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) 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; request for comments. 

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: http://

www.nist.gov/smartgrid/

InterimSmartGridRoadmap

NISTRestructure.pdf and at http://

collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-sggrid/bin/ 

view/SmartGrid/WebHome. 

Additional information may be found 

at: http://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 

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 http://

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. 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 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 (O ̈ koInstitut e.V., Final Report: Adaptation to 

Scientific and Technical Progress of 

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, 


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. 

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 http:// 

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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Notices 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 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 

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 


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. 

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 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 

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: 

Monday, July 6, 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.–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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES6