Off Highway Vehicles built for kids 12 and under can not be sold by a dealer in the U.S. as of Feb 10. This includes used bikes. This includes most
metal parts. Dealers with inventory are stuck for the most part. This means if you have a kids bike and need to rebuild the top end for example you'll
have to get the parts in Mexico. The bill was passed because of the lead in kids toys coming from China. But the officals did not really understand
what they were passing or the wide effect it would have on the motorcycle industry.
From Cycle News:
The following is from the AMA...
As you may know by now, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) has effectively banned the sale of youth off-highway vehicles
(OHVs) as of Feb. 10, 2009. The AMA is issuing a repeated call for action to help reverse the potentially devastating effect this could have on the
sport of OHV recreation. We are also asking for your help, as promoters and club leaders, to spread the word to your club members, racers and fans to
encourage them to get involved.
While this move could cripple the future of the sport, it does appear that there may be relief for the use of motorcycles purchased prior to Feb. 10.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has compiled a list of prohibited acts in the CPSIA. Neither riding a previously purchased motorcycle nor
promoting a race that includes those motorcycles is included on that list. Download the CRS list here.
Still, immediate attention is needed to end this ban on the sale and manufacture of youth model OHVs. In addition to the efforts the AMA is putting in
on Capitol Hill, all motorcyclists need to help fight this measure. Here are some quick links to background information and ways you can help reverse
this decision:
• Contact your representatives in Congress. by using the Take Action button in the Issues and Legislation section of the AMA website.
• Write the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) directly to encourage them to exclude youth model OHVs here.
[Edited on 3-5-2009 by TW]David K - 3-5-2009 at 09:34 AM
What government nut job or attorney concluded kids were trying to eat their bikes?
If China is the problem, why not ban only Chinese made bikes...
Oh, that's right... China owns us... TMW - 3-10-2009 at 06:34 PM
From Cycle News:
Right now, we're all wondering: How could this happen?
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 has effectively banned the production, importing and sale of kids' OHVs - including bikes
and ATVs. Certain parts of the vehicles contain more lead than is deemed allowable on children's products - for instance, on the battery terminals and
tire valves - and the CPSC has interpreted this to mean that OHVs present a lead-poisoning threat to children.
The off-road industry now finds itself crippled and rather confused in the destructive wake of the CPSIA in an already harsh economy. We are left
wondering how exactly this devastating blow sneaked up on us. Why didn't anyone seem to know it was coming? More importantly, what exactly is
happening? What is being done to fix the situation? How can we help? Here's a closer look at the situation and an informative interview with Paul
Vitrano of the Motorcycle Industry Council, who is also the executive vice president and general council of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America
(SVIA).
Vitrano is currently at the forefront on this case, and has been since the CPSIA was passed in August of 2008 under the Bush Administration.
First, a little background...
In August of 2008, the CPSIA was passed through Congress. The wide-sweeping and comprehensive law mainly deals with lead content in children's
products - which are defined to be anything that's primarily intended for someone of age 12 and under.
There is another section of the law (Section 232) called the All-Terrain Vehicle Standard, which has nothing to do with lead, but was included with
the CPSIA. This particular section actually has no effect on our industry, since it simply makes mandatory the safety standards (free training, public
education, dealer monitoring, etc.) that all the major manufacturers have voluntarily had in place for more than two decades. Essentially, the
voluntary standards set forth by the SVIA, which our industry has followed since the late 1980s, were made mandatory (which is actually a good thing,
since it will extend to the current inundation of Chinese knock-offs).
The new lead-content limits, however, were a new standard facing the children's OHV industry. A key section of the law, Section 101 (b)(1), allows for
"Exclusion of Certain Materials or Products and Inaccessible Component Parts." Logic would reason that lead content on OHVs obviously falls under this
category, so the MIC and SVIA went to work putting together a report to the CPSC.
"Metal parts on the vehicles that are made of steel, aluminum and copper alloys, as well as the batteries, contain lead in excess of the limits,"
Vitrano explained. "Notwithstanding that lead content, we've been able to demonstrate in our petitions to CPSC that the lead in those products pose no
risk to kids' safety because the only interaction that they're having, at worst, is with a bare hand. We've had a toxicologist study the exposure that
results from that, and it's substantially less than the intake of lead from food and water."
The SVIA and CPSC, until this point, have had a functional and productive relationship, with the CPSC consulting with, and enacting, many of the
safety standards set forth by the SVIA. So when this was handed down from Congress to the CPSC for interpretation and enforcement, it came as quite a
surprise that the motorcycle industry was handed the short end of the stick.
"This is a law that came out of Congress and was signed by President Bush in August," Vitrano explained. "The CPSC are not the ones that imposed these
obligations, but they have been charged with implementing it. And we've not been able to get the implementation that we were hoping and [that] would
provide relief to our industry because there's no safety risk."
Numerous petitions were filed with the CPSC requesting a Temporary Final Rule from the law - as specified under Section 101(b)(1) of the law, the
Commission has the power to do so.
The section reads: "The Commission may, by regulation, exclude a specific product or material... 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 (A) result in the absorption of any
lead into the human body, taking into account of 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 (B) have any other adverse impact on public health or safety."
Along with the SVIA and MIC, similar petitions were filed by Polaris, Suzuki, Arctic Cat, Kawasaki, Honda, Yamaha, Bombardier, Cycle Barn Motorsports
Group and Bicycle Product Suppliers Association (since jogger strollers and bicycle trailers were also swept up in this law). All petitions received
the same canned answer from the CPSC, claiming that the Commission "lacks the authority to grant the 'temporary final rule.'"
Vitrano and the SVIA disagree with the Commission's claim that their hands are tied.
"We don't necessarily agree that their [the CPSC's] hands are tied," Vitrano says. "They have the power to grant the exclusions for us under the law
as it's currently written. That letter basically said that they don't think they have authority to grant temporary relief. Since that time, they have
promulgated the final rule on the exclusion process - that was on Wednesday [March 4 - two days prior to the time of this interview]. It was in that
final rule that they took the narrow, strict interpretation of the exclusion provision, which is not helpful to us."
This brings us to the present, and Vitrano answered questions as to what's coming next and what we can all do to help.
Why was the industry so blindsided by this?
"It actually didn't sneak up on those of us who have been following it for some time. We were aware, since when the law was passed, it was included.
But since CPSC is the one that implements and interprets the law and sees how it's going to be applied, we've been in discussion with [them] for
months on various aspects of this very comprehensive law. The critical issues related to the exclusions were only acted on by CPSC in mid-January -
that is the proposed rules for the exclusion process and other applications for the exclusion provisions. The CPSC needs to promulgate rules in order
to implement these statutes. They put the proposed rule out in mid-January. The comment period wasn't even scheduled to close until a week after the
ban took effect, and within a matter of days of the proposed rules, we had our petitions on file with toxicology and human-factors expert reports in
[our] support. We actually jumped the gun on when we really were entitled to seek exclusions, but we needed to act as soon as possible in order to get
relief.
"Until they put forth a proposed rule, they did not identify at all what you had to demonstrate in order to get one of these exclusions. As soon as
they did, we acted. Once they put out the proposed rule, the MIC and SVIA were in communication with them, along with our members, and we had started
getting the public aware of this issue back in mid- to late January."
It sounds like the MIC and SVIA have been very busy with this. How has the AMA been involved?
"The AMA has been a partner in the effort. Since this is an issue that directly impacts the industry, we were first on it and have been taking the
lead. But the AMA has been very supportive and helping us along the way. In fact, I was in Jefferson City on Wednesday, along with Ed Moreland of the
AMA, for a press conference with State Representative Tom Self, who's been leading the charge on this issue from a grass-roots effort to continue to
promote awareness and action on behalf of the industry."
If the CPSC is a dead end, who else would we be able to appeal to?
"We would need to get relief from Congress by way of an amendment of the exclusion provision so that it provides the flexibility that CPSC says it
needs. We - the SVIA and MIC and others who are working on this - are about to launch a new campaign of communication to Congress asking them for such
an amendment. The key committees in Congress are Energy and Commerce [in the House of Representatives] and Commerce, Science and Technology [in the
Senate]. We're focusing our communication efforts on those committee members.
What is it that people can do to help at this point?
"What we're encouraging everyone to do is go to our website [MIC.org] and there's a huge banner on the homepage that says 'Stop the Ban,' and on that
page is a whole slew of new letters and e-mail communication opportunities to contact Congress directly to ask for relief for our industry. The most
focused effort at this point would be to have as many people as possible write letters individually to the congressional members - and members of
these committees - because we have gotten their attention with all the contacts and publicity we've been able to generate so far. In light of CPSC's
latest action, it's really important to focus on Congress at this point, and that's what we want to do."
Stay tuned to CycleNews.com for continuing updates on the kids' bike ban.mtgoat666 - 3-10-2009 at 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
What government nut job or attorney concluded kids were trying to eat their bikes?
Kids will eat anything when dared to. In my youth I rose to challenges and ate more than a few weird things
If kids will eat paste, what's to stop them from eating batteries and fenders and seat cushions? My dog has eaten a fair number of seat cushions.
Most kids have eaten dog food and dirt to live the experience
Reading about the childhood obesity epidemic, maybe the kids should be riding bicycles or playing soccer? Ken Cooke - 3-13-2009 at 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Reading about the childhood obesity epidemic, maybe the kids should be riding bicycles or playing soccer?
Growing up here in Riverside, BMX led the way for so many kids to get into Motocross. This is what got me into the whole offroad sport. Flatland
Freestyle BMX was my expertise.
Stay of Enforcement grants relief to the OHV industry, but the fight is still far from over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Jean Turner
Photography By: Carlos Aguirre
Article Comments MORE IN INDUSTRY NEWS >> The CPSC voted a stay of enforcement into place that effectively lifts the ban of youth-model
motorcycles and ATVs on Friday, May 1, with the document being made public on Monday, May 4. The stay extends through May 1, 2011, following a
unanimous vote by acting chairwoman Nancy Nord and commissioner Thomas Moore.
While this provides relief to the industry, it’s not the permanent solution. Simply put, the fight isn’t over – it’s just a two-year timeout.
“While we applaud the CPSC commissioners’ vote to stay enforcement of the law, this doesn’t solve the real issue, which is the law itself,” said AMA
vice president for government relations Ed Moreland. “Youth-model motorcycles and ATVs should be exempt from the law, and Congress needs to act to
make that happen. Hopefully, this stay will give Congress the time it needs to fix this law, and we will continue to work with both legislators and
our partners in the industry to make certain that it does.”
The CPSC voted on the Stay of Enforcement on May 1. The AMA, MIC and others at the forefront of this political issue on behalf of the OHV industry had
yet to fully examine the 25-page document that was made public on May 4, but so far, it seems to be the relief they were hoping for.
“If it is what we thought it was, and that was a two-year extension or a two-year stay of enforcement, that gives us a window of time to get the law
fixed,” commented Sean Hilbert of Cobra Motorcycles.
There are still some potential land mines on the field, however, which raise potential concerns among manufacturers.
“[The original CPSIA] went pretty far reaching in that it deputized all the state’s attorneys general in affecting the law,” Hilbert explained. “What
that means is that the Federal government is not going to enforce the law, but even though the stay of enforcement says, ‘Hey guys, please don’t
enforce this law because we’re not enforcing it,’ [that] doesn’t mean that some rogue state attorney general can’t come along and say, ‘Hey, I’m going
to make a name for myself’ and try to prosecute a dealer here. I think it would be ridiculous. It wouldn’t be politically expedient for anybody to do
that, but it’s still possible. And I know that’s what the other manufacturers are concerned about. Everybody’s a little on edge.”
Nancy Nord herself commented that she hopes “the state attorneys general will follow the lead of the agency on this matter.” She went on to say:
“...ATVs and motorized bikes appropriately sized for children 12 and younger can again be available, and the commission will not seek penalties for
violation of Section 101 and related provisions of the [law] against those who sell them.”
Early in dealing with this issue, while seeking an exemption from the CPSC that was not granted by the Commission, many were pointing fingers at Nord,
accusing her of being unwilling to grant relief to our industry. Hilbert says that’s not the case.
“She has done everything she can possibly do within her political power to make things right,” Hilbert said. “I think chairman Nord exactly knew what
the issue was. I met with her personally a few weeks ago and she was very clear in that she felt that the law was misguided in this area and that it
needed to be fixed and not only for motorcycles but [for] everything from musical instruments to medical devices to bicycles and a horde of other
industries that really pose no lead-poisoning risk at all but got caught up in the language of the law. She realized that.”
While the Stay of Enforcement is a temporary fix, a legislative fix is still the focus of a permanent solution.
“It would be a mistake to let our guard down and say, ‘Aw, we got a two-year stay – now let’s worry about other things,’” Hilbert said. “My biggest
concern right now is that we use those two years to get the law fixed. Now is the time to resurrect any energy that was there around those two bills
and make sure that they’re brought to the floor as quickly as possible.”
