May 6, 2009

Notice of Stay of Enforcement Pertaining to Youth Motorized Recreational Vehicles

The CPSC has granted a stay of enforcement of the lead content requirements in the CPSIA with respect to certain parts of motorized recreational vehicles designed or intended primarily for children 12 years or age or younger, namely youth all terrain vehicles, youth off-road motorcycles and youth snowmobiles, until May 1, 2011 However the stay is conditioned on 11 conditions. The first deadline for compliance to qualify under the stay is 60 days from the publication of the stay (May 4, 2009). By that time all distributors and or manufacturers of the affected parts have to file a report identifying all the problem areas on the products they sell. Then by November 1, 2009 provide a plan to fix the lead issue. An extension of the stay must be requested before December 1, 2010. These reports and numerous other requirements detailed below are quite onerous and came about due to the nature of the relief requested and arguments made by the industry. Not much has been mentioned about these deadlines or requirements in conditions A-K in the stay (at the end of the stay below). Failure to comply with these provisions means your company will not be able to take advantage of this stay.

There are a number of other issues with this ruling. We suspect that a similar stay my be granted for the bicycle industry. We also think that the more stays that come out of the CPSC the less likely Congress will Act to fix the law as it will reduce the urgency and Congress will move on the something else. Pressure is the only way things get done in Congress. Also we have new CPSC commissioners and a chairperson coming in midstream so everything could change in the next few months in terms of the CPSC's direction. The other big question is whether these stays will get challenged in court just like the CPSC's guessing at Congressional intent with the phthalate retroactivity provisions. The issue here might be whether the CPSC has any right to stay enforcement.

This stay and its conditions are yet more government intrusion into how products are made. Sure substitutes for lead (brass) can be found but at higher cost and in some cases substitutes which are not as good. And we all know how consumers like high costs. The other problem is that the changes that will be needed in products intended for children 12 and under will likely need to be implemented throughout the product line to reduce costs. The crux of the problem remains: if there is a brass part containing lead how much lead could get into a child by touching it and assuming the lead was absorbed, would it be in an amount greater than what the child would get from other sources. I think this is where the science runs into problems. The Stay also hinted at the other problem with just focusing all its efforts on lead content and failing to enforce other laws. The number of children killed by lead exposure in ATV's is zero, vs kids killed through improper use or lack of parental supervision. Once gain we are losing sight of the big picture and the ultimate goal; doing what is most likely to save the most lives.

Quite frankly the conditions set up by the CPSC to qualify for this stay are almost as onerous as the law itself. This stay is no gift to the industry. There is much work to be done. And quickly.

read the statement of the two commissioners voting on this stay here

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 off-road 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 4, 2009
[date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER.]

Assistant Executive Director for Compliance and Field
Operations, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330
East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; e-mail


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, 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 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 sterns, 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 sterns,
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-of-Life
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 2002/9S/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.


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 mayor 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
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 on-going 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, wrongly-sized 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 non-complying
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 lead-acid 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

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 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
real-world 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

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 or age or younger, namely youth all terrain
vehicles, youth off-road motorcycles and youth
snowmobiles, until May 1, 2011, upon the following

A. The stay shall apply to youth all-terrain 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
shall remain in effect for the life of those

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

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 sixmonth
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.

Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen | | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2008 Conditions of Use