Bill introduced to lift ban on youth atv/bike/snowmobile

[dragon12]

The ban is not lifted but is it ok to sell youth ohv's?

Just read this and the way I understand it, Nancy Nord is recommending a stay of enforcement on the sale of youth OHV's for the next year but the ban is not lifted.

http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/nord040309exclusions.pdf

Nancy Nord realized that by banning youth models, there would be a greater probability of a child being injured riding an adult sized vehicle.

Am I correct in saying we might be able to purchase youth dirt bike parts soon?

Here is the Article from the CPSIA for those who don't want to click the link.

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
4330 EAST WEST HIGHWAY
BETHESDA, MD 20814
CPSC Hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772) • www.cpsc.gov
STATEMENT OF ACTING CHAIRMAN NANCY NORD
ON THE REQUEST FOR EXCLUSIONS FROM THE LEAD CONTENT LIMITS OF THE CONSUMER
PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008
April 3, 2009
In considering exclusions, consumer safety must direct the outcome of our deliberations. Therefore, it is
with extreme reluctance that I am voting today to deny the petition, filed by companies and associations
representing the ATV and motorized bike industries, for an exclusion from the lead content limits found in
Section 101 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act (CPSIA). I do this because the clear
language of the law requires this result, not because it advances consumer safety. To the contrary,
application of the lead content mandates of the CPSIA to the products made by the petitioners may have the
perverse effect of actually endangering children by forcing youth-sized vehicles off the market and resulting
in children riding the far more dangerous adult-sized ATV’s.
For this reason, in my capacity as chairman, I am directing compliance staff to stay enforcement of Section
101 and related provisions of the CPSIA to this category of products for twelve months and hope my
colleague, Commissioner Moore, will join me in making this a unanimous decision by the Commission.
During this time-out, it is my hope that Congress will consider how the law needs to be fine-tuned to address
this serious child safety dilemma. This enforcement hiatus will also give industry the opportunity to examine
what reasonable changes can be made in their products to bring them closer to the requirements Congress set
out in the CPSIA. Staff will meet with industry to do more testing to determine how their products can meet
the 300 ppm threshold Congress set and determine what is possible. I will expect periodic status reports on
progress to this plan.
It is clear that the law does not give the Commission the flexibility to grant an exclusion for petitioners’
products. Congress wrote Section 101(b) in such a way as to leave little discretionary power with the agency
to grant common sense exclusions. This lack of flexibility was brought to the attention of Congressional
staff working on the legislation during the conference process and it was confirmed this is what was
intended. As our career staff has discussed on many occasions and as we now have been formally advised
by staff, we do not have the statutory authority to grant the exclusion requested in this case.
Even though the career staff of the agency has concluded that we cannot grant the exclusion, they have NOT
concluded that petitioners products present a health risk to children because of exposure to lead. To the
contrary, staff states “a bigger safety concern than lead exposure is that the elimination of youth ATV sales
will most likely increase the number of adult ATV’s purchased to be used by younger children; therefore
increasing their risk of injury and death.”
The issues presented to us in the petition are much more complex than just ordering petitioners to “get the
lead out” of their products by a certain date. Petitioners have presented persuasive evidence that lead serves
Page 2
a purpose in the structural integrity of the metals used in the products and that suitable substitutes are not
available. They point out the impracticality of using virgin materials for these products, including issues
dealing with the recycling of metals. They point out that the approach in the CPSIA is contrary to the
approach taken in the rest of the world, e.g. the European Union which has looked at these issues rather
extensively and made allowances. These are all issues that the Commission should have the authority to
consider but under the rigid language of the CPSIA, we cannot.
The effect of denying the petition is to make Section 101(e) of the CPSIA, which limits the Commission’s
authority to stay enforcement during rulemaking, no longer applicable. Therefore, during the pendency of a
stay of enforcement, ATV’s and motorized bikes appropriately sized for children twelve and younger can
again be available and the Commission will not seek penalties for violation of Section 101 and related
provisions of the CPSIA against those who sell them. I hope that the state attorneys general will follow the
lead of the agency on this matter.
All stakeholders—industry, users, Congress, and the Commission—need to come together to fix the statutory
problems that have become so apparent, in a common sense approach that does not unnecessarily burden
those regulated, yet provides safety for American families.

 

[Ex-Member]

They're addressing two different things!

The ban on children's ATVs/bikes was put in effect due to lead content, yet Nord states "To the contrary, application of the lead content mandates of the CPSIA to the products made by the petitioners may have the perverse effect of actually endangering children by forcing youth-sized vehicles off the market and resulting in children riding the far more dangerous adult-sized ATV’s." making it sound like the ban was made to keep children off the "dangerous machines"?

 

[poacher]

New ban on balloons Introduced.

dont leave your child alone with a balloon
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpc5vgi9zbM

 

[Ex-Member]

^ Hertzfeldt's a genius. His "rejected" cartoons make me roffle every time I see them.

 

[dragon12]

Have the powers that be come to their senses?????

UNITED STATES
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
4330 EAST WEST HIGHWAY
BETHESDA, MD 20814
CPSC Hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772) Η CPSC's Web Site: http://www.cpsc.gov
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS H. MOORE
ON THE PETITION FOR TEMPORARY FINAL RULE
TO EXCLUDE A CLASS OF MATERIALS UNDER SECTION 101(b) OF
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008 (CPSIA)
April 16, 2009
I am aware of the speculation that has surrounded my vote on this issue. My staff has spent the
time since the ballot came to the Commission working on what I believe is a good solution for the riders
of youth motorized recreational vehicles, building and expanding upon the initial position taken by
Acting Chairman Nord. The direction my colleague and I are giving to the staff today balances the
Congressional desire to protect children from unnecessary contact with leaded components in these
vehicles with the need to protect those same children from the potential for physical injury related to
riding inappropriate adult-sized vehicles, or riding vehicles either in need of repair or less structurally
sound than the ones currently on the market.
It is clear from the post-enactment statements of some Members of Congress who were
Conferees on the CPSIA that they believe the Commission has the authority to make sensible
allowances for these vehicles as long as child safety is not compromised. Given the extremely
restrictive language of the law, the only avenue I can see is for the Commission to establish an
enforcement plan that follows, to the greatest extent possible, the Act’s intention for future production,
while providing relief to the industry and the riding community for vehicles already manufactured and
those manufactured during the stay. There are compelling safety arguments that justify a stay of
enforcement.
It is ironic that I am defending vehicles that I consider to be dangerous for children under 12 to
ride and which contain accessible parts with excess levels of lead. However, the alternatives appear to
be more dangerous. American parents seem to be willing to accept the risk for their children riding
these vehicles, so it is the agency’s task, at this stage, to ensure that the vehicles are as safe as possible.
One safety rule the agency has stressed is keeping children off of adult-sized ATVs.1 To the extent that
new children’s ATVs cannot currently meet the lead limits in the CPSIA, there is the likelihood that
parents seeking new vehicles will buy adult-sized ATVs for their children to use. We have also been
notified by one ATV manufacturer that they are simply relabeling their Y-6+ and Y-10+ youth ATVs as
Y-12+, removing the speed limiting device and continuing to sell them. Thus the vehicles that are more
accurately sized for younger children will be less safe because of their ability to attain higher speeds.
1 Most of my discussion is focused on the ATV industry as they present the greatest (lead and non-lead) safety challenges.
However, the enforcement program will also apply to children’s off-road motorcycles and snowmobiles.
Page 2
The other part of the safety equation that helps balance an enforcement plan against the increased
lead exposure it allows, is based on the assertions that certain vehicle components cannot be made with
lead below a certain level without compromising the structural integrity (or another safety element) of
the component. The enforcement plan of the Commission must require concrete data from the
manufacturers on this point to justify their continued use of lead in excess of the applicable lead limit.
The industry has pointed to the European Union’s RoHS and ELV Directives as a guide for what
lead reductions or substitutions may be technologically infeasible for their youth vehicles. While we
might not need to allow the high lead limits allowed in those Directives for all components, there is
guidance to be taken in how the European system is administered. They set an expiration date for their
exemptions. Prior to that expiration date it is up to industry to come in and make their case that it is still
technologically infeasible to reduce lead to a level at which an exemption is no longer required. The
evidence considered is strictly limited to technological feasibility, not on the higher cost of a viable
substitute. The guiding principle for this agency’s determinations has to be the safety of the children
riding these vehicles.
I believe a stay of enforcement issued by the Commission should:
--relieve all makers, sellers, and distributors of youth motorized recreational
vehicles made to date and through the expiration date of the stay from enforcement
actions for failure to meet the lead limits of the CPSIA;
--allow those vehicles to be repaired, sold, traded, and otherwise used as they
have been;
--allow the sale, distribution and installation of replacement parts that are
comparable in lead levels to the old part being replaced until such time as those parts can
be brought into compliance;
--expect industry to bring their vehicle components into compliance on a
reasonable schedule, to the extent that is technologically feasible, and to provide us with
the detailed information we need to make informed decisions about those components in
the future.
The Commission simply cannot ignore the safety tradeoffs that could arise by not providing this
relief but it must also work with industry to bring the non-complying components of these youth
vehicles as close to the lead limits established by law as is currently technologically feasible, to the
extent those parts cannot be made inaccessible. The Commission also needs to let the riding community
know that they can continue to use the vehicles they own as they always have.
I believe the approach taken today by myself and Acting Chairman Nord of directing the staff to
draft a Federal Register notice containing concrete elements of a stay is the reasonable approach that the
Congress is looking for us to take. I anticipate that the Commission will vote to approve it in the near
future.

 

[c-bolt]

***"The Commission also needs to let the riding community
know that they can continue to use the vehicles they own as they always have."***

I wonder if any parents actually pulled their kids off the toys, and put them back into their bubbles so they wont get hurt any worse....


D12, thanks for the info. Ill tell my neighbors its 'safe' again....ha ha ha. These people are so messed up in the head...

 

[PJ-Hunter]

Done and sent to everybody in my mailing list that rides any recreational vehicle.

 

[jsledder]

I Don't understand Tester,, Voted for More Wilderness then proposes this??? he is really confused..?????

Maybe he actually read (or part of) this bill??? Most of these ridiculous bills are getting passed simply because they are hundreds of pages long and aren't getting read. Look at the Stimulus package, it was passed and now how many of them admitted to not even reading it.?

Time to clean house.