22154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 

by the Federal financial assistance 

applicant. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

retain or obtain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: Nicholas Fraser, 

(202) 395–5887. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Diana Hynek, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0266, Department of 

Commerce, Room 7845, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

dHynek@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Nicholas Fraser, OMB Desk 

Officer, FAX number (202) 395–7285, or 

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: May 7, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–11008 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; North Pacific 

Groundfish Observer Program Vessel/ 

Plant Operator’s Comment Form 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7845, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Jerald D. Berger, 206–526– 

4193 or jerry.berger@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) North Pacific Groundfish 

Observer Program (NPGOP) is managed 

by the Fisheries Monitoring and 

Analysis Division at the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center (AFSC). 

NPGOP observers serve aboard 

commercial fishing vessels in Alaskan 

waters and at processing plants in 

Alaska as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act. 

NMFS AFSC requests information 

from vessel or plant operators who have 

had NPGOP observers on their vessels 

or at their plants. This information 

would be collected on a voluntary basis 

as a qualitative survey to provide NMFS 

with direct feedback on observer 

performance. This information, upon 

receipt, will ensure higher data quality, 

provide feedback on observer 

performance, and offer a direct line of 

communication from vessel/plant 

operators to the NPGOP management. 

II. Method of Collection 

Paper survey to be submitted to the 

NPGOP at the AFSC via U.S. mail or 

facsimile transmission of paper forms. 

The survey will also be available on the 

Internet. 

III. Data 

OMB Control No: 0648–0550. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Not-for-profit 

institutions; and business or other forprofits organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

400. 

Estimated Time per Response: 15 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 500. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: May 7, 2009. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–11000 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Stay of Enforcement 

Pertaining to Youth Motorized 

Recreational Vehicles 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Stay of enforcement. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

decision of the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) to stay enforcement of 

section 101(a) of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(‘‘CPSIA’’), Public Law 110–314 with 

regard to certain parts and youth 

motorized vehicles that contain those 

parts. Specifically, the Commission is 

staying enforcement of the specified 

lead level as it pertains to certain parts 

of youth all-terrain vehicles, youth offroad motorcycles and youth 

snowmobiles (‘‘Youth Motorized 

Recreational Vehicles’’ or ‘‘Vehicles’’), 

specifically battery terminals containing 

up to 100 percent lead, and components 

made with metal alloys, including steel 

containing up to 0.35 percent lead, 

aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, 

and copper with up to 4.0 percent lead, 

and the vehicles that contain them. 

This stay will remain in effect until 

May 1, 2011, unless prior to that time 

the Commission, based upon evidence 

submitted to it, decides to continue the 

stay for an additional period of time 

with regard to all or some of the 

vehicles. 

DATES: This stay of enforcement is 

effective on May 12, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

‘‘Gib’’ Mullan, Assistant Executive 

Director for Compliance and Field 

Operations, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; 

e-mail jmullan@cpsc.gov. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 22155 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 14, 2008, Congress enacted 

the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), 

Public Law 110–314, 122 Stat. 3016. 

Section 101(a) of the CPSIA phases in 

declining limits on allowable lead 

content in children’s products (defined 

as a consumer product designed or 

intended primarily for children 12 years 

of age or younger), starting on February 

10, 2009 with 600 ppm and decreasing 

to 300 ppm on August 14, 2009. On 

August 15, 2011, the lead limit will be 

100 ppm unless the Commission 

determines that a limit of 100 ppm is 

not technologically feasible for a 

product or a product category. The law 

does contain certain exclusions from the 

lead limits. One is for component parts 

that contain more than the allowable 

lead content but where the component 

is not accessible to a child through 

normal and reasonably foreseeable use 

and abuse. The Commission can also 

determine, for certain electronic 

devices, that it is not technologically 

feasible for them to comply immediately 

with the lead limits and shall establish 

a schedule by which such devices shall 

be in full compliance unless the 

Commission determines that full 

compliance will not be technologically 

feasible for such devices within a 

schedule set by the Commission. The 

Commission may also, under section 

101(b)(1) exclude a specific product or 

material that exceeds the lead limits if 

the Commission determines on the basis 

of the best available, objective, peerreviewed, scientific evidence that lead 

in such product or material will neither: 

(1) Result in the absorption of any lead 

into the human body, taking into 

account normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use and abuse of such 

product by a child, including 

swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or 

other children’s activities, and the aging 

of the product; nor (2) have any other 

adverse impact on public health or 

safety. 

On March 11, 2009, the Commission 

issued a final rule on procedures and 

requirements for seeking, inter alia, an 

exclusion under section 101(b)(1) of the 

CPSIA for materials and products that 

exceed the lead content limits. 74 FR 

10475. The final rule set forth: (1) That 

a request for exclusion must be 

accompanied by evidence that will meet 

the statutory test for the exclusion 

outlined above; and (2) that the EXHR 

staff would evaluate the evidence and 

provide a scientific recommendation to 

the Commission as to whether the party 

submitting the request had met this 

statutory test. 

The Specialty Vehicle Institute of 

America (SVIA), Polaris Industries, Inc., 

American Suzuki Motor Corporation, 

Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational 

Products Inc., Kawasaki Motors Corp., 

USA, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 

Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA, and 

the Motorcycle Industry Council filed a 

petition to exclude a class of materials 

under section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. 

The petition was submitted prior to 

March 11, 2009, the date of the issuance 

of the final rule on procedures or 

requirements for seeking an exclusion 

under section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. 

The Commission has decided to treat 

this petition as a request for exclusion 

under these procedures. The petitioners 

sought exclusion for certain parts of 

their youth motorized recreational 

vehicles including battery terminals 

containing up to 100 percent lead, and 

components made with metal alloys, 

including steel containing up to 0.35 

percent lead, aluminum with up to 0.4 

percent lead, and copper with up to 4 

percent lead. Specified components 

include: Tire valve stems, fittings and 

connectors made with copper (and 

brass) alloys; brake and clutch levers 

and other brake components, throttle 

controls, engine housings, and 

carburetors made with aluminum alloys; 

and fasteners, frames and structural or 

engine components made with steel 

alloys. 

The petitioners submitted an 

exposure study, extrapolated from the 

‘‘best-available existing data’’ based on 

an analysis of the lead in metal jewelry 

(for an aluminum and a brass alloy) and 

a faucet (for a brass alloy). This study 

concluded ‘‘estimated lead intakes from 

motorized recreational vehicle 

components are well below background 

intakes of lead from food and water, and 

* * * such intake will not result in a 

measurable impact on blood lead levels 

in children * * *.’’ 

The petitioners also asserted that 

steel, aluminum, and copper alloys 

containing lead are necessary for the 

functional purpose of the equipment 

and replacement-part components, 

including, but not limited to, lead 

batteries, fittings and connectors, engine 

housing, chassis parts, frames, drive 

lines, spoke nipples, tire valve stems, 

cables and hoses, brake levers and other 

brake system component clutch levers, 

and throttle controls. For support, they 

point to the European Union’s End-ofLife Vehicles (ELV) Directive 

exemptions for lead in steel, aluminum 

and copper alloys and lead batteries 

(January 2008) and the Restriction of 

Certain Hazardous Substances in 

Electrical and Electronic Equipment 

(RoHS) Directive (EU Directive 2002/95/ 

EC, January 27, 2003), which are based 

on the contribution of lead to the 

machinability, strength and corrosion 

resistance, and the availability (or lack 

thereof) of substitute materials that do 

not contain lead. 

The Commission denied the 

petitioners’ request for exclusion under 

section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA. 

However, for the reasons discussed 

below, the Commission has decided to 

issue a temporary stay of enforcement. 

II. Discussion 

The petitioners provided no data on 

the lead content of the actual 

components in the vehicles for which 

they are seeking exclusion (other than 

that some battery terminals could be up 

to 100 percent lead). There was no 

attempt to differentiate among the types 

of vehicles or the various manufacturers 

in the petition, which makes it 

impossible for the Commission to know 

the actual state of affairs with regard to 

these vehicles. The petition was filed 

before the Commission issued its final 

rule on procedures and requirements, 

and therefore, before the petitioners 

knew how the Commission would 

interpret the language in section 

101(b)(1). Thus they presented 

information that the lead exposure from 

their components would neither result 

in any measurable increase in blood 

lead level (a conclusion that the 

Commission has since determined is not 

dispositive of the absorption analysis in 

section 101(b)(1), although certainly 

important to scientists considering the 

risk of lead exposure), nor have any 

adverse impact on public health and 

safety. As noted above, the exposure 

study was not based on actual 

measurements or analysis of youth 

motorized recreational vehicle 

component parts and the materials may 

or may not be sufficiently similar to 

serve as a reasonable basis for the 

evaluation. Children riding these 

vehicles will interact with the metal 

brake and clutch levers and the throttle 

controls and may also interact with the 

tire valve stem and with certain of the 

other component parts. The study 

submitted by the petitioners did 

conclude that some lead would be 

ingested by a child who touched 

component parts containing lead in the 

amount the report determined to be 

comparable to a child handling the 

brake levers and the valve stem of a 

vehicle. The Commission has 

determined that some portion of 

ingested lead will be absorbed into the 

body, however small the absorbed 

amount. Because the petitioners’ study 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
22156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 

indicated that children’s use of youth 

motorized recreational vehicles could 

result in intake of lead, and therefore 

absorption, the petition does not meet 

the statutory requirement for exclusion 

set out in section 101(b)(1)(A). 

Petitioners also analogize their 

situation to the technological feasibility 

criterion in the electronics device 

exclusion for their reliance on the ELV 

and RoHS exemptions for batteries and 

certain metal alloys. However, no such 

criterion is specified in section 101(b). 

The ELV and the RoHS Directives are 

focused on reducing hazardous waste in 

landfills and encouraging recycling of 

these hazardous waste products and 

thus have quite different purposes than 

the lead provisions of the CPSIA, which 

focus on protecting children from 

unnecessary exposure to lead through 

contact with it in children’s products. 

Nevertheless, the Commission 

recognizes that unless it takes some 

action with regard to the information 

provided by the petitioners, the riders of 

these vehicles—children 12 and 

younger—would likely face a more 

serious and immediate risk of injury or 

death. For the reasons discussed in 

more detail below, the Commission is 

today announcing a time-limited stay of 

enforcement with regard to certain parts 

and the vehicles that contain these 

parts. 

The petitioners allege, and the 

Commission believes it could bear out 

that if any period of time passes in 

which youth motorized recreational 

vehicles are not available for sale (or 

existing ones are not able to be serviced) 

