to children if the removal of lead from these
components results in structural weakness or other defects, such as
brake
[[Page 31257]]
or frame failure, which can cause the rider to lose control of the
bicycle and/or crash which are more significant than any risks
associated with the possible absorption of lead. To the extent jogger
strollers and bicycle trailers designed or intended primarily for
children 12 years of age or younger contain components made with the
same metal alloys needed for durability and corrosion resistance, the
failure of these components would present similar risks of injury to
the children riding in them as would a component failure in a bicycle.
In such circumstances, enforcement discretion is the only means for the
Commission to protect children.
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 11, 2009 public
meeting indicated that in terms of the uncontrollable variability of
the lead content in the metal alloys they buy, ``the ongoing challenge
is the variability in the recycled materials and the upcoming 300 ppm
standard'' in August of this year. ``We're concerned that even though
we specify this and even though we check for it, inevitably some of it
may get through.'' Comments of Bob Burns and John Nedeau, March 11,
2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles.
The petitioners appeared to be in various stages of attempting to
comply with the lead limits. They stated at the March 11, 2009 public
meeting that they have been working diligently to remove, substitute or
make essential lead-containing components inaccessible. Comments of
John Nedeau, March 11, 2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles. For example,
they discussed changes in the design of the tire valve by extending the
rubber on the stem further up towards the brass valve and placing the
cap on the stem securely. Bob Burns stated that such changes would
result in the stem/cap combination passing the use and abuse torque
test. In addition, they have been working on the exterior portion of
the brass valve to contain less than 300 ppm lead. However, issues
still remained with the accessible inner portion on the valve, or the
valve core, the machinability of which is critical for air retention.
Despite industry attempts, they have not yet been able to source a
valve core that is below the 600 or 300 parts per million standard.
Comments of Bob Burns, March 11, 2009, Public Meeting on Bicycles. The
industry also stated that bicycles are different from ATVs and that
there is a high-end industry and a low-end industry. According to Bob
Burns, lower-priced, heavier bicycles are more likely to have recycled
or less refined materials and it may not be possible to use virgin
alloys. Although he indicated that higher end bicycle manufacturers may
be able to source compliant metals, he questioned whether sourcing
compliant metals would be competitively feasible in the lower price
markets. Id.
In carrying out its responsibilities to protect the public, the
Commission must consider the more immediate safety issue that needs to
be addressed and that is presented by requiring the immediate change in
construction materials for bicycles that would be needed to comply with
the CPSIA. The Commission currently lacks the information it needs to
make a thorough 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. 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
July 1, 2011. The stay of enforcement here 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 before the stay
expires on July 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 bicycles, jogger strollers, and bicycle trailers
designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger,
until July 1, 2011, upon the following conditions:
A. The stay shall apply to bicycles, jogger strollers, and bicycle
trailers (``Bicycles and Related Products'') that were manufactured
before February 10, 2009, and to Bicycles and Related Products made on
or after that date through June 30, 2011. The stay with regard to
Bicycles and Related Products made during this time period shall remain
in effect for the life of those products.
B. The stay shall apply only to the following types of original
equipment parts for Bicycles and Related Products: 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 Bicycles and Related
Products.
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
Bicycle or Related Product it has produced between May 1, 2008 and May
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 December 31, 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 manufacturer should include a
discussion of any adverse safety impacts that could result from
accelerating the estimated schedule. If some Bicycles or Related
Products have been modified after January 28, 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 31, 2010,
file a request with the Secretary of the Commission for an extension
containing a revised timetable for the reduction of lead exposure from
those parts. The report shall detail the
[[Page 31258]]
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 been 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
Bicycles and Related Products by model that the manufacturer intends to
produce on or after July 1, 2011. The manufacturer shall provide a
listing of each component part that is expected to be used in the
production 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 Bicycles and Related
Products, 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 Bicycles and
Related Products 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 Bicycles and Related
Products, the Commission will not refuse admission into the United
States of such Bicycles and Related Products based on the lead content
of any part of such Bicycles and Related Products to which the stay
applies or any replacement part for such Bicycles and Related Products
as described in paragraph C.
J. This stay does not apply to Bicycles and Related Products that
are stockpiled by the manufacturer, as that term is defined by 15
U.S.C. 2058(g)(2), and stockpiling is strictly prohibited.
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 Bicycles and Related Products for other safety-related
issues including, but not limited to, failure to comply with the ban on
lead-containing paint.
Dated: June 25, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-15449 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
