Thu February 19 2009, 07:11 AM
motox247Someone in one of the other threads said that money is the only thing that gets politician's attention, so I have an idea.
Everyone who is writing/calling about this issue, get together your records or receipts and prove just how much money you spend in this sport in a year or two years, or as long as the kids are on minis, and include the figure with your complaint. Is it $20,000, $30,000... more? Don't forget:
Gas!
Bigger property?
RV
Trailer
Truck
Hotels
Meals
and of course bikes & gear.
Everyone I know who is not in the sport is ASTOUNDED by the amount of money we spend on it, and we aren't even big spenders compared to many of you. If money talks, motocross money screams!
Maybe if politicians see the dollars that will stop 'stimulating' the economy they'll be more motivated to make some changes...
Tue March 03 2009, 07:39 AM
Vetmx808The response I got from my Senator in Montana:
Dear Jason:
Thank you for contacting me about your concerns with several aspects of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) as passed during the 110th Congress.
Last year, we heard alarming reports about unsafe imports from China, one of America's largest trading partners. Americans should not have to fear that things they buy at retail stores and supermarkets could be dangerous to their children. It is the responsibility of agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission to identify every risk. In an effort to ensure that products sold in America are safe, the CPSIA law places stringent testing criteria on any product intended for the use of a child under the age of 12.
I am concerned, however, about how these regulations may affect both micro-business owners and local artisans across Montana, as well as the youth ATV industry. I will continue to advocate for common sense in laws and regulation. To that end, please be assured that my staff is looking into this issue. In the meantime, I urge you to review the document provided by the Consumer Product Safety Commission entitled, "Guidance on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) for Small Businesses, Resellers, Crafters and Charities" for more specific answers to the many questions you may have about this issue. This document is available online at
http://www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsi...us/cpsiasbguide.htmlAs we move forward, I will continue to work with my colleagues to find the best solutions to adequately protect American workers, consumers, and businesses. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Jon Tester
United States Senator
Tue March 03 2009, 01:15 PM
motodad642I emailed this to our senator Maria ,Better, CAN_Damn_Well, still waiting for my form letter
Senator,
I am trying to understand why their is such a prejudice against the off-road motorcycle community? The CPSC ban on all small motorcycles and ATV's is just unrealistic and bias. Look, I have been working very hard with safety, noise, Tred Lightly programs, trail maintenance, and education on being a Green rider. I have been a hiker, climber for over 30 years and 6 years ago I joined a motorcycle club and I am presently the club secretary. Our club was founded in 1951 and have been going strong ever since. My son has grown to be quite the responsible young man. Through education and example my son (17 years old) has trained real hard, stays away from drugs, drinking, and partying. He has been an example to our neighbor kids and at his school. The fact here is he is not alone in this, many of the kids he races with, from all over this country are the same. It takes dedication and allot of hard training to become an accomplished motocross racer. They don’t have room in their lives to party. We travel throughout our great state and the Northwest every weekend. If you would take the time to look up how hard they have to train I think you will be amazed to find that motocross is one of the most physical demanding sports there is. You see my son is not included in this ban but it affects him none the less. I wish you could just experience the camaraderie displayed within this community. These are the people that will pull over to see it they can help if you a broke down on the side of the road. These are the people that will race hard against each other on the track and after the race help you out if you have a problem. Name a sport that helps out its competitor? Not many. You see this law is not right in a number of ways. The phthalate that they say is to high of a level is found in football pads, soccer pads, bicycle pads, skate boarding pads, golf clubs, golf bags, rubber balls in all sports and volley ball pads. If you look at this list, what I just described all make direct contact with the skin. So why then are they not affected?? The answer... a major revolt! You know it as well as the rest of us. Kids don’t ride their motorcycles with bare skin touching the bike. Kids don’t put the motorcycle in their mouth or lick any parts of a motorcycle. Prejudice has no reason. Uninformed people cause damage rather then help solve problems. Please get informed try to see what is being done to our kids. What message are you sending? Right now you are not being looked at as a solution but as problem. That is not how we want to educate our kids about government. Do the right thing, be there for the kids, stop this unnecessary ban and prejudice against our RIGHT to ride.
Thank you for your time. I hope this wont just generate another form letter.
Tue March 03 2009, 01:42 PM
Vetmx808Nice letter!
Still can't find how Motorcycles ended getting grouped into this...
What are phthalates?
Phthalates are a group of chemicals (oily, colorless liquids) that are used, among other things, to make vinyl and other plastics soft and flexible. Many types of phthalates are in use today. As of February 10, 2009, three have been prohibited outright in the United States for use in certain products and three more are prohibited pending further action by the Commission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What products are covered by the prohibition on the use of phthalates?
Three phthalates, DEHP, DBP, and BBP, have been permanently banned in concentrations of more than 0.1% in “children’s toys” or “child care articles.”
A
“children’s toy” is a product intended for a child 12 years of age or younger for use when playing. General use balls, bath toys/bath books, dolls and inflatable pool toys are examples of toys that are covered by the law and might contain phthalates. Bikes, playground equipment, musical instruments, and sporting goods (except for their toy counterparts) are not considered toys and therefore
not affected by the ban.
A “child care article” is a product that a child 3 years of age and younger would use for sleeping, feeding, sucking or teething. Bibs, child placemats, child utensils, feeding bottles, cribs, booster seats, pacifiers and teethers are child care articles that are covered by the law and might contain phthalates.
Three additional phthalates, DINP, DIDP, and DnOP, have been prohibited in concentrations of more than 0.1% pending further study and review by the Commission and a group of outside experts. This interim prohibition applies to: (a) child care articles, and (b) toys that can be placed in a child’s mouth or brought to the mouth and kept in the mouth so that it can be sucked or chewed (for example: squeeze toys, teethers, bathtub toys and uninflated pool toys).
Sat April 18 2009, 08:13 AM
AaronSTATEMENT 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.
It seems that this means that as soon as their staff posts the stay to the Federal Register, and whatever statutory time limit passes, the stay will be official
The way I understand this is that they are going to give the OEM's reasonable time to come into some form of compliance. I am no lawyer though.. .
Bikes are not a threat but a motorcycles ,ATV,s are??? huh??? 