that some parents would allow their 

children to instead ride adult models or 

over-sized and over-powered versions of 

the youth models. Our work on ATVs 

has shown that the vast majority of the 

deaths of children from driving ATVs 

occur on adult-sized models. Part of the 

Commission’s work in its ongoing ATV 

rulemaking is to encourage the 

development of accurately sized and 

powered vehicles for children so they 

will not ride an adult model. Some 

manufacturers have told the 

Commission that they have instructed 

their dealers to remove youth motorized 

recreational vehicles from their 

showrooms and to not sell them. The 

Commission has received reports of 

dealers refusing to do routine 

maintenance on previously sold youth 

vehicles. Finally, one manufacturer has 

written to the Commission informing it 

that they are relabeling their Y–6+ and 

their Y–10+ youth vehicles to Y–12+ 

and they are advising their dealers they 

can remove the speed limiting devices 

from these vehicles. Due to the long lead 

time in designing and manufacturing 

these motor vehicles, it would likely be 

model year 2011 or 2012 before a 

complying youth ATV could be on the 

market (ignoring for a moment the other 

issues concerning the feasibility of 

making a completely complying 

vehicle). This safety dilemma applies 

equally to vehicles that have already 

been made and are in inventory with 

dealers or have already been sold and 

are in the hands of resellers or 

consumers. If parents of youth riders are 

unable to buy youth-sized vehicles 

(whether new or used) they may very 

well choose to allow their children to 

ride adult or over-powered, wronglysized versions of youth ATVs. Because 

used ATVs need periodic maintenance 

and repair, an inability to obtain certain 

replacement parts could lead to these 

vehicles becoming inoperable. If no 

youth-sized substitutes are available, 

this would similarly lead to parents 

consenting to their children crossing 

over to adult-sized machines before they 

are physically and mentally capable of 

safely operating them. While it might be 

possible to change out some of the noncomplying components on existing 

vehicles, for many of the components 

that is simply not an option. Thus 

replacement parts that have the same 

amount of lead content (or less) as the 

original part are included in our 

enforcement stay. 

The other safety-related allegation 

made by the petitioners is that a certain 

amount of lead is needed in some 

component parts of their vehicles for 

‘‘functionality, durability and other 

reasons that are safety critical to the 

components.’’ See Statement of David 

Murray, Counsel for Yamaha, at the 

March 11, 2009, public meeting on 

ATVs and other youth motorized 

recreational vehicles. 

The petitioners again point to the ELV 

Directive for their support of this 

contention. However, the ELV report’s 

exemption for steel for machining 

purposes containing up to 0.35% lead 

by weight seems to rest more on the 

easier machining properties of leaded 

steel than on safety considerations. The 

ELV report deals with leaded steels 

versus unleaded steels, rather than an 

analysis of how much lead is actually 

needed for any particular application. 

Galvanized steel does, according to the 

report, have advantages in corrosion 

resistance, which could have safety 

implications. The exemption for 

aluminum for machining purposes with 

a lead content up to 0.4% by weight was 

granted due to its higher resistance to 

corrosion and to the extent it is used in 

brake and clutch systems and perhaps 

certain other applications, such an 

exemption would appear to be safety 

related. The granting of the exemption 

for copper alloy containing up to 4% 

lead by weight, like steel for machining 

purposes, appears to be chiefly because 

the lead makes the copper more easily 

machinable. The ELV report noted that 

the presence of lead did not 

significantly affect the strength or 

corrosion resistance of the copper alloy. 

The petitioners do state that the 

enhanced machinability of copper 

alloys ‘‘permits the creation of deep 

grooves in threaded parts such as valve 

stems that are needed to ensure secure 

cap and air valve fitment for safety 

reasons.’’ See Petition for Temporary 

Final Rule to Exclude a Class of 

Materials Under Section 101(b) of the 

Consumer product Safety Improvement 

Act, dated January 27, 2009, at 13. For 

the last ELV review, the copper industry 

was asked to indicate the applications 

in which the unavoidable use of lead 

had safety implications, but their 

response had not been received at the 

time the report was written. Thus the 

report’s conclusion on copper alloys 

was that they were not able to carry out 

an in-depth evaluation based on the 

information that was made available to 

them and that the exemption should 

continue until a full assessment is 

carried out. The exemption for lead in 

batteries noted that the substitution of 

lead in lead-acid batteries is ‘‘not 

possible’’ and that avoiding the use of 

lead would require an alternative 

battery system. The report’s conclusion 

was that lead-free alternatives to leadacid batteries would reduce the 

functionality and reliability of vehicles 

and that the use of lead in this function 

is unavoidable at this time. It did note, 

however, that research was being 

actively pursued to develop a substitute 

for lead in this application. 

Another argument advanced by the 

petitioners and also supported by the 

ELV report is that for certain alloys no 

acceptable substitutes exist or if they 

exist, they do not exist in sufficient 

quantities to satisfy the global 

requirements. The ELV report found, for 

example, that there was as yet no 

technically feasible way to remove lead 

from aluminum. 

The Commission staff had very little 

time to assess these issues 

independently. Therefore, the ELV 

report’s analysis, which was strictly 

limited to the technological feasibility of 

a substitute for lead and not on the 

higher cost of a viable substitute, is 

instructive. To the extent that these 

alloys are required for safety reasons 

related to functionality, greater 

durability, or corrosion resistance, 

removing the lead from those alloys 

could result in a vehicle that is more 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 22157 

prone to structural breakage, premature 

brake failure, or other defects that could 

present a risk of death or serious injury. 

For example, failure of a less durable 

brake lever may result in an inability to 

stop or control a vehicle and result in 

death or serious injury to the child 

operating the vehicle. In contrast, 

Congress has eliminated the risk 

analysis associated with the absorption 

of lead. Yet, while we acknowledge that 

there are adverse health effects 

associated with lead poisoning or 

elevated blood lead levels, we also must 

acknowledge that, based on our 

experience with these vehicles and 

current available information, the risk of 

death or serious injury associated with 

broken or defective vehicle parts is both 

more likely and more significant than 

any risks associated with possible 

absorption of lead. In such 

circumstances, enforcement discretion 

is the only means for the Commission to 

protect riders of youth ATVs. 

The petitioners did not address what 

level of lead is necessary for their 

various components to meet acceptable 

functionality, durability and corrosion 

criteria. The industry, at the March 2009 

public meeting indicated that in terms 

of the uncontrollable variability of the 

lead content in the metal alloys they 

buy, the 600 ppm limit was ‘‘probably 

not an issue.’’ It would, however, be a 

problem when the lead limit drops to 

300 ppm in August of this year. The 

statement was also made at that meeting 

that they were seeking exclusions for 

these metal alloys ‘‘at or below’’ the 

levels established by the European 

Union. But how much below the EU 

level they can go toward the statutory 

limit without compromising safety is 

something they do not appear to know 

at this time. A spokeswoman for the 

industry stated at the public meeting 

that it should not take several years for 

the industry to test the metal alloys, but 

it will take some time because certain 

considerations such as the aging of the 

materials will have to be taken into 

account. She also asserted that all of the 

members of their coalition were willing 

to move to low lead alloys if they can 

be shown to be appropriate for realworld applications under real-world 

stresses. 

The petitioners appear to be in 

various stages of attempting to comply 

with the lead limits. They stated at the 

March public meeting that their clients 

have been working diligently to remove, 

substitute or shield from accessibility, 

non-complying, lead-containing 

components in their vehicles. They 

appear to have removed lead from the 

vinyl components of their vehicles, such 

as the handlebar grips and the seats. 

One of the largest makers of youth ATVs 

stated that their battery is in a recessed 

compartment and that they could put a 

cover over it and screw it in place. 

Under the Commission’s accessibility 

proposals, that should qualify to make 

the engine components inaccessible and 

remove the 100 percent lead terminals 

as a matter of concern for their vehicles. 

Another spokesman at the meeting 

assured our staff that the industry 

members represented there were all 

exploring the issue of encasing their 

batteries. It was also noted that small 

motorcycles do not have batteries. A 

snowmobile manufacturer indicated at 

that same meeting that they had sent 

retrofit kits to all of their dealers to 

switch out a substitute ‘‘for those few 

components’’ that did not meet the lead 

limits. They additionally put a latch on 

the hood to make the engine 

inaccessible to children. They may, 

therefore, not need relief for their future 

production. A spokesman for the 

petitioners indicated they thought they 

could make other parts, such as the 

valve stem and some cable systems 

inaccessible. Thus even some of the 

parts that contain metal alloys that the 

petitioners were seeking exclusion for 

could, with time, be made compliant. 

In the interim final rule on electronic 

devices where the Commission 

referenced the exemptions in the RoHs 

Directive, the Commission stated that it 

‘‘expects that manufacturers will 

continue to assess the technological 

feasibility of making electronic devices 

that have accessible component parts 

which contain lead above the lead 

content limits inaccessible, and make 

such component parts inaccessible 

whenever possible.’’ Similarly, the stay 

of enforcement is issued with the 

expectation that manufacturers will not 

simply rely on the continued stay of 

enforcement for a particular metal alloy, 

but will explore other ways in which to 

comply with the lead limits. A periodic 

review is required in RoHS and ELV, a 

process the industry appears to 

embrace. As long as manufacturers are 

alleging that it is technologically 

infeasible for certain components to 

comply with the CPSIA either through 

being made inaccessible or otherwise, 

they must be required to periodically 

justify, with specificity as to the 

components and alloys from which the 

components are made, the continued 

need for enforcement abeyance. 

In carrying out its responsibilities to 

protect the public, it is the 

Commission’s role to take a broader 

view of any product and evaluate a 

safety versus safety tradeoff presented 

by a product’s design when one appears. 

The Commission currently lacks the 

information it needs to make a vehicle 

by vehicle assessment of this industry’s 

state of compliance with the lead limits. 

The industry needs more time to gather 

this information, taking into account 

their on-going work in this area, and the 

Commission needs time to review that 

information. Even a time-limited stay 

that has as its goals moving these 

vehicles toward compliance in a fashion 

that does not drive children to a riskier 

alternative and systematically reducing 

the lead content of these vehicles to the 

lowest level possible from a safety 

standpoint is not our preferred way to 

handle these types of issues. However, 

given the alternatives available to us 

and the information received thus far, 

we feel that this procedure is not 

inconsistent with the overall intent of 

the CPSIA, which is to protect 

consumers, particularly our children, 

from serious risk of harm, when the 

result of forcing compliance with the 

provisions within the original time 

constraints could result in a more 

immediate and potentially more serious 

hazard than a limited stay of 

enforcement. 

To afford the manufacturers an 

appropriate amount of time to continue 

the testing they are already doing and to 

conduct any research and development 

necessary to bring component parts into 

compliance with the CPSIA and to 

identify any parts that are either 

technologically infeasible to bring into 

compliance during the stay period or 

identify those where such compliance, 

while technologically feasible, would 

expose children to other and greater 

safety risks, the stay will remain in 

effect until May 1, 2011. 

III. The Stay 

The United States Consumer Product 

Safety Commission hereby stays 

enforcement of section 101(a) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’) and related 

provisions with respect to certain parts 

of motorized recreational vehicles 

designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger, 

namely youth all-terrain vehicles, youth 

off-road motorcycles and youth 

snowmobiles, until May 1, 2011, upon 

the following conditions: 

A. The stay shall apply to youth allterrain vehicles, youth off-road 

motorcycles and youth snowmobiles 

(‘‘Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles’’ or ‘‘Vehicles’’) that were 

manufactured before February 10, 2009, 

and to Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles made on or after that date 

through April 30, 2011. The stay with 

regard to Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles made during this time period 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
22158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Notices 

shall remain in effect for the life of those 

Vehicles. 

B. The stay shall apply only to the 

following types of original equipment 

parts for Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles: battery terminals containing 

up to 100 percent lead, and components 

made with metal alloys, including steel 

containing up to 0.35 percent lead, 

aluminum with up to 0.4 percent lead, 

and copper with up to 4.0 percent lead. 

C. The stay shall also apply to any 

metal part sold separately as a 

replacement for one of the parts 

described above, provided that the lead 

content in the replacement part is less 

than or equal to the lead content in the 

part originally installed on the Vehicles. 

D. Each manufacturer (which can 

include a distributor where appropriate) 

who is covered by the stay shall file 

with the Secretary of the Commission, 

not later than 60 days after the 

publication of this stay in the Federal 

Register, a report identifying each model 

of Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles it has produced between 

March 1, 2008 and March 1, 2009. For 

each such model, the manufacturer shall 

give the production volume by calendar 

month and shall list each component 

part that is made of metal and that is 

accessible to children, the material 

specification for each part, and a 

measurement of the lead content of 

representative samples of each part in 

parts per million (ppm). The lead 

content measurement may be by x-ray 

fluorescence or the method posted on 

the Commission Web site to test for lead 

in metal for certification purposes. 

E. No later than November 1, 2009, 

each manufacturer covered by the stay 

shall present a comprehensive plan to 

the Commission describing how and 

when it intends to reduce the lead 

exposure from each part described in 

paragraph D above whose measured 

lead content exceeds 300 parts per 

million. The plan shall set forth the 

steps the manufacturer intends to take 

to limit children’s lead exposure in 

future production and an estimated 

schedule for achieving such reductions. 

The manufacturer should include a 

discussion of any adverse safety impacts 

that could result from accelerating the 

estimated schedule. If some Vehicles 

have been modified after January 27, 

2009, to reduce the lead content of 

certain parts or to make certain parts 

inaccessible, the manufacturer should 

outline those changes in general terms 

and the dates such changes were made. 

F. Manufacturers who have timely 

submitted both the report in paragraph 

D and the plan in paragraph E above, 

who need additional time to complete 

their plan prior to the expiration of the 

stay may seek an extension of the stay. 

They shall, no later than December 1, 

2010, file a request with the Secretary of 

the Commission for an extension 

containing all of the information 

described in paragraph D above, 

including an update of the production 

volume by month for each previously 

listed model and for any new youth 

model introduced after the date of the 

prior report, lead content measurements 

taken within 90 days of the report 

submission for each part to be subject to 

the stay extension and a revised 

timetable for the reduction of lead 

exposure from those parts. The report 

shall detail the manufacturer’s progress 

in reducing children’s exposure to lead 

from each part containing more than 

300 ppm, specifying what actions have 

been taken with regard to each affected 

part. The report will also explain why 

any parts that remain above 300 ppm 

have not able to be made inaccessible, 

substituted with another material, or 

made with a complying level of lead. 

G. Any report submitted under 

paragraph F shall also identify the 

Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles 

by model that the manufacturer intends 

to produce on or after May 1, 2011. The 

manufacturer shall provide a listing of 

each component part that is expected to 

be used in the production Vehicles if its 

lead content is expected to exceed 100 

ppm and will be accessible to children. 

For each such part the manufacturer 

shall explain why it is not feasible to 

make the part inaccessible or why it is 

not technologically feasible to reduce 

the lead content to 100 ppm or lower. 

H. While the stay is in effect for 

particular Vehicles, the Office of 

Compliance shall not prosecute any 

person for any violation of laws 

administered by the Commission based 

on the lead content of any part of, or 

replacement part for, those Vehicles to 

which the stay applies, including 

provisions relating to certification of 

compliance, reporting of 

noncompliances, or the sale, offering for 

sale, importation or exportation. 

I. While the stay is in effect for 

particular Vehicles, the Commission 

will not refuse admission into the 

United States of such Vehicles based on 

the lead content of any part of such 

Vehicles to which the stay applies or 

any replacement part for such Vehicles 

as described in paragraph C. 

J. This stay does not apply to Vehicles 

that are stockpiled by the manufacturer. 

Stockpiling shall be determined on a 

model-by-model basis. Vehicles shall be 

deemed to be stockpiled if their 

production in the six-month period 

ending on April 30, 2011 exceeds by 

more than fifteen percent the 

production of that model or its 

predecessor during the six-month 

period ending on April 30, 2010. The 

production of new models must not 

exceed by more than fifteen percent the 

production of similar models by the 

same manufacturer. 

K. The Commission hereby delegates 

to the Assistant Executive Director, 

Office of Compliance and Field 

Operations, authority to implement the 

stay of enforcement as specified here 

and the authority to modify provisions 

in individual cases where necessary due 

to unique or unforeseen circumstances. 

The stay in no way limits the 

Commission’s ability to take action with 

regard to Youth Motorized Recreational 

Vehicles for other safety-related issues 

including, but not limited to, failure to 

comply with the ban on lead-containing 

paint or with the American National 

Standard for Four Wheel All-Terrain 

Vehicles Equipment Configuration, and 

Performance Requirements developed 

by the Specialty Vehicle Institute of 

America effective on April 13, 2009 and 

the requirement to comply in all 

respects with an action plan on file with 

the Commission as set forth in the 

CPSIA. 

Dated: May 1, 2009. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–10981 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management, invites 

comments on the proposed information 

collection requests as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before July 13, 

2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES