Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 223 November 19, 2014 

Part II 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

16 CFR Part 1422 

Safety Standard for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs); Proposed 

Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission voted (3–2) to publish this 

notice in the Federal Register. Chairman Elliot F. 

Kaye and Commissioners Robert S. Adler and 

Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve publication 

of the proposed rule. Commissioners Ann Marie 

Buerkle and Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against 

publication of the proposed rule. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1422 

RIN 3041–AC78 

[Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087] 

Safety Standard for Recreational OffHighway Vehicles (ROVs) 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission has determined 

preliminarily that there may be an 

unreasonable risk of injury and death 

associated with recreational off-highway 

vehicles (ROVs). To address these risks, 

the Commission proposes a rule that 

includes: lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirements that specify a 

minimum level of rollover resistance for 

ROVs and require that ROVs exhibit 

sublimit understeer characteristics; 

occupant retention requirements that 

would limit the maximum speed of an 

ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour 

(mph), unless the seat belts of both the 

driver and front passengers, if any, are 

fastened, and would require ROVs to 

have a passive means, such as a barrier 

or structure, to limit further the ejection 

of a belted occupant in the event of a 

rollover; and information requirements. 

DATES: Submit comments by February 2, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2009– 

0087, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions: Submit written 

submissions by mail/hand delivery/ 

courier to: Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If furnished at all, such 

information should be submitted in 

writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number CPSC–2009–0087, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

Submit comments related to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) aspects 

of the proposed rule to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC or 

by email: 

OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov or fax: 

202–395–6881. In addition, comments 

that are sent to OMB also should be 

submitted electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. 

CPSC–2009–0087. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Caroleene Paul, Project Manager, 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone: 301–987–2225; email: 

cpaul@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 

proposing a standard for recreational 

off-highway vehicles (ROVs).1 ROVs are 

motorized vehicles that combine offroad capability with utility and 

recreational use. Reports of ROV-related 

fatalities and injuries prompted the 

Commission to publish an advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

in October 2009 to consider whether 

there may be unreasonable risks of 

injury and death associated with ROVs. 

(74 FR 55495 (October 28, 2009)). The 

ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding 

under the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA). The Commission received 116 

comments in response to the ANPR. The 

Commission is now issuing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) that would 

establish requirements for lateral 

stability, vehicle handling, and 

occupant protection performance, as 

well as information requirements. The 

information discussed in this preamble 

is derived from CPSC staff’s briefing 

package for the NPR and from CPSC 

staff’s supplemental memorandum to 

the Commission, which are available on 

CPSC’s Web site at 

http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/

Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefing

Packages/2014/SafetyStandardfor

RecreationalOff-HighwayVehiclesProposedRule.pdf and http://www.cpsc.

gov//Global/Newsroom/FOIA/

CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/

SupplementalInformation-ROVs.pdf. 

II. The Product 

A. Products Covered 

ROVs are motorized vehicles designed 

for off-highway use with the following 

features: Four or more pneumatic tires 

designed for off-highway use; bench or 

bucket seats for two or more occupants; 

automotive-type controls for steering, 

throttle, and braking; and a maximum 

vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per 

hour (mph). ROVs are also equipped 

with rollover protective structures 

(ROPS), seat belts, and other restraints 

(such as doors, nets, and shoulder 

barriers) for the protection of occupants. 

ROVs and All-Terrain Vehicles 

(ATVs) are similar in that both are 

motorized vehicles designed for offhighway use, and both are used for 

utility and recreational purposes. 

However, ROVs differ significantly from 

ATVs in vehicle design. ROVs have a 

steering wheel instead of a handle bar 

for steering; foot pedals instead of hand 

levers for throttle and brake control; and 

bench or bucket seats rather than 

straddle seating for the occupant(s). 

Most importantly, ROVs only require 

steering wheel input from the driver to 

steer the vehicle, and the motion of the 

occupants has little or no effect on 

vehicle control or stability. In contrast, 

ATVs require riders to steer with their 

hands and to maneuver their body front 

to back and side to side to augment the 

ATV’s pitch and lateral stability. 

Early ROV models emphasized the 

utility aspects of the vehicles, but the 

recreational aspects of the vehicles have 

become very popular. Currently, there 

are two varieties of ROVs: Utility and 

recreational. Models emphasizing utility 

have larger cargo beds, higher cargo 

capacities, and lower top speeds. 

Models emphasizing recreation have 

smaller cargo beds, lower cargo 

capacities, and higher top speeds. Both 

utility and recreational ROVs with 

maximum speed greater than 30 mph 

are covered by the scope of this NPR. 

B. Similar or Substitute Products 

There are several types of off-road 

vehicles that have some characteristics 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68965 

2The data collected for the Commission’s study 

are based on information reported to the 

Commission through various sources. The reports 

are not a complete set of all incidents that have 

occurred, nor do they constitute a statistical sample 

representing all ROV-related incidents with at least 

one death or injury resulting. Additionally, 

reporting is ongoing for ROV-related incidents that 

occurred in the specified time frame. The 

Commission is expecting additional reports and 

information on ROV-related incidents that resulted 

in a death or injury and that occurred in the given 

time frame. 

that are similar to those of ROVs and 

may be considered substitutes for some 

purposes. 

Low-Speed Utility vehicles (UTVs)— 

Although ROVs can be considered to be 

a type of utility vehicle, their maximum 

speeds of greater than 30 mph 

distinguish them from low-speed utility 

vehicles, which have maximum speeds 

of 25 mph or less. Like ROVs, low-speed 

utility vehicles have steering wheels 

and bucket or bench seating capable of 

carrying two or more riders. All utility 

vehicles have both work and 

recreational uses. However, low-speed 

utility vehicles might not be good 

substitutes for ROVs in recreational uses 

where speeds higher than 30 mph are 

important. 

All-terrain vehicles (ATVs)—Unlike 

ROVs, ATVs make use of handlebars for 

steering and hand controls for operating 

the throttle and brakes. The seats on 

ATVs are intended to be straddled, 

unlike the bucket or bench seats on 

ROVs. Some ATVs are intended for 

work or utility applications, as well as 

for recreational uses; others are 

intended primarily for recreational 

purposes. ATVs are usually narrower 

than ROVs. This means that ATVs can 

navigate some trails or terrain that some 

ROVs might not be able to navigate. 

Unlike ROVs, ATVs are rider 

interactive. When riding an ATV, the 

driver must shift his or her weight from 

side to side while turning, or forward or 

backward when ascending or 

descending a hill or crossing an 

obstacle. Most ATVs are designed for 

one rider (the driver). On ATVs that are 

designed for more than one rider, the 

passenger sits behind the driver and not 

beside the driver as on ROVs. 

Go-Karts—Go-karts (sometimes called 

‘‘off-road buggies’’) are another type of 

recreational vehicle that has some 

similarities to ROVs. Go-karts are 

usually intended solely for recreational 

purposes. Some go-karts with smaller 

engines are intended to be driven by 

children 12 and younger. Some go-karts 

are intended to be driven primarily on 

prepared surfaces. These go-karts would 

not be substitutes for ROVs. Other gokarts have larger engines, full 

suspensions, can reach maximum 

speeds in excess of 30 mph, and can be 

used on more surfaces. These go-karts 

could be close substitutes for ROVs in 

some recreational applications. 

III. Risk of Injury 

A. Incident Data 

As of April 5, 2013, CPSC staff is 

aware of 550 reported ROV-related 

incidents that occurred between January 

1, 2003 and April 5, 2013; there were 

335 reported fatalities and 506 reported 

injuries related to these incidents. To 

analyze hazard patterns related to ROVs, 

a multidisciplinary team of CPSC staff 

reviewed incident reports that CPSC 

received by December 31, 2011 

concerning incidents that occurred 

between January 1, 2003 and December 

31, 2011. CPSC received 428 reports of 

ROV-related incidents that occurred 

between January 1, 2003 and December 

31, 2011, from the Injury and Potential 

Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth 

Investigation (INDP) databases. 

ROV-related incidents can involve 

more than one injury or fatality because 

the incidents often involve both a driver 

and passengers. There were a total of 

826 victims involved in the 428 

incidents. Of the 428 ROV-related 

incidents, there were a total of 231 

reported fatalities and 388 reported 

injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries 

(19 percent) could be classified as 

severe; that is, based on the information 

available, the victim has lasting 

repercussions from the injuries received 

in the incident. The remaining 207 

victims were either not injured or their 

injury information was not known. 

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 

incidents involved drivers under 16 

years of age (18 percent); 227 involved 

drivers 16 years of age or older (53 

percent); and 125 involved drivers of 

unknown age (29 percent). Of the 227 

incidents involving adult drivers, 86 (38 

percent) are known to have involved the 

driver consuming at least one alcoholic 

beverage before the incident; 52 (23 

percent) did not involve alcohol; and 89 

(39 percent) have an unknown alcohol 

status of the driver. 

Of the 619 victims who were injured 

or killed, most (66 percent) were in a 

front seat of the ROV, either as a driver 

or passenger, when the incidents 

occurred. The remaining victims were 

in the rear of the ROV or in an 

unspecified location of the ROV. 

In many of the ROV-related incidents 

resulting in at least one death, the 

Commission was able to obtain more 

detailed information on the events 

surrounding the incident through an InDepth Investigation (IDI). Of the 428 

ROV-related incidents, 224 involved at 

least one death. This includes 218 

incidents resulting in one fatality, five 

incidents resulting in two fatalities, and 

one incident resulting in three fatalities, 

for a total of 231 fatalities. Of the 224 

fatal incidents, 145 (65 percent) 

occurred on an unpaved surface; 38 (17 

percent) occurred on a paved surface; 

and 41 (18 percent) occurred on 

unknown terrain. 

B. Hazard Characteristics 

After CPSC staff determined that a 

reported incident resulting in at least 

one death or injury was ROV-related, a 

multidisciplinary team reviewed all the 

documents associated with the incident. 

The multidisciplinary team was made 

up of a human factors engineer, an 

economist, a health scientist, and a 

statistician. As part of the review 

process, each member of the review 

team considered every incident and 

coded victim characteristics, the 

characteristics of the vehicle involved, 

the environment, and the events of the 

incident.2 Below, we discuss the key 

hazard characteristics that the review 

identified. 

1. Rollover 

Of the 428 reported ROV-related 

incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved 

rollover of the vehicle, more than half 

of which occurred while the vehicle was 

in a turn (52 percent). Of the 224 fatal 

incidents, 147 (66 percent) involved 

rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of those 

incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat 

terrain. The slope of the terrain is 

unknown in 39 fatal incidents. 

A total of 826 victims were involved 

in the 428 reported incidents, including 

231 fatalities and 388 injuries. Of the 

231 reported fatalities, 150 (65 percent) 

died in an incident involving lateral 

rollover of the ROV. Of the 388 injured 

victims, 75 (19 percent) were classified 

as being severely injured; 67 of these 

victims (89 percent) were injured in 

incidents that involved lateral rollover 

of the ROV. 

2. Occupant Ejection and Seat Belt Use 

From the 428 ROV-related incidents 

reviewed by CPSC, 817 victims were 

reported to be in or on the ROV during 

the incident, and 610 (75 percent) were 

known to have been injured or killed. 

Seatbelt use is known for 477 of the 817 

victims; of these, 348 (73 percent) were 

not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the 

incident. 

Of the 610 fatally and nonfatally 

injured victims who were in or on the 

ROV, 433 (71 percent) were partially or 

fully ejected from the ROV; and 269 (62 

percent) of these victims were struck by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3NEISS is a stratified national probability sample 

of hospital emergency departments that allows the 

Commission to make national estimates of productrelated injuries. The sample consists of about 100 

of the approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that have 

at least six beds and provide 24-hour emergency 

service. Consumer product-related injuries treated 

in emergency departments of the NEISS-member 

hospitals are coded from the medical record. As 

such, information about the injury is extracted, but 

specifics about the product and its use are often not 

available. 

4CPSC Release #09–172, March 31, 2009, Yamaha 

Motor Corp. Offers Free Repair for 450, 660, and 

700 Model Rhino Vehicles. 

a part of the vehicle, such as the roll 

cage or side of the ROV, after ejection. 

Seat belt use is known for 374 of the 610 

victims; of these, 282 (75 percent) were 

not wearing a seat belt. 

Of the 225 fatal victims who were in 

or on the ROV at the time of the 

incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected 

partially or fully from the vehicle, and 

146 (75 percent) were struck by a part 

of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt 

use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected 

victims; of these, 141 (91 percent) were 

not wearing a seat belt. 

C. NEISS Data 

To estimate the number of nonfatal 

injuries associated with ROVs that were 

treated in a hospital emergency 

department, CPSC undertook a special 

study to identify cases that involved 

ROVs that were reported through the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to 

August 31, 2010.3

NEISS does not contain a separate 

category or product code for ROVs. 

Injuries associated with ROVs are 

usually assigned to an ATV product 

category (NEISS product codes 3286— 

3287) or to the utility vehicle (UTV) 

category (NEISS product code 5044). A 

total of 2,018 injuries that were related 

to ATVs or UTVs were recorded in 

NEISS between January 1, 2010 and 

August 31, 2010. The Commission 

attempted follow-up interviews with 

each victim (or a relative of the victim) 

to gather more information about the 

incidents and the vehicles involved. 

CPSC determined whether the vehicle 

involved was an ROV based on the 

make and model of the vehicle reported 

in the interviews. If the make and model 

of the vehicle was not reported, staff did 

not count the case as involving an ROV. 

A total of 688 surveys were 

completed, resulting in a 33 percent 

response rate for this survey. Of the 688 

completed surveys, 16 were identified 

as involving an ROV based on the make 

and model of the vehicle involved. It is 

possible that more cases involved an 

ROV, but it was not possible to identify 

them due to lack of information on the 

vehicle make and model. 

The estimated number of emergency 

department-treated ROV-related injuries 

occurring in the United States between 

January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 

2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 

2010, the estimated number of 

emergency department-treated, ROVrelated injuries is 3,000, with a 

corresponding 95 percent confidence 

interval of 1,100 to 4,900. 

D. Yamaha Rhino Repair Program 

CPSC staff began investigating ROVs 

following reports of serious injuries and 

fatalities associated with the Yamaha 

Rhino. In March 2009, CPSC staff 

negotiated a repair program on the 

Yamaha Rhino 450, 660, and 700 model 

ROVs to address stability and handling 

issues with the vehicles.4 CPSC staff 

investigated more than 50 incidents, 

including 46 driver and passenger 

deaths related to the Yamaha Rhino. 

The manufacturer voluntarily agreed to 

design changes through a repair 

program that would increase the 

vehicle’s lateral stability and change the 

vehicle’s handling characteristic from 

oversteer to understeer. The repair 

consisted of the following: (1) Addition 

of 50-mm spacers on the vehicle’s rear 

wheels to increase the track width, and 

(2) the removal of the rear stabilizer bar 

to effect understeer characteristics. 

CPSC staff reviewed reports of ROVrelated incidents reported to the CPSC 

between January 1, 2003 and May 31, 

2012, involving Yamaha Rhino model 

vehicles. (The data are only those 

reported to CPSC staff and are not 

representative of all incidents.) The 

number of incidents that occurred by 

quarters of a year are shown below in 

Figure 1. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68967 

After the repair program was initiated 

in March 2009, the number of reported 

incidents involving a Yamaha Rhino 

ROV decreased noticeably. 

CPSC staff also analyzed the 242 

Yamaha Rhino-related incidents 

reported to CPSC and identified 46 

incidents in which a Yamaha Rhino 

vehicle rolled over during a turn on flat 

or gentle terrain. Staff identified fortyone of the 46 incidents as involving an 

unrepaired Rhino vehicle. In 

comparison, staff identified only two of 

the 46 incidents in which a repaired 

Rhino vehicle rolled during a turn, and 

each of these incidents occurred on 

terrain with a 5 to 10 degree slope. 

Among these 41 reported incidents, 

there were no incidents involving 

repaired Rhinos rolling over on flat 

terrain during a turn. 

The Commission believes the 

decrease in Rhino-related incidents after 

the repair program was initiated can be 

attributed to the vehicle modifications 

made by the repair program. 

Specifically, correction of oversteer and 

improved lateral stability can reduce 

rollover incidents by reducing the risk 

of sudden and unexpected increases in 

lateral acceleration during a turn, and 

increasing the amount of force required 

to roll the vehicle over. CPSC believes 

that lateral stability and vehicle 

handling have the most effect on 

rollovers during a turn on level terrain 

because the rollover is caused primarily 

by lateral acceleration generated by 

friction during the turn. Staff’s review of 

rollover incidents during a turn on level 

ground indicates that repaired Rhino 

vehicles are less likely than unrepaired 

vehicles to roll over. CPSC believes this 

is further evidence that increasing 

lateral stability and correcting oversteer 

to understeer contributed to the 

decrease in Yamaha Rhino incidents. 

IV. Statutory Authority 

ROVs are ‘‘consumer products’’ that 

can be regulated by the Commission 

under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a). Section 7 of the CPSA 

authorizes the Commission to 

promulgate a mandatory consumer 

product safety standard that sets forth 

certain performance requirements for a 

consumer product or that sets forth 

certain requirements that a product be 

marked or accompanied by clear and 

adequate warnings or instructions. A 

performance, warning, or instruction 

standard must be reasonably necessary 

to prevent or reduce an unreasonable 

risk or injury. Id. 

Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the 

procedure the Commission must follow 

to issue a consumer product safety 

standard under section 7. In accordance 

with section 9, the Commission may 

commence rulemaking by issuing an 

ANPR; as noted previously, the 

Commission issued an ANPR on ROVs 

in October 2009. Section 9 authorizes 

the Commission to issue an NPR 

including the proposed rule and a 

preliminary regulatory analysis in 

accordance with section 9(c) of the 

CPSA and request comments regarding 

the risk of injury identified by the 

Commission, the regulatory alternatives 

being considered, and other possible 

alternatives for addressing the risk. Id. 

2058(c). Next, the Commission will 

consider the comments received in 

response to the proposed rule and 

decide whether to issue a final rule 

along with a final regulatory analysis. 

Id. 2058(c)–(f). The Commission also 

will provide an opportunity for 

interested persons to make oral 

presentations of the data, views, or 

arguments, in accordance with section 

9(d)(2) of the CPSA. Id. 2058(d)(2). 

According to section 9(f)(1) of the 

CPSA, before promulgating a consumer 

product safety rule, the Commission 

must consider, and make appropriate 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.000</GPH>
68968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5SEA’s reports are available on CPSC’s Web site 

at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research-Statistics/

Sports-Recreation/ATVs/Technical-Reports/. 

6NHTSA, 68 FR 59250, ‘‘Consumer Information; 

New Car Assessment Program; Rollover 

Resistance,’’ (Oct. 14, 2003). 

findings to be included in the rule, 

concerning the following issues: (1) The 

degree and nature of the risk of injury 

that the rule is designed to eliminate or 

reduce; (2) the approximate number of 

consumer products subject to the rule; 

(3) the need of the public for the 

products subject to the rule and the 

probable effect the rule will have on 

utility, cost, or availability of such 

products; and (4) the means to achieve 

the objective of the rule while 

minimizing adverse effects on 

competition, manufacturing, and 

commercial practices. Id. 2058(f)(1). 

According to section 9(f)(3) of the 

CPSA, to issue a final rule, the 

Commission must find that the rule is 

‘‘reasonably necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with such product’’ and that 

issuing the rule is in the public interest. 

Id. 2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). In addition, if a 

voluntary standard addressing the risk 

of injury has been adopted and 

implemented, the Commission must 

find that: (1) The voluntary standard is 

not likely to eliminate or adequately 

reduce the risk of injury, or that (2) 

substantial compliance with the 

voluntary standard is unlikely. Id. 

2058(f)(3(D). The Commission also must 

find that expected benefits of the rule 

bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs and that the rule imposes the least 

burdensome requirements that would 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id. 

2058(f)(3)(E)&(F). 

Other provisions of the CPSA also 

authorize this rulemaking. Section 27(e) 

provides the Commission with authority 

to issue a rule requiring consumer 

product manufacturers to provide the 

Commission with such performance and 

technical data related to performance 

and safety as may be required to carry 

out the CPSA and to give such 

performance and technical data to 

prospective and first purchasers. Id. 

2076(e). This provision bolsters the 

Commission’s authority under section 7 

to require provision of safety-related 

information, such as hang tags. 

V. Overview of Proposed Requirements 

Based on incident data, vehicle 

testing, and experience with the 

Yamaha Rhino repair program, the 

Commission believes that improving 

lateral stability (by increasing rollover 

resistance) and improving vehicle 

handling (by correcting oversteer to 

understeer) are the most effective 

approaches to reducing the occurrence 

of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with 

higher lateral stability are less likely to 

roll over because more lateral force is 

necessary to cause rollover than an ROV 

with lower lateral stability. ROVs 

exhibiting understeer during a turn are 

less likely to rollover because steering 

control is stable and the potential for the 

driver to lose control is low. 

The Commission believes that when 

rollovers do occur, improving occupant 

protection performance (by increasing 

seat belt use) will mitigate injury 

severity. CPSC’s analysis of ROV 

incidents indicates that 91 percent of 

fatally ejected victims were not wearing 

a seat belt at the time of the incident. 

Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction 

with better shoulder retention 

performance, will significantly reduce 

injuries and deaths associated with an 

ROV rollover event. 

To address these hazards, the 

Commission is proposing requirements 

for: 

• A minimum level of rollover 

resistance of the ROV when tested using 

the J-turn test procedure; 

• A hang tag providing information 

about the vehicle’s rollover resistance 

on a progressive scale; 

• Understeer performance of the ROV 

when tested using the constant radius 

test procedure; 

• Limited maximum speed of the 

ROV when tested with occupied front 

seat belts unbuckled; and 

• A minimum level of passive 

shoulder protection when using a probe 

test. 

VI. CPSC Technical Analysis and Basis 

for Proposed Requirements 

A. Overview of Technical Work 

In February 2010, the Commission 

contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to 

conduct an in-depth study of vehicle 

dynamic performance and static rollover 

measures for ROVs. SEA evaluated a 

sample of 10 ROVs that represented the 

recreational and utility oriented ROVs 

available in the U.S. market that year. 

SEA tested and measured several 

characteristics and features that relate to 

the rollover performance of the vehicles 

and to the vehicle’s handling 

characteristics. 

In 2011, SEA designed and built a roll 

simulator to measure and analyze 

occupant response during quarter-turn 

roll events of a wide range of machines, 

including ROVs. The Commission 

contracted with SEA to conduct 

occupant protection performance 

evaluations of seven ROVs with 

differing occupant protection designs.5

B. Lateral Stability 

1. Definitions 

Following are definitions of basic 

terms used in this section. 

• Lateral acceleration: acceleration 

that generates the force that pushes the 

vehicle sideways. During a turn, lateral 

acceleration is generated by friction 

between the tires and surface. Lateral 

acceleration is expressed as a multiple 

of free-fall gravity (g). 

• Two-wheel lift: point at which the 

inside wheels of a turning vehicle lift off 

the ground, or when the uphill wheels 

of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off the 

table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor to a 

rollover event. We use the term ‘‘twowheel lift’’ interchangeably with ‘‘tipup.’’ 

• Threshold lateral acceleration: 

minimum lateral acceleration of the 

vehicle at two-wheel lift. 

• Untripped rollover: rollover that 

occurs during a turn due solely to the 

lateral acceleration generated by friction 

between the tires and the road surface. 

• Tripped rollover: rollover that 

occurs when the vehicle slides and 

strikes an object that provides a pivot 

point for the vehicle to roll over. 

2. Static Measures to Evaluate ROV 

Lateral Stability 

CPSC and SEA evaluated the static 

measurements of the static stability 

factor (SSF) and tilt table ratio (TTR) to 

compare lateral stability of a group of 10 

ROVS. 

a. Static Stability Factor (SSF) 

SSF approximates the lateral 

acceleration in units of gravitational 

acceleration (g) at which rollover begins 

in a simplified vehicle that is assumed 

to be a rigid body without suspension 

movement or tire deflections. NHTSA 

uses rollover risk as determined by 

dynamic test results and SSF values to 

evaluate passenger vehicle rollover 

resistance for the New Car Assessment 

Program (NCAP).6 SSF relates the track 

width of the vehicle to the height of the 

vehicle center of gravity (CG), as shown 

in Figure 2. Loading condition is 

important because CG height and track 

width vary, depending on the vehicle 

load condition. Mathematically, the 

relationship is track width (T) divided 

by two times the CG height (H), or 

SSF=T/2H. Higher values for SSF 

indicate higher lateral stability, and 

lower SSF values indicate lower lateral 

stability. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68969 

7Heydinger, Gary J., et al, The Design of a Vehicle 

Inertia Measurement Facility, SAE 950309, 1995. 

8ROHVA developed ANSI/ROHVA 1 for 

recreation-oriented ROVs and OPEI developed 

ANSI/OPEI B71.0 for utility-oriented ROVs. 

SEA measured track width and CG 

height values for the sample group of 10 

ROVs. SEA used their Vehicle Inertia 

Measurement Facility (VIMF), which 

incorporates the results of five different 

tests to determine the CG height. SEA 

has demonstrated that VIMF CG height 

measurements are repeatable within 

±0.5 percent of the measured values.7

Using the CG height and track width 

measurement, SEA calculated SSF 

values for several different load 

conditions. (See Table 1). 

TABLE 1—SSF VALUES

Vehicle rank 

(SSF) SSF 

F ............................................ 0.881 

A ........................................... 0.887 

H ........................................... 0.918 

TABLE 1—SSF VALUES—Continued 

Vehicle rank 

(SSF) SSF 

B ........................................... 0.932 

D ........................................... 0.942 

J ............................................ 0.962 

E ........................................... 0.965 

C ........................................... 0.991 

G ........................................... 1.031 

I ............................................. 1.045 

b. Tilt Table Ratio (TTR) 

SEA conducted tilt table tests on the 

ROV sample group. In this test, the 

vehicles in various loaded conditions 

were placed on a rigid platform, and the 

angle of platform tilt was increased (see 

Figure 3) until both upper wheels of the 

vehicle lifted off the platform. The 

platform angle at two-wheel lift is the 

Tilt Table Angle (TTA). The 

trigonometric tangent of the TTA is the 

Tilt Table Ratio (TTR). TTA and TTR 

are used to evaluate the stability of the 

vehicle. Larger TTA and TTR generally 

correspond to better lateral stability, 

except these measures do not account 

for dynamic tire deflections or dynamic 

suspension compliances. Tilt testing is 

a quick and simple static test that does 

not require sophisticated 

instrumentation. Tilt testing is used as 

a rollover metric in the voluntary 

standards created by the Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicle Association 

(ROHVA) and the Outdoor Power 

Equipment Institute (OPEI). TTA and 

TTR values measured by SEA are shown 

in Table 2.8


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.001</GPH> EP19NO14.002</GPH>
68970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A 

Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test 

Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, 

Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light 

Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 

513. 

10Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A 

Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test 

Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, 

Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light 

Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 

513. 

TABLE 2—TTA AND TTR VALUES

Vehicle 

rank 

(TTA) 

TTA 

(deg.) 

Vehicle 

rank 

(TTR) 

TTR 

A .............. 33.0 A ............. 0.650 

B .............. 33.6 B ............. 0.664 

D ............. 33.7 D ............. 0.667 

I ............... 35.4 I ............... 0.712 

H ............. 35.9 H ............. 0.724 

J .............. 36.1 J .............. 0.730 

F .............. 36.4 F .............. 0.739 

E .............. 38.1 E ............. 0.784 

C ............. 38.8 C ............. 0.803 

G ............. 39.0 G ............. 0.810 

Because ROVs are designed with long 

suspension travel and soft tires for offroad performance, staff was concerned 

that SSF and TTR would not accurately 

characterize the dynamic lateral 

stability of the vehicle. Therefore, 

CPSC’s contractor, SEA, conducted 

dynamic J-turn tests to determine 

whether SSF or TTR measurement 

corresponded with actual dynamic 

measures for lateral stability. 

3. Dynamic Test To Measure ROV 

Lateral Stability—the J-Turn Test 

In 2001, NHTSA evaluated the J-turn 

test (also called drop-throttle J-turn 

testing and step-steer testing) as a 

method to measure rollover resistance of 

automobiles. NHTSA found the J-turn 

test to be the most objective and 

repeatable method for vehicles with low 

rollover resistance. Specifically, the Jturn test is objective because a 

programmable steering machine turns 

the steering wheel during the test, and 

the test results show that the vehicle 

speed, lateral acceleration, and roll 

angle data observed during J-turn tests 

were highly repeatable.9 However, 

NHTSA determined that although the Jturn test is the most objective and 

repeatable method for vehicles with low 

rollover resistance, the J-turn test is 

unable to measure the high rollover 

resistance of most passenger 

automobiles.10 On pavement where a 

high-friction surface creates high lateral 

accelerations, vehicles with high 

rollover resistance (such as passenger 

automobiles) will lose tire traction and 

slide in a severe turn rather than roll 

over. The threshold lateral acceleration 

cannot be measured because rollover 

does not occur. In contrast, vehicles 

with low rollover resistance exhibit 

untripped rollover on a pavement 

during a J-turn test, and the lateral 

acceleration at rollover threshold can be 

measured. Thus, the J-turn test is the 

most appropriate method to measure the 

rollover resistance of ROVs because 

ROVs exhibit untripped rollover during 

the test. 

J-turn tests are conducted by driving 

the test vehicle in a straight path, 

releasing (dropping) the throttle, and 

rapidly turning the steering wheel to a 

specified angle once the vehicle slows 

to a specified speed. The steering wheel 

angle and vehicle speed are selected to 

produce two-wheel lift of the vehicle. 

Outriggers, which are beams that extend 

to either side of a vehicle, allow the 

vehicle to roll but prevent full rollover. 

The sequence of events in the test 

procedure is shown in Figure 4. SEA 

conducted drop-throttle J-turn tests to 

measure the minimum lateral 

accelerations necessary to cause twowheel lift (shown in Step 3 of Figure 4) 

for each vehicle. Side loading of the 

vehicle occurs naturally as a result of 

the lateral acceleration that is created in 

the J-turn and this lateral acceleration 

can be measured and recorded. The 

lateral acceleration produced in the turn 

is directly proportional to the side 

loading force acting to overturn the 

vehicle according to the equation F = 

(m)(Ay), where F is force, m is the mass 

of the vehicle, and Ay is lateral 

acceleration. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68971 

SEA conducted the J-turn testing at 30 

mph. A programmable steering 

controller input the desired steering 

angles at a steering rate of 500 degrees 

per second for all vehicles. The chosen 

steering rate of 500 degrees per second 

is high enough to approximate a step 

input, but still within the capabilities of 

a driver. (A step input is one that 

happens instantly and requires no time 

to complete. For steering input, time is 

required to complete the desired 

steering angle, so a steering step input 

is approximated by a high angular rate 

of steering input.) SEA conducted 

preliminary tests by starting with a 

relatively low steering angle of 80 to 90 

degrees and incrementally increasing 

the steering angle until two-wheel lift 

was achieved. When SEA determined 

the steering angle that produced a twowheel lift, SEA conducted the test run 

for that vehicle load condition. For each 

test run, SEA recorded the speed, 

steering angle, roll rate, and acceleration 

in three directions (longitudinal, lateral, 

and vertical). SEA processed and 

plotted the data to determine the 

minimum lateral acceleration required 

for two-wheel lift of the vehicle. 

The J-turn test is a direct measure of 

the minimum or threshold lateral 

acceleration required to initiate a 

rollover event, or tip-up of the test 

vehicle when turning. ROVs that exhibit 

higher threshold lateral acceleration 

have a higher rollover resistance or are 

more stable than ROVs with lower 

threshold lateral accelerations. Each of 

the 10 ROVs tested in the study by SEA 

exhibited untripped rollover in the Jturn tests at steering wheel angles 

ranging from 93.8 to 205 degrees and 

lateral accelerations ranging from 0.625 

to 0.785 g. Table 3 shows the vehicles 

arranged in ascending order for 

threshold lateral acceleration (Ay) at tip 

up, SSF, TTA, and TTR. Table 3 

illustrates the lack of correlation of the 

static metrics (SSF, TTA, or TTR) with 

the direct dynamic measure of threshold 

lateral acceleration (Ay) at tip up. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.003</GPH>
68972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11Heydinger, G. (2013). Repeatability of J-Turn 

Testing of Four Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. 

Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/

Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Sportsand-Recreation/ATVs/SEAReporttoCPSCRepeatabilityTestingSeptember%202013.pdf. 

TABLE 3 

Vehicle rank (A)y Ay(g) SSF TTR 

D .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.625 0.942 0.667 

B ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.655 0.932 0.664 

A ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.670 0.887 0.650 

J ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.670 0.962 0.730 

I ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.675 1.045 0.712 

F ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.690 0.881 0.739 

E ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.700 0.965 0.784 

H .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.705 0.918 0.724 

C .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.740 0.991 0.803 

G .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.785 1.031 0.810 

Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011). Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for Vehicle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf. 

SEA also conducted J-turn tests on 

four ROVs to measure the repeatability 

of the lateral acceleration measurements 

and found the tests to be very 

repeatable.11 The results of the 

repeatability tests indicate the standard 

deviation for sets of 10 test runs 

(conducted in opposite directions and 

left/right turn directions) ranged from 

0.002 g to 0.013 g. 

Comparison of the SSF, TTR, and Ay

values for each ROV indicate that there 

is a lack of correspondence between the 

static metrics (SSF and TTR) and the 

direct measurement of threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover. Static metrics 

cannot be used to evaluate ROV rollover 

resistance because static tests are unable 

to account fully for the dynamic tire 

deflections and suspension compliance 

exhibited by the ROVs during a J-turn 

maneuver. Therefore, the Commission 

believes that the lateral acceleration 

threshold at rollover is the most 

appropriate metric to use when 

measuring and comparing rollover 

resistance for ROVs. 

C. Vehicle Handling 

1. Basic Terms 

• Understeer: Path of vehicle during a 

turn in which the vehicle steers less into 

a turn than the steering wheel angle 

input by the driver. If the driver does 

not correct for the understeer path of the 

vehicle, the vehicle continues on a 

straighter path than intended (see Figure 

5). 

• Oversteer: Path of vehicle during a 

turn in which the vehicle steers more 

into a turn than the steering wheel angle 

input by the driver. If the driver does 

not correct for the oversteer path of the 

vehicle, the vehicle spirals into the turn 

more than intended (see Figure 5). 

• Sub-limit understeer or sub-limit 

oversteer: Steering condition that occurs 

while the tires have traction on the 

driving surface. 

• Limit understeer or limit oversteer: 

Steering condition that occurs when the 

traction limits of the tires have been 

reached and the vehicle begins to slide. 

2. Staff’s Technical Work 

a. Constant Radius Test 

SAE International (formerly Society of 

Automotive Engineers) standard, SAE 

J266, Surface Vehicle Recommended 

Practice, Steady-State Directional 

Control Test Procedures for Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks, establishes test 

procedures to measure the vehicle 

handling properties of passenger cars 

and light trucks. ROVs obey the same 

principles of motion as automobiles 

because ROVs and automobiles share 

key characteristics, such as pneumatic 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68973 

12See Tab A of the CPSC staff’s briefing package. 

tires, a steering wheel, and springdamper suspension that contribute to 

the dynamic response of the vehicle.12

Thus, the test procedures to measure the 

vehicle handling properties of passenger 

cars and light trucks are also applicable 

to ROVs. 

SEA used the constant radius test 

method, described in SAE J266, to 

evaluate the sample ROVs’ handling 

characteristics. The test consists of 

driving each vehicle on a 100 ft. radius 

circular path from very low speeds, up 

to the speed where the vehicle 

experiences two-wheel lift or cannot be 

maintained on the path of the circle. 

The test vehicles were driven in the 

clockwise and counterclockwise 

directions. For a constant radius test, 

‘‘understeer’’ is defined as the condition 

when the steering wheel angle required 

to maintain the circular path increases 

as the vehicle speed increases because 

the vehicle is turning less than 

intended. ‘‘Neutral steer’’ is defined as 

the condition when the steering wheel 

angle required to maintain the circular 

path is unchanged as the vehicle speed 

increases. ‘‘Oversteer’’ is defined as the 

condition when the average steering 

wheel input required to maintain the 

circular path decreases as the vehicle 

speed increases because the vehicle is 

turning more than intended. 

SEA tested 10 ROVs; five of those 

vehicles (A, D, F, I, and J) exhibited sublimit transitions to oversteer when 

tested on asphalt (see Figure 6). The five 

remaining vehicles (B, C, E, G, and H) 

exhibited a sub-limit understeer 

condition for the full range of the test. 

b. Slowly Increasing Steer (SIS) Test 

SAE J266, Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice, Steady-State 

Directional Control Test Procedures for 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, also 

establishes test procedures for the 

Constant Speed Variable Steer Angle 

Test. SEA calls this test the ‘‘constant 

speed slowly increasing steer (SIS) test.’’ 

During the SIS test, the ROV driver 

maintains a constant speed of 30 mph, 

and the vehicle’s steering wheel angle is 

slowly increased at a rate of 5 degrees 

per second until the ROV reaches a 

speed limiting condition or tip-up. A 

programmable steering controller (PSC) 

was used to increase the steering angle 

at a constant rate of 5 degrees per 

second. During the test, instrumentation 

for speed, steering angle, lateral 

acceleration, roll angle, and yaw rate 

were recorded. SEA conducted SIS tests 

on the sample of 10 ROVs. 

Figure 7 shows SIS test data plotted 

of lateral acceleration versus time for 

Vehicle A and Vehicle H. Vehicle H is 

the same model vehicle as Vehicle A, 

but Vehicle H is a later model year, 

where the sub-limit oversteer has been 

corrected to understeer. 

Plots from the ROV SIS tests in Figure 

7 illustrate a sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration that is found only in 

vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. 

The sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration is exponential and 

represents a dynamically unstable 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.005</GPH>
68974 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13 (Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 

204–205.) 

14 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers. 

15 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 

204–205; Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of 

Vehicle Design Parameters on Characteristic Speed 

and Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957). 

Research in the Fundamentals of Automobile 

Control and Stability. SAE 570044. 

condition.13 This condition is 

undesirable because it can cause a 

vehicle with high lateral stability (such 

as a passenger car) to spin out of 

control, or it can cause a vehicle with 

low lateral stability (such as an ROV) to 

roll over suddenly. 

When Vehicle A reached its 

dynamically unstable condition, the 

lateral acceleration suddenly increased 

from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 

g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle 

rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle 

prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) 

In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a 

point where the lateral acceleration 

increases exponentially because the 

condition does not develop in 

understeering vehicles.14 The increase 

in Vehicle H’s lateral acceleration 

remains linear, and the lateral 

acceleration increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 

g (same difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 

5.5 seconds. 

SEA test results indicate that ROVs 

that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also 

exhibited a sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration that caused the vehicle to 

roll over. An ROV that exhibits this 

sudden increase in lateral acceleration 

is directionally unstable and 

uncontrollable.15

Plots of the vehicle path during SIS 

tests illustrate further how an 

oversteering ROV (Vehicle A) will roll 

over earlier in a turn than an 

understeering ROV (Vehicle H), when 

the vehicles are operated at the same 

speed and steering rate (see Figure 8). 

Vehicle A and Vehicle H follow the 

same path until Vehicle A begins to 

oversteer and its turn radius becomes 

smaller. Vehicle A becomes 

dynamically unstable, its lateral 

acceleration increases exponentially, 

and the vehicle rolls over suddenly. In 

contrast, Vehicle H continues to travel 

300 more feet in the turn before the 

vehicle reaches its threshold lateral 

acceleration and rolls over. A driver in 

Vehicle H has more margin (in time and 

distance) to correct the steering to 

prevent rollover than a driver in Vehicle 

A because Vehicle H remains in 

understeer during the turn, while 

Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and 

becomes dynamically unstable. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68975 

The Commission believes that tests 

conducted by SEA provide strong 

evidence that sub-limit oversteer in 

ROVs is an unstable condition that can 

lead to a rollover incident, especially 

given the low rollover resistance of 

ROVs. All ROVs that exhibited sub-limit 

oversteer reached a dynamically 

unstable condition during a turn where 

the increase in lateral acceleration 

suddenly became exponential. The 

CPSC believes this condition can 

contribute to ROV rollover on level 

ground, and especially on pavement. 

D. Occupant Protection 

1. Overview and Basic Terms 

The open compartment configuration 

of ROVs is intentional and allows for 

easy ingress and egress, but the 

configuration also increases the 

likelihood of complete or partial 

ejection of the occupants in a rollover 

event. ROVs are equipped with a ROPS, 

seat belts, and other restraints for the 

protection of occupants (see Figure 9). 

Occupants who remain in the ROV and 

surrounded by the ROPS, an area known 

as the protective zone, are generally 

protected from being crushed by the 

vehicle during a quarter-turn rollover. 

Seat belts are the primary restraint for 

keeping occupants within the protective 

zone of the ROPS. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.007</GPH>
68976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (1971) 

49 CFR 571.208. 

17Heiden, E. (2009). Summary of Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicle (ROV) Hazard Analysis. 

Memorandum from E. Heiden to P. Vitrano. Docket 

No. CPSC–2009–0087. Regulations.gov. 

18 Yager, T. (2011) Letter to Caroleene Paul. 18 

Apr. 2011. Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle 

Association (ROHVA) written response to CPSC 

staff’s ballot on proposed American National 

Standard ANSI/ROHVA 1–201X. 

NHTSA evaluates the occupant 

protection performance of passenger 

vehicles with tests that simulate vehicle 

collisions and tests that simulate vehicle 

rollover.16 The NHTSA tests use 

anthropometric test devices (ATDs), or 

crash test dummies, to evaluate 

occupant excursion and injury severity 

during the simulation tests. The 

occupant movement during these tests 

is called occupant kinematics. Occupant 

kinematics is defined as the occupant’s 

motion during a crash event, including 

the relative motion between various 

body parts. Occupant kinematics is an 

important element of dynamic tests 

because forces act on an occupant from 

many different directions during a 

collision or rollover. 

There are no standardized tests to 

evaluate the occupant protection 

performance of ROVs. However, a test to 

evaluate occupant protection 

performance in ROVs should be based 

on simulations of real vehicle rollover. 

In a rollover event, the vehicle 

experiences lateral acceleration and 

lateral roll. A valid simulation of an 

ROV rollover will reproduce the lateral 

acceleration and the roll rate 

experienced by an ROV during a real 

rollover event. 

2. Seat belts 

a. Seat Belt Use in Incidents 

From the 428 ROV-related incidents 

reviewed by the Commission, 817 

victims were reported to be in or on the 

ROV at the time of the incident, and 610 

(75 percent) were known to have been 

injured or killed. Seatbelt use is known 

for 477 of the 817 victims; of these, 348 

(73 percent) were not wearing a seatbelt 

at the time of the incident. 

Of the 610 fatal and nonfatal victims 

who were in or on the ROV at the time 

of the incident, 433 (71 percent) were 

ejected partially or fully from the ROV, 

and 269 (62 percent) of these victims 

were struck by a part of the vehicle, 

such as the roll cage or side of the ROV, 

after ejection. Seat belt use is also 

known for 374 of the 610 victims; of 

these, 282 (75 percent) were not wearing 

a seat belt. 

Of the 225 fatal victims who were in 

or on the ROV at the time of the 

incident, 194 (86 percent) were ejected 

partially or fully from the vehicle, and 

146 (75 percent) were struck by a part 

of the vehicle after ejection. Seat belt 

use is known for 155 of the 194 ejected 

victim; of these, 141 (91 percent) were 

not wearing a seat belt. 

A total of 826 victims were involved 

in the 428 ROV-related incidents 

reviewed the Commission’s 

multidisciplinary team. Of these 

victims, 353 (43 percent) were known to 

be driving the ROV, and 203 (24 

percent) were known to be a passenger 

in the front seat of the ROV. Of the 231 

reported fatalities, 141 (61 percent) were 

the driver of the ROV, and 49 (21 

percent) were the right front passenger 

in an ROV. 

ROHVA also performed an analysis of 

hazard and risk issues associated with 

ROV-related incidents and determined 

that lack of seat belt use is the top 

incident factor.17 ROHVA has stated: 

‘‘Based on the engineering judgment of 

its members and its review of ROV 

incident data provided by the CPSC, 

ROHVA concludes that the vast majority 

of hazard patterns associated with ROV 

rollover would be eliminated through 

proper seat belt use alone.’’ 18

a. Literature Review (Automotive) 

CPSC staff reviewed the substantial 

body of literature on seat belt use in 

automobiles. (See Tab I of staff’s briefing 

package.) Although seat belts are one of 

the most effective strategies for avoiding 

death and injury in motor vehicle 

crashes, seat belts are only effective if 

they are used. 

Strategies for increasing seat belt use 

in passenger vehicles date to January 1, 

1972, when NHTSA required all new 

cars to be equipped with passive 

restraints or with a seat belt reminder 

system that used a visual flashing light 

and audible buzzer that activated 

continuously for one minute if the 

vehicle was placed in gear with 

occupied front seat belts not belted. In 

1973, NHTSA required that all new cars 

be equipped with an ignition interlock 

that allowed the vehicle to start only if 

the driver was belted. The ignition 

interlock was meant to be an interim 

measure until passive airbag technology 

matured, but public opposition to the 

technology led Congress to rescind the 

legislation and to prohibit NHTSA from 

requiring either ignition interlocks or 

continuous audible warnings that last 

more than 8 seconds. NHTSA then 

revised the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) to require a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68977 

19Block, 1998; Bradbard et al., 1998; Harrison 

and Senserrick, 2000; Bentley et al., 2003; Boyle 

and Vanderwolf, 2003; Eby et al., 2005; Boyle and 

Lampkin, 2008. 

20Robertson, L. S. and Haddon, W. (1974). The 

Buzzer-Light Reminder System and Safety Belt Use. 

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 64, No. 8, 

pp. 814–815.; Robertson, L. S. (1975). Safety Belt 

Use in Automobiles with Starter-Interlock and 

Buzzer-Light Reminder Systems. American Journal 

of Public Health, Vol. 65, No. 12, pp. 1319–1325. 

21Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B. M. (1976). 

Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning 

Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

22Eby, D. W., Molnar, L. J., Kostyniuk, L. P., and 

Shope, J. T. (2005). Developing an Effective and 

Acceptable Safety Belt Reminder System. 19th 

International Technical Conference on the 

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, June 

6–9, 2005. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot....01/esv/

esv19/05-0171-O.pdf. 

23Lerner, N., Singer, J., Huey, R., Jenness, J. 

(2007). Acceptability and Potential Effectiveness of 

Enhanced Seat Belt Reminder System Features. 

(DOT HS 810 848). Washington, DC: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Freedman, M., 

Lerner, N., Zador, P., Singer, J., and Levi, S. (2009). 

Effectiveness and Acceptance of Enhanced Seat Belt 

Reminder Systems: Characteristics of Optimal 

Reminder Systems. (DOT HS 811 097). Washington, 

DC: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 

24 Van Houten, R., Malenfant, J.E.L., Reagan, I., 

Sifrit, K., Compton, R., & Tenenbaum, J. (2010). 

Increasing Seat Belt Use in Service Vehicle Drivers 

with a Gearshift Delay. Journal of Applied Behavior 

Analysis, 43, 369–380. 

25 Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and 

Reagan, I. (2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase 

Seat Belt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS 

811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

seat belt reminder with warning light 

and audible buzzer that lasts 4 seconds 

to 8 seconds when front seat belts are 

not fastened at the time of ignition. This 

standard still applies today (15 U.S.C. 

1410 (b)). 

Work by NHTSA indicates seat belt 

users can be separated loosely into three 

categories: Full-time users, part-time 

users, and nonusers. Part-time users and 

nonusers give different reasons for not 

wearing seat belts. Part-time seat belt 

users consistently cite forgetfulness and 

perceived low risk, such as driving short 

distances or on familiar roads, as 

reasons for not using seat belts.19

One approach to increasing vehicle 

occupant seat belt use is to provide invehicle reminders to encourage 

occupants to fasten their seat belts. 

However, possible systems vary 

considerably in design, intrusiveness, 

and, most importantly, effectiveness. 

Observational studies of cars 

equipped with the original NHTSArequired seat belt reminders found no 

significant difference in seat belt use 

among vehicles equipped with the 

continuous one minute visual-audio 

system and vehicles not equipped with 

the reminder system.20 After NHTSA 

adopted the less stringent 4-second to 8- 

second visual and audio reminder 

system requirements, NHTSA 

conducted observational and phone 

interview studies and concluded that 

the less intrusive reminder system was 

also not effective in increasing seat belt 

use.21

A national research project by the 

University of Michigan Transportation 

Research Institute endeavored to 

promote safety belt use in the United 

States by developing an effective invehicle safety belt reminder system.22

The project authors performed literature 

reviews and conducted surveys and 

focus groups to design an optimal safety 

belt reminder system. The authors 

concluded that principles for an optimal 

safety belt reminder system include the 

following: 

1. The full-time safety belt user 

should not notice the system. 

2. It should be more difficult to cheat 

on the system than to use the safety belt. 

3. Permanent disconnection of the 

system should be difficult. 

4. The system should be reliable and 

have a long life. 

5. Crash and injury risk should not be 

increased as a result of the system. 

6. System design should be based on 

what is known about the effectiveness 

and acceptability of system types and 

elements. 

7. System design should be 

compatible with the manufacturer’s 

intended purpose/goals for the system. 

NHTSA conducted a study of 

enhanced seatbelt reminder (ESBR) 

effectiveness that compared results of 

controlled experiments with field 

observations of actual seat belt use. 

Among the findings of the ESBR 

effectiveness report are: (1) Systems 

with only visual reminders are not 

effective; (2) ESBR systems, in general, 

promote greater seat belt use by 3 to 4 

percentage points; (3) more annoying 

systems are more effective, but that 

creates the challenge of designing an 

effective system that is acceptable; (4) 

potential gains in seat belt use not only 

come from simply reminding users, but 

also from motivating users, such as 

equating seat belt use with elimination 

of an annoyance; and (5) the positive 

effects of ESBRs on belt use were more 

pronounced for the low belt-use 

propensity groups.23

c. Innovative Technologies 

Automobiles. Researchers developed 

more innovative in-vehicle technology, 

beyond visual and audible warnings, to 

study the effectiveness of systems that 

hindered a vehicle function if the 

driver’s seat belt was not buckled. One 

system allowed drivers to start the 

vehicle but delayed the driver’s ability 

to place the vehicle in gear if the seat 

belt was not buckled.24 Follow-up 

systems made it more difficult for the 

driver to depress the gas pedal when the 

vehicle exceeded 20–25 mph if the 

driver’s seat belt was not buckled. Study 

participants were more receptive to the 

latter system, which was a consistent 

and forceful motivator to buckle the seat 

belt without affecting the general 

operation of the vehicle.25

ROVs. In 2010, Bombardier 

Recreation Products (BRP) introduced 

the Can-Am Commander 1000 ROV 

with a seat belt speed limiter system 

that restricts the vehicle speed to 9 mph 

if the driver’s seat belt is not buckled. 

CPSC staff performed dynamic tests to 

verify that the vehicle’s speed was 

limited when the driver’s seat belt was 

not buckled. On level ground, the 

vehicle’s speed was limited to 6 to 9 

mph when the driver was unbelted, 

depending on the ignition key and 

transmission mode selected. 

In 2013, BRP introduced the Can-Am 

Maverick vehicle as a sport-oriented 

ROV that also includes a seat belt speed 

limiter system. CPSC staff did not test 

the Maverick vehicle because a sample 

vehicle was not available for testing. 

In 2014, Polaris Industries (Polaris) 

announced that model year 2015 Ranger 

and RZR ROVs will include a seatbelt 

system that limits the speed of the 

vehicle to 15 mph if the seatbelt is not 

engaged. (Retrieved at: http://www.

weeklytimesnow.com.au/machine/

sidebyside-vehicles-soon-to-get-safetyimprovements/story-fnkerd6b1227023275396.) The Commission has 

not tested these vehicles because they 

are not yet available on the market. 

d. User Acceptance of Innovative 

Technologies in ROVs 

Studies of seat belt reminder systems 

on automobiles are an appropriate 

foundation for ROV analysis because 

ROVs are typically driven by licensed 

drivers and the seating environment is 

similar to an automobile. Staff decided 

to obtain data on ROV users’ experience 

and acceptance of seat belt reminders to 

validate the analysis. 

CPSC staff was not aware of any 

studies that provide data on the 

effectiveness of seat belt reminder 

systems on ROVs or user acceptance of 

such technologies. Therefore, the CPSC 

contracted Westat, Inc. (Westat), to 

conduct focus groups with ROV users to 

explore their opinions of seat belt 

speed-limitation systems on ROVs. 

Phase 1 of the effort involved 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26The ASE and SEA reports are available on 

CPSC’s Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/

Research-Statistics/Sports-Recreation/ATVs/

Technical-Reports/. 

conducting focus groups of ROV users 

and asking questions about ROV use 

and user opinions of the Can-Am speedlimitation system that were shown in a 

video to the participants. Results from 

Phase 1 were used to develop the 

protocol for Phase 2. Phase 2 of the 

effort conducts focus groups of ROV 

users who provide feedback after 

driving and interacting with an ROV 

equipped with a speed-limitation 

system. 

Results of Phase 1 of the Westat study 

indicate that participants: 

• Admit to being part-time seat belt 

users; 

• cite familiarity and low-risk 

perception as reasons for not wearing 

seat belts; 

• value easy ROV ingress and egress 

over seat belt use; 

• generally travel around 5 mph 

when driving on their own property, 

and overall, drive 15 to 30 mph for 

typical use; 

• had a mixed reaction to the speedlimitation technology at 10 mph; 

• were more accepting of the speedlimitation technology if the speed was 

raised to 15 mph or if the system was 

tied to a key control. 

Phase 2 of the Westat study is 

ongoing, and a report of the results is 

expected by December 2014. The results 

will provide data on ROV users’ 

acceptance of a seat belt speed 

limitation technology with a threshold 

speed of 10 mph, 15 mph, and 20 mph. 

CPSC believes the results will provide 

additional rationale for determining a 

threshold speed for a seat belt speed 

limitation technology that balances 

users acceptance (as high a speed as 

possible) with safe operation of the ROV 

without seat belt use (as low a speed as 

possible). 

3. CPSC’s Technical Work 

To explore occupant protection 

performance testing for a product for 

which no standard test protocol exists, 

CPSC staff contracted Active Safety 

Engineering (ASE) to conduct two 

exploratory pilot studies to evaluate 

potential test methods. After completion 

of the pilot studies, CPSC staff 

contracted SEA, Limited (SEA) to 

conduct occupant protection 

performance evaluation tests, based on 

a more advanced test device designed 

by SEA.26

a. Pilot Study 1 

ASE used a HYGE TM accelerator sled 

to conduct dynamic rollover 

simulations on sample ROVs, occupied 

by a Hybrid III 50th percentile male 

anthropomorphic test device (ATD). The 

HYGE TM system causes a stationary 

vehicle, resting on the test sled, to roll 

over by imparting a short-duration 

lateral acceleration to the test sled. The 

torso of an unbelted ATD ejected 

partially from the ROV during a 

simulated rollover. In comparison, the 

torso of a belted ATD remained in the 

ROV during a simulated rollover. The 

tests demonstrated that use of a seat belt 

prevented full ejection of the ATD’s 

torso. 

b. Pilot Study 2 

In a follow-up pilot study, ASE used 

a deceleration platform sled rather than 

a HYGE TM accelerator sled to impart the 

lateral acceleration to the test vehicle. 

The deceleration sled is more accurate 

than the HYGETM sled in re-creating 

the lower energy rollovers associated 

with ROVs. 

An unbelted ATD ejected fully from 

the vehicle during tests conducted at the 

rollover threshold of the ROV. In 

comparison, a belted ATD partially 

ejected from the vehicle during tests 

conducted at the same lateral 

acceleration. These exploratory tests 

with belted and unbelted occupants 

indicate the importance of using seat 

belts to prevent full ejection of the 

occupant during a rollover event. 

c. SEA Roll Simulator 

SEA designed and built a roll 

simulator to measure and analyze 

occupant response during quarter-turn 

roll events of a wide range of machines, 

including ROVs. The SEA roll simulator 

produces lateral accelerations using a 

deceleration sled and produces roll rates 

using a motor to rotate the test sled (see 

Figure 10). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68979 

SEA validated the roll simulator as an 

accurate simulation of ROV rollover and 

occupant kinematics by comparing roll 

rates, lateral accelerations, and ATD 

ejections that were created by the 

simulator with actual values measured 

during autonomous rollover. Results 

show that the roll simulator accurately 

re-creates the conditions of an ROV 

rollover. CPSC believes that the vehicle 

kinematics on the SEA rollover 

simulator accurately represent realworld events because SEA validated the 

sled kinematics against full-vehicle, 

real-world rollover events. 

SEA simulated tripped and untripped 

rollovers of seven sample ROVs using 

belted and unbelted ATD occupants. 

Plots of the head excursion data indicate 

how well the vehicle’s occupant 

protection features retain the occupant 

inside the protective zone of the ROPS 

during a roll simulation (see Figure 11). 

Head displacement plots above the 

ROPS Plane indicate the occupant’s 

head stayed inside the ROPS zone, and 

plots below the ROPS Plane indicate 

that the occupant’s head moved outside 

the ROPS zone. 

The SEA roll simulator test results 

indicate that five of the seven ROVs 

tested allowed a belted occupant’s head 

to eject outside the ROPS of the vehicle 

during a quarter-turn rollover 

simulation. The occupant protection 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.009</GPH> EP19NO14.010</GPH>
68980 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27See Tab H of the briefing package. 28See Tab H of the briefing package. 

performance of belted occupants varied 

from vehicle to vehicle, depending on 

seat belt design, passive hip and 

shoulder coverage, whether the rollover 

was tripped or untripped, and ROPS 

dimensions and geometry. 

CPSC staff analysis of the SEA roll 

simulator test results indicates that 

vehicles with the best occupant 

protection performance restricted 

movement of the occupant with 

combinations of quick-locking seat 

belts, passive coverage in the hip and 

shoulder areas of the occupant, and 

large ROPS zones around the occupant’s 

head. Rollover tests indicate that a seat 

belt is effective at preventing full 

occupant ejection, but in some cases 

where the seat belt does not lock 

quickly, partial occupant ejection still 

occurs. However, when a seat belt is 

used in conjunction with a passive 

shoulder barrier restraint, testing 

indicates that the occupant remains 

within the protective zone of the 

vehicle’s ROPS during quarter-turn 

rollover events. 

The SEA roll simulator test results 

also indicate that unbelted occupants 

are partially or fully ejected from all 

vehicles, regardless of the presence of 

other passive restraints, such as hip 

restraints or shoulder restraints. 

Although passive shoulder barriers may 

not provide substantial benefit for 

occupant protection in unbelted 

rollovers, the roll simulator test results 

indicate that shoulder restraints 

significantly improved occupant 

containment when used in conjunction 

with a seat belt. 

Although the SEA roll simulator is the 

most advanced test equipment viewed 

by the Commission, to date, and the test 

results provide clear evidence of 

occupant head excursion, not enough 

test data have been generated to base 

dynamic occupant protection 

performance test requirements on a 

device like the roll simulator. Therefore, 

the Commission is using the roll 

simulator test results to focus on 

occupant protection requirements that 

maximize occupant retention through 

seat belt use with passive shoulder 

restraint. 

d. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Occupant 

Protection Tests 

CPSC staff tested 10 sample ROVs to 

the occupant retention system (ORS) 

zone requirements specified in ANSI/

ROHVA 1–2011. Requirements are 

specified for Zone 1—Leg/Foot, Zone 

2—Shoulder/Hip, Zone 3—Arm/Hand, 

and Zone 4—Head/Neck. CPSC focused 

on the requirements for Zone 2 because 

occupant ejection occurs in this zone.27

ANSI/ROHVA Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip 

requirements allow the vehicle to pass 

one of two different test methods to 

meet that zone’s requirement. Under the 

first option, a construction-based 

method defines an area near the 

occupant’s side that must be covered by 

a passive barrier. The test involves 

applying a 163-lbf. load at a point in the 

defined test area without failure or 

deformation of the barrier. Under the 

second option, a performance-based 

method specifies a tilt table test with a 

vehicle occupied by a belted test 

dummy. When the vehicle is tilted to 45 

degrees on the tilt table, the ejection of 

the dummy must not exceed 5 inches 

beyond the vehicle width. 

Results of CPSC tests indicate that 

only four of 10 vehicles passed the 

construction-based test requirements, 

and eight of 10 vehicles passed the 

performance-based test requirements.28

CPSC analysis identified a primary 

weakness with the performance-based 

tilt table tests. The performance-based 

test criteria measure the torso excursion 

outside the vehicle width, not the 

excursion outside the protective zone of 

the ROPS. An occupant must remain 

inside the envelope of the ROPS to be 

protected; therefore, the requirement 

allows an inherently unsafe condition 

where the occupant moves outside the 

protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS. 

CPSC measured the difference 

between the outermost point of the ROV 

and the outermost point on the ROPS 

near the occupant’s head (see Figure 

12). On one vehicle, the vehicle’s 

maximum width was 6.75 inches 

outside the maximum ROPS width near 

the occupant’s head. Because the 

requirement is based on a 5-inch 

limitation beyond the vehicle width, the 

occupant’s torso could be 11.75 inches 

(6.75 inches plus 5 inches) outside of 

the vehicle ROPS and still meet the 

performance-based requirement. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68981 

CPSC also compared the occupant 

head excursion relative to the torso 

excursion during the tilt table tests. Due 

to occupant rotation during the tests, the 

maximum head displacement exceeded 

the torso displacement by up to 3 

inches. The discrepancy between head 

and torso displacement and between the 

vehicle width and ROPS’ width can 

result in occupant head ejection that is 

14.75 inches (11.75 inches plus 3 

inches) outside the protective zone of 

the ROPS and still meet the 

performance-based requirement. 

VII. Relevant Existing Standards 

A. Background 

Two different organizations 

developed separate voluntary standards 

for ROVs. The Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicle Association (ROHVA) 

developed ANSI/ROHVA 1, American 

National Standard for Recreational OffHighway Vehicles, and the Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) 

developed ANSI/OPEI B71.9, American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. 

ROHVA member companies include: 

Arctic Cat, BRP, Honda, John Deere, 

Kawasaki, Polaris, and Yamaha. Work 

on ANSI/ROHVA 1 started in 2008, and 

work completed with the publication of 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2010. The standard 

was immediately opened for revision, 

and a revised standard, ANSI/ROHVA 

1–2011, was published in July 2011. 

OPEI member companies include: 

Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and 

Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was 

started in 2008, and work was 

completed with the publication of 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 in March 2012. 

Both voluntary standards address 

design, configuration, and performance 

aspects of ROVs, including 

requirements for accelerator and brake 

controls; service and parking brake/

parking mechanism performance; lateral 

and pitch stability; lighting; tires; 

handholds; occupant protection; labels; 

and owner’s manuals. 

CPSC staff participated in the canvass 

process used to develop consensus for 

ANSI/ROHVA 1 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9. 

From June 2009 to the present, CPSC 

staff has engaged actively with ROHVA 

and OPEI through actions that include 

the following: 

• Sending correspondence to ROHVA 

and OPEI with comments on voluntary 

standard ballots that outlined CPSC 

staff’s concerns that the voluntary 

standard requirements for lateral 

stability are too low, that requirements 

for vehicle handling are lacking, and 

that requirements for occupant 

protection are not robust; 

• Participating in public meetings 

with ROHVA and OPEI to discuss 

development of the voluntary standard 

and to discuss static and dynamic tests 

performed by contractors on behalf of 

CPSC staff; 

• Sharing all CPSC contractor reports 

with test results of static and dynamic 

tests performed on ROVs by making all 

reports available on the CPSC Web site; 

• Requesting copies of test reports on 

dynamic tests performed on ROVs by 

ROHVA for CPSC staff to review; 

• Demonstrating dynamic test 

procedures and data collection to 

ROHVA and OPEI at a public meeting 

at an outdoor test facility in East 

Liberty, OH; and 

• Submitting suggested changes and 

additions to the ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 

voluntary standard to improve lateral 

stability, vehicle handling, and 

occupant protection (OPEI was copied). 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 was published 

in July 2011, without addressing CPSC 

staff’s concerns. CPSC staff requested, 

but has not received reports or test 

results of static or dynamic tests 

conducted by contractors on behalf of 

ROHVA. 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 was 

published in March 2012, without 

addressing CPSC staff’s concerns. 

On August 29, 2013, CPSC staff sent 

a letter to ROHVA with suggested 

modifications to the voluntary standard 

requirements to address staff’s concerns. 

CPSC staff sent a courtesy copy of the 

August 29, 2013 recommendation letter 

to OPEI. On November 27, 2013, 

ROHVA responded that ROHVA plans 

to adopt less stringent versions of CPSC 

staff’s suggested requirements to 

improve the lateral stability and 

occupant protection performance of 

ROVs. On March 13, 2014, ROHVA sent 

CPSC staff the Canvass Draft of 

proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011. Staff responded to the Canvass 

Draft on May 23, 2014, and summarized 

why staff believes ROHVA’s proposed 

requirements will not reduce the 

number of deaths and injuries from 

ROVs. The discussion below also 

provides that explanation. On 

September 24, 2014, ANSI approved the 

proposed revisions to ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011, which is identical to the Canvass 

Draft. ROHVA has advised that the 

revised standard will soon be published 

as ANSI/ROHVA 1–2014. In addition, 

CPSC staff met with representatives 

from ROHVA and OPEI on October 23, 

2014. Following is a link to the video of 

this meeting: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/

Newsroom/Multimedia/?vid=70952. 

On February 21, 2014, OPEI sent a 

letter to CPSC staff requesting that the 

CPSC exclude from CPSC’s rulemaking 

efforts multipurpose off-highway utility 

vehicles (MOHUVs) that meet the ANSI/ 

OPEI B71.9–12 standard requirements. 

We address this request in the response 

to comments section of this preamble 

(Section VIII). 

B. Voluntary Standards Provisions 

Related to the Proposed Rule 

In this section, we summarize the 

provisions of the voluntary standards 

that are related to the specific 

requirements the Commission is 

proposing and we assess the adequacy 

of these voluntary standard provisions. 

1. Lateral Stability 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/

OPEI B71.9 include similar provisions 

to address static lateral stability and 

differing provisions to address dynamic 

lateral stability: 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.2 

Stability Coefficient (Kst) and ANSI/

OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 8.6 Stability 

Coefficient (Kst) specify a stability 

coefficient, Kst, which is calculated from 

the vehicle’s center of gravity location 

and track-width dimensions. The value 

of Kst for a vehicle at curb weight 

(without occupants) is required to be no 

less than 1.0. 

Adequacy: The Commission believes 

the stability coefficient requirement 

does not adequately address lateral 

stability in ROVs because static tests are 

unable to account fully for the dynamic 

tire deflections and suspension 

compliance exhibited by ROVs in a 

dynamic maneuver. For practical 

purposes, Kst and SSF values provide 

the same information for ROVs because 

the difference in front and rear track 

widths are averaged in the SSF 

calculation. Table 4 shows the results of 

SSF measurements made by SEA for 

driver-plus-passenger load condition. A 

comparison of how the vehicles would 

rank if the SSF (or Kst) were used 

instead of the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover (Ay) illustrates 

how poorly a stability coefficient 

correlates to the actual rollover 

resistance of the vehicle. The stability 

coefficient does not account for 

dynamic effects of tire compliance, 

suspension compliance, or vehicle 

handling, which are important factors in 

the vehicle’s lateral stability. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68982 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

29Heydinger, G. J. (2011) Results from Proposed 

ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers—Vehicles 

A, F, and J. Retrieved from: http://www.cpsc.gov/

Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/

Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVA

andOPEIDynamicManeuvers.pdf.) 

TABLE 4—VEHICLE ASCENDING RANK

ORDER Ay VS. SSF 

[Operator plus passenger load] 

Vehicle 

rank 

(Ay) 

Ay

(g) 

Vehicle 

rank 

(SSF) 

SSF 

D ............. 0.625 F .............. 0.881 

B ............. 0.655 A .............. 0.887 

A ............. 0.670 H ............. 0.918 

J .............. 0.670 B .............. 0.932 

I ............... 0.675 D ............. 0.942 

F .............. 0.690 J .............. 0.962 

E ............. 0.700 E .............. 0.965 

H ............. 0.705 C ............. 0.991 

C ............. 0.740 G ............. 1.031 

G ............. 0.785 I ............... 1.045 

Adapted from: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle 

Characteristics Measurements of Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicles—Additional Results for 

Vehicle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/

PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf. 

Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested 

pass the Kst minimum of 1.0 for an 

unoccupied vehicle, as specified by 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–12. The Kst value of an ROV with 

no occupants is of limited value because 

an ROV in use has at least one occupant. 

The Commission believes the ANSI/

ROHVA and ANSI/OPEI stability 

coefficient requirement is a requirement 

that all ROVs can pass, does not reflect 

the actual use of ROVs, does not 

promote improvement in lateral 

stability, and does not correspond to the 

actual rollover resistance of ROVs. The 

Commission believes that the threshold 

lateral acceleration at rollover is a direct 

measure for rollover resistance, and its 

use would eliminate the need for a 

stability coefficient requirement. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.1 Tilt 

Table Test and ANSI/OPEI Section 8.7 

Tilt Table Stability specify tilt table tests 

in the driver-plus-passenger load 

condition and the gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) load condition. The 

minimum tilt table angle (TTA) 

requirement for an ROV with a driverplus-passenger load condition is 30 

degrees, and the minimum TTA for 

GVWR load condition is 24 degrees. 

Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt 

table requirement does not adequately 

address lateral stability in ROVs because 

static tests are unable to account fully 

for the dynamic tire deflections and 

suspension compliance exhibited by 

ROVs in a dynamic maneuver. Table 5 

shows the results of tilt table 

measurements made by SEA for driverplus-passenger load condition. A 

comparison of how the vehicles would 

rank if the TTA were used instead of the 

direct measurement of threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover (Ay) illustrates 

how poorly the TTA corresponds to the 

actual rollover resistance of the vehicle. 

The tilt table test does not account for 

dynamic effects of tire compliance, 

suspension compliance, or vehicle 

handling, which are important factors in 

the vehicle’s lateral stability. 

Furthermore, all of the ROVs tested 

passed the minimum 30 degree TTA 

requirement specified by ANSI/ROHVA 

1–2011. The ROV with the lowest 

rollover resistance, as directly measured 

by threshold lateral acceleration at 

rollover (Vehicle D, Ay = 0.625 g, TTA 

= 33.7 degrees), exceeds the voluntary 

standard TTA requirement by 3.7 

degrees, or 12 percent above the 30 

degree minimum. The ROV that was 

part of a repair program to increase its 

roll resistance, Vehicle A, exceeds the 

TTA requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 

percent above the 30 degree minimum. 

TABLE 5—VEHICLE ASCENDING RANK

ORDER AY VS. TTA 

[Operator plus passenger load] 

Vehicle 

rank 

(Ay) 

Ay

(g) 

Vehicle 

rank 

(TTA) 

TTA 

(deg.) 

D ............. 0.625 A .............. 33.0 

B ............. 0.655 B .............. 33.6 

A ............. 0.670 D ............. 33.7 

J .............. 0.670 I ............... 35.4 

I ............... 0.675 H ............. 35.9 

F .............. 0.690 J .............. 36.1 

E ............. 0.700 F .............. 36.4 

H ............. 0.705 E .............. 38.1 

C ............. 0.740 C ............. 38.8 

G ............. 0.785 G ............. 39.0 

Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics Measurements of Recreational OffHighway Vehicles—Additional Results for Vehicle J. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/

PageFiles/93928/rovj.pdf. 

The CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA 

and ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement 

does not detect inadequate rollover 

resistance. The TTA requirement in the 

voluntary standard does not correlate to 

the actual rollover resistance of ROVs, 

allows a vehicle that was part of repair 

program to pass the test without having 

undergone the repair, and provides no 

incentive for manufacturers to improve 

the lateral stability of ROVs. The CPSC 

believes the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover is a direct 

measure of rollover resistance, and its 

use would eliminate the need for a tilt 

table test requirement. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 8.3 

Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic 

stability test based on a constant steer 

angle test performed on pavement. The 

standard describes the method for 

driving the vehicle around a 25-foot 

radius circle and slowly increasing the 

speed until 0.6 g of lateral acceleration 

is achieved; or 0.6 g lateral acceleration 

cannot be achieved because the vehicle 

experiences two-wheel lift of the inside 

wheels, or the vehicle speed is limited 

and will not increase with further 

throttle input. The vehicle passes the 

dynamic test if at least eight out of 10 

test runs do not result in two-wheel lift. 

Adequacy: The CPSC does not believe 

the ANSI/ROHVA requirement 

accurately characterizes the lateral 

stability of an ROV because it does not 

measure the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover. The 

Commission is not aware of any 

standards, recognized test protocols, or 

real-world significance that supports 

using a constant steer angle test to 

assess dynamic lateral stability. 

CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct 

constant steer angle testing, as specified 

by the ROHVA standard, on vehicles A, 

F, and J of the ROV study.29 Table 6 

shows the results of the tests. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CONSTANT STEER ANGLE TEST FOR 25 FT. RADIUS PATH

Vehicle 

Turn direction 

(CW = clockwise 

CCW = counter-clockwise) 

Test end condition/limit response ROHVA Test 

pass/fail outcome 

Vehicle A .............................................. Right (CW) ........................................... Two-wheel lift ...................................... Fail. 

Left (CCW) .......................................... Two-wheel lift ...................................... Fail. 

Vehicle F .............................................. Right (CW) ........................................... Maximum Speed* ................................ Pass.** 

Left (CCW) .......................................... Maximum Speed* ................................ Pass.** 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68983 

30Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A 

Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test 

Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, 

Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light 

Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 

513. 

31 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 

309–319. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF CONSTANT STEER ANGLE TEST FOR 25 FT. RADIUS PATH—Continued 

Vehicle 

Turn direction 

(CW = clockwise 

CCW = counter-clockwise) 

Test end condition/limit response ROHVA Test 

pass/fail outcome 

Vehicle J .............................................. Right (CW) ........................................... Two-wheel lift ...................................... Fail. 

Left (CCW) .......................................... Maximum Speed/Spinout .................... Pass. 

* Maximum speed occurred very near 0.6 g of corrected lateral acceleration for Vehicle F. 

** Two-wheel lift occurred for Vehicle F after the driver slowed from maximum speed at the end of the test. 

Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers—Vehicles A, F, and J. Retrieved from http://

www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamic

Maneuvers.pdf. 

The Commission is concerned that 

ROVs with low lateral stability can pass 

ROHVA’s dynamic stability requirement 

because the small turn radius limits the 

ROV’s speed and prevents generation of 

the lateral accelerations necessary to 

assess rollover resistance (as shown by 

the results for Vehicle F). The 

Commission is also concerned that the 

effects of oversteer can allow an ROV to 

pass the test because maximum speed is 

reached by vehicle spinout (as shown by 

the results for Vehicle J). 

NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test 

protocol as a method to measure the 

rollover resistance of automobiles.30

NHTSA determined that the J-turn test 

is the most objective and repeatable 

method for vehicles with low rollover 

resistance. Vehicles with low rollover 

resistance exhibit untripped rollover on 

pavement during a J-turn test and the 

lateral acceleration at the rollover 

threshold can be measured. Lateral 

acceleration is the accepted measure by 

vehicle engineers for assessing lateral 

stability or rollover resistance.31 This 

value is commonly used by engineers to 

compare rollover resistance from one 

vehicle to another. The ANSI/ROHVA 

test protocol does not measure the 

lateral acceleration at two-wheel lift, 

and the parameters of the test appear 

tuned to allow most vehicles to pass. 

Based on CPSC’s testing and review, the 

Commission does not believe the ANSI/ 

ROHVA dynamic stability requirement 

is a true measure of rollover resistance, 

and the CPSC does not believe the 

requirement will improve the lateral 

stability of ROVs. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 8.8 

Dynamic Stability specifies a dynamic 

stability test based on a 20 mph J-turn 

maneuver performed on pavement. At a 

steering input of 180 degrees in the right 

and left directions, the vehicle shall not 

exhibit two-wheel lift. 

Adequacy: The Commission does not 

believe the ANSI/OPEI requirement 

accurately characterizes the lateral 

stability of an ROV because the ANSI/ 

OPEI requirement does not measure the 

threshold lateral acceleration at rollover. 

The Commission is not aware of any 

standards or recognized test protocols 

that support using a J-turn maneuver 

with 180 degrees of steering wheel input 

to assess dynamic lateral stability of an 

ROV. 

OPEI’s use of the J-turn maneuver 

does not measure the lateral 

acceleration at two-wheel lift that 

produces ROV rollover. There is no 

correspondence between the proposed 

ANSI/OPEI dynamic stability 

requirement and ROV lateral stability 

because the 180-degree steering wheel 

input does not correspond to a turning 

radius. For example, an ROV with a low 

steering ratio will make a sharper turn 

at 180 degrees of steering wheel input 

than an ROV with a high steering ratio. 

(The steering ratio relates the amount 

that the steering wheel is turned to the 

amount that the wheels of the vehicle 

turns. A higher steering ratio means the 

driver turns the steering wheel more to 

get the vehicle wheels to turn, and a 

lower steering ratio means the driver 

turns the steering wheel less to get the 

vehicle wheels to turn.) In the proposed 

ANSI/ROHVA J-turn test, a vehicle with 

a larger steering ratio will make a wider 

turn and generate less lateral 

acceleration than a vehicle with a 

smaller steering ratio. 

The steering ratio is set by the ROV 

manufacturer and varies depending on 

make and model. SEA measured the 

steering ratios of the 10 sample ROVs 

that were tested (see Figure 13). If the 

dynamic lateral stability requirement is 

defined by a steering wheel angle input, 

a manufacturer could increase the 

steering ratio of a vehicle to meet the 

requirement rather than improve the 

vehicle’s stability. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68984 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

32Forkenbrock, G. and Garrott, W. (2002). A 

Comprehensive Experimental Evaluation of Test 

Maneuvers That May Induce On-Road, Untripped, 

Light Vehicle Rollover Phase IV of NHTSA’s Light 

Vehicle Rollover Research Program. DOT HS 809 

513. 

33 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 

309–319. 

CPSC staff contracted SEA to conduct 

J-turn testing, as specified by the ANSI/ 

OPEI standard, on vehicles A, F, and J 

(see Table 7). 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF J-TURN TEST RESULTS

[20 mph with 180 degrees steering wheel angle input] 

Vehicle Turn direction Speed required for 2-wheel OPEI 20 mph test 

pass/fail outcome 

Vehicle A .............................................. Right .................................................... 22 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Left ....................................................... 21 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Vehicle F .............................................. Right .................................................... 21 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Left ....................................................... 22 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Vehicle J .............................................. Right .................................................... 21 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Left ....................................................... 23 mph ................................................ Pass. 

Source: Heydinger, G. (2011) Results from Proposed ROHVA and OPEI Dynamic Maneuvers—Vehicles A, F, and J. Retrieved from http://

www.cpsc.gov/Global/Research-and-Statistics/Technical-Reports/Sports-and-Recreation/ATV-ROV/ProposedROHVAandOPEIDynamic

Maneuvers.pdf. 

CPSC is concerned that ROVs with 

low lateral stability can pass OPEI’s 

dynamic stability requirement because 

an ROV that was part of a repair 

program (Vehicle A) to increase its roll 

resistance passed the ANSI/OPEI 

stability test. When the ANSI/OPEI Jturn maneuver was conducted just one 

mile above the requirement at 21 mph, 

Vehicle A failed. Similarly, when the 

maneuver was conducted at 22 mph, 

Vehicle F and Vehicle J failed. These 

results indicate that the parameters of 

the test protocol allow most ROVs to 

pass. 

NHTSA evaluated the J-turn test 

protocol as a method to measure 

rollover resistance of automobiles and 

determined that the J-turn test is the 

most objective and repeatable method 

for vehicles with low rollover 

resistance.32 Vehicles with low rollover 

resistance exhibit untripped rollover on 

pavement during a J-turn test and the 

lateral acceleration at the rollover 

threshold can be measured. Lateral 

acceleration is the accepted measure by 

vehicle engineers for assessing lateral 

stability or rollover resistance.33 This 

value is commonly used by engineers to 

compare rollover resistance from one 

vehicle to another. The ANSI/OPEI test 

protocol does not measure the lateral 

acceleration at two-wheel lift, and the 

parameters of the test appear tuned to 

allow most vehicles to pass. Based on 

CPSC’s testing and review, the CPSC 

does not believe the ANSI/OPEI 

dynamic stability requirement is a true 

measure of rollover resistance, and the 

CPSC does not believe the requirement 

will improve the lateral stability of 

ROVs. 

2. Vehicle Handling 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/

OPEI B71.9 both lack provisions to 

address vehicle handling: 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2012 do not specify a vehicle 

handling requirement. 

Adequacy: CPSC’s testing and review 

indicate that a requirement for sub-limit 

understeer is necessary to reduce ROV 

rollovers that may be produced by sublimit oversteer in ROVs. Tests 

conducted by SEA show that ROVs in 

sub-limit oversteer transition to a 

condition where the lateral acceleration 

increases suddenly and exponentially. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68985 

34 Van Houten, R., Hilton, B., Schulman, R., and 

Reagan, I. (2011). Using Haptic Feedback to Increase 

Seat Belt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers. (DOT HS 

811 434). Washington, DC: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Hilton, Bryan W. (2012). The Effect 

of Innovative Technology on Seatbelt Use. Masters 

Theses. Paper 103. 

The CPSC believes this condition can 

lead to untripped ROV rollovers or 

cause ROVs to slide into limit oversteer 

and experience tripped rollover. 

ROVs that understeer in sub-limit 

conditions do not exhibit a sudden 

increase in lateral acceleration. 

Therefore, the CPSC concludes that 

ROVs should be required to operate in 

understeer at sub-limit conditions based 

on the associated inherent dynamic 

stability of understeering ROVs and the 

smaller burden of steering correction it 

places on the average driver who is 

familiar with driving a passenger 

vehicle that operates in sub-limit 

understeer. 

SIS tests conducted by SEA that 

illustrate the sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration that is found only in 

vehicles that exhibit sub-limit oversteer. 

The sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration is exponential and 

represents a dynamically unstable 

condition. This condition is undesirable 

because it can cause a vehicle with low 

lateral stability (such as an ROV) to roll 

over suddenly. 

In Figure 14, Vehicle A is an ROV that 

transitions to oversteer; Vehicle H is the 

same model ROV, but a later model year 

in which the oversteer has been 

corrected to understeer. 

When Vehicle A reached its 

dynamically unstable condition, the 

lateral acceleration suddenly increased 

in less than 1 second, and the vehicle 

rolled over. In contrast, Vehicle H never 

reaches a dynamically unstable 

condition because the condition does 

not develop in understeering vehicles. 

The increase in Vehicle H’s lateral 

acceleration remains linear, and Vehicle 

H rolls over more than 5 seconds later 

than Vehicle A. 

3. Occupant Protection 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011and ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9 include similar provisions to 

address occupant retention during a 

rollover event. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 11.2 Seat 

Belt Reminder and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2012 Section 5.1.3.2 Seat Belt Reminder 

System specify that ROVs shall be 

equipped with a seat belt reminder 

system that activates a continuous or 

flashing warning light visible to the 

operator for at least 8 seconds after the 

vehicle is started. 

Adequacy: The CPSC believes the 

requirement for an 8-second reminder 

light is not adequate to increase 

meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs 

because the system is not intrusive 

enough to motivate drivers and 

passengers to wear their seat belts. 

Results from past studies on automotive 

seat belt reminders conclude that visual 

reminders are ineffective. Numerous 

studies also conclude that reminder 

systems must be intrusive enough to 

motivate users to buckle their seat belts. 

The more intrusive reminders are more 

effective at changing user behavior, as 

long as the reminder is not so intrusive 

that users bypass the system. 

The Commission’s analysis of ROVrelated incidents indicates that 91 

percent of fatal victims, and 73 percent 

of all victims (fatal and nonfatal), were 

not wearing a seat belt at the time of the 

incident. Without seat belt use, 

occupants experience partial to full 

ejection from the ROV, and many 

occupants are struck by the ROV after 

ejection. Based on review of ROV 

incident data and CPSC’s testing 

described above, the Commission 

believes that many ROV deaths and 

injuries can be eliminated if occupants 

are wearing seat belts. 

Automotive researchers have 

developed technology that motivates 

drivers to buckle seat belts by making it 

more difficult to drive faster than 20–25 

mph if the driver’s seat belt is not 

buckled.34 This concept shows promise 

in increasing seat belt use because the 

technology was acceptable to users and 

was 100 percent effective in motivating 

drivers to buckle their seat belts. One 

ROV manufacturer has also introduced 

a technology that limits the vehicle 

speed if the driver’s seat belt is not 

buckled. ROVs with the speedlimitation technology have been in the 

market since 2010. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.013</GPH>
68986 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Given the low seat belt use rate in 

ROV-related incidents, as well as the 

substantial potential reduction in 

injuries and deaths if seat belt use were 

higher, the CPSC believes that the 

requirement for seat belt reminders 

should be more stringent and should 

incorporate the most recent advances in 

technology developed in the automotive 

and ROV market. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 Section 11.3 ORS 

Zones specifies construction and 

performance requirements for four 

zones that cover the leg/foot, shoulder/ 

hip, arm/hand, and head/neck areas of 

an occupant. (Occupant retention 

system (ORS) is defined in ANSI/

ROHVA 1–2011 as a system, including 

three-point seat belts, for retaining the 

occupant(s) of a vehicle to reduce the 

probability of injury in the event of an 

accident.) The construction 

requirements specify a force application 

test to set minimum guidelines for the 

design of doors, nets, and other barriers 

that are intended to keep occupants 

within the protection zone of the ROPS. 

The performance requirements use a tilt 

table and a Hybrid III 50th percentile 

male anthropomorphic test device 

(ATD) to determine occupant excursion 

when the vehicle is tilted 45 degrees 

laterally. 

Adequacy: The CPSC believes the tilt 

table performance requirements for 

Zone 2—Shoulder/Hip are not adequate 

to ensure that occupants remain within 

the protective zone of the vehicle’s 

ROPS during a rollover event. The tilt 

table test method measures the torso 

ejection outside the vehicle width, not 

the ejection outside the protective zone 

of the ROPS. The CPSC’s test results 

indicate the tilt table test allows 

unacceptable occupant head excursion 

beyond the protective zone of the 

vehicle ROPS. The Commission also 

believes the tilt table test method is not 

an accurate simulation of an ROV 

rollover event because the test method 

does not reproduce the lateral 

acceleration and roll experienced by the 

vehicle, and by extension, the 

occupants, during a rollover. 

CPSC staff also believes the 

construction-based test method for Zone 

2 is inadequate because the specified 

point of application (a single point) and 

3-inch diameter test probe do not 

accurately represent contact between an 

occupant and the vehicle during a 

rollover event. Specifying a single point 

does not ensure adequate coverage 

because a vehicle with a passive barrier 

at only that point would pass the test. 

Similarly, a 3 inch diameter probe does 

not represent the upper arm of an 

occupant and therefore does not ensure 

adequate coverage. 

Voluntary Standard Requirement: 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 Section 5.1.4 

Occupant Side Retention Devices 

specifies ROVs shall be equipped with 

occupant side retention devices that 

reduce the probability of entrapment of 

a properly belted occupant’s head, 

upper torso, and limbs between the 

vehicle and the terrain, in the event of 

a lateral rollover. Physical barriers or 

design features of the vehicle may be 

used to comply with the requirement, 

but no performance tests are specified to 

determine compliance with the 

requirement. 

Adequacy: The Commission believes 

the occupant side retention 

requirements are not adequate because 

they lack performance requirements to 

gauge occupant protection performance. 

Performance requirements, based on 

occupant protection performance tests 

of ROV rollovers, are needed to ensure 

that occupants remain within the 

protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS 

during a rollover event. 

VIII. Response to Comments 

In this section, we describe and 

respond to comments to the ANPR for 

ROVs. We present a summary of each of 

the commenter’s topics, followed by the 

Commission’s response. The 

Commission received 116 comments. 

The comments can be viewed on: 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

under the docket number of the ANPR, 

CPSC–2009–0087. Letters with multiple 

and detailed comments were submitted 

by the following: 

D Joint comments submitted on behalf 

of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier 

Recreational Products Inc., Polaris 

Industries Inc., and Yamaha Motor 

Corporation, U.S.A. (Companies); 

D Carr Engineering, Inc. (CEI); 

D The OPEI/ANSI B 71.9 Committee 

(Committee); and 

D ROHVA. 

The respondents were ROV 

manufacturers and their associations, 

consultants to ROV manufacturers, and 

more than 110 consumers. Eighteen 

commenters supported developing 

regulatory standards for ROVs. The 

other commenters opposed rulemaking 

action. The commenters raised issues in 

five areas: 

• Voluntary standard activities, 

• Static stability metrics, 

• Vehicle handling, 

• Occupant protection, and 

• Consumer behavior. 

The comment topics are separated by 

category. 

Voluntary Standard Activities 

1. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies, ROHVA, and several 

individuals state that the CPSC should 

work with ROHVA to develop a 

consensus voluntary standard for ROVs. 

Response: As described in detail in 

the previous section of this preamble, 

CPSC staff has been engaged actively 

with ROHVA since 2009, to express 

staff’s concerns about the voluntary 

standard and to provide specific 

recommendations for the voluntary 

standard and supply ROHVA with 

CPSC’s test results and data supporting 

the staff’s recommendations. 

CPSC believes the history of 

engagement with ROHVA, as detailed 

above, shows that CPSC staff has tried 

to work with ROHVA to improve the 

voluntary standard requirements to 

address low lateral stability, lack of 

vehicle handling requirements, and 

inadequate occupant protection 

requirements. The Commission does not 

believe deferring to ROHVA will 

address those areas of concern because, 

although ROHVA has made changes to 

the voluntary standard, the 

requirements still do not improve the 

lateral stability of ROVs, do not 

eliminate sub-limit oversteer handling, 

and do not improve occupant protection 

in a rollover event. 

2. Comment: Comments from the 

Committee and ROHVA state that the 

Commission should defer to the current 

voluntary standards for ROVs. Several 

comments state that the current 

voluntary standards are adequate. 

Response: In the previous section of 

this preamble, we explain in detail why 

the requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 do not 

adequately address the risk of injury 

and death associated with ROVs. We 

summarize that explanation below. 

Lateral Stability. The Commission 

believes the static stability requirements 

and the dynamic lateral stability 

requirements specified in both 

voluntary standards do not measure the 

vehicle’s resistance to rollover. Static 

and dynamic tests conducted by SEA on 

a sample of ROVs available in the U.S. 

market indicate that the tests specified 

in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 and the ANSI/ 

OPEI B71.9 will not promote 

improvement in the rollover resistance 

of ROVs. 

Vehicle Handling. In addition, ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2012 do not have requirements for 

vehicle handling. The Commission 

believes that a requirement for sub-limit 

understeer is necessary to reduce ROV 

rollovers that may be produced by sublimit oversteer in ROVs. Tests 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68987 

35Westefeld, A. and Phillips, B.M. (1976). 

Effectiveness of Various Safety Belt Warning 

Systems. (DOT HS 801 953). Washington, DC: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation. 

36Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static 

Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and 

Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www.

nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/

index.html. 

37Rollover Prevention Docket No. NHTSA–2000– 

6859 RIN 2127–AC64. Retrieved from http://www.

nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/rulings/rollover/Chapt05.html. 

conducted by SEA show that ROVs in 

sub-limit oversteer transition to a 

condition where the lateral acceleration 

increases suddenly and exponentially. 

The Commission believes this runaway 

increase in lateral acceleration can lead 

to untripped ROV rollovers or cause 

ROVs to slide into limit oversteer and 

experience tripped rollover. 

Occupant Protection. ANSI/ROHVA 

1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9—2012 

require only an 8-second reminder light 

to motivate users to buckle seat belts. 

This requirement is similar to the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) seat belt reminder 

requirements for automobiles. 

Manufacturers in the automotive 

industry have long since exceeded such 

minimal seat belt reminder 

requirements because numerous studies 

have proven that the FMVSS 

requirements, and indeed visual-only 

reminders, are not effective.35

Lastly, the occupant protection 

requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 

and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 are not 

based on valid occupant protection 

performance tests that simulate 

conditions of vehicle rollover. ANSI/

OPEI B71.9–2012 does not include any 

performance requirements for occupant 

protection. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 

includes performance requirements 

based on static tilt tests that allow 

unacceptable occupant head ejection 

beyond the protective zone of the 

vehicle ROPS. 

3. Comment: On February 21, 2014, 

OPEI sent a letter to CPSC staff 

requesting that the CPSC exclude 

multipurpose off-highway utility 

vehicles (MOHUVs) from CPSC’s 

rulemaking efforts. OPEI states that 

there are key differences between workutility vehicles and recreational 

vehicles. The differences include: 

Maximum vehicle speed, engine and 

powertrain design, cargo box 

configuration and capacity, towing 

provisions, and vehicle usage. 

Response: The Commission’s 

proposed requirements for lateral 

stability, vehicle handling, and 

occupant protection are intended to 

reduce deaths and injuries caused by 

ROV rollover and occupant ejection. 

ROVs are motorized vehicles that are 

designed for off-highway use and have 

four or more tires, steering wheel, nonstraddle seating, accelerator and brake 

pedals, ROPS, restraint system, and 

maximum vehicle speed greater than 30 

mph. 

‘‘MOHUVs,’’ as defined by ANSI/

OPEI B71.9–2012, are vehicles with four 

or more wheels, a steering wheel, nonstraddle seating, and maximum speed 

between 25 and 50 mph. Therefore, the 

Commission believes that an MOHUV 

that exceeds 30 mph is an ROV that is 

subject to the scope of the proposed 

rulemaking. The differences cited by 

OPEI between work-utility vehicles and 

recreational vehicles, e.g., the cargo 

capacity or the powertrain of a vehicle, 

do not exclude these ROVs from the 

hazard of rollover and occupant 

ejection. 

Static Stability Metrics 

1. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that the Static Stability Factor 

(SSF), defined as T/2H, is not an 

appropriate metric for stability because 

there is no correlation between SSF 

values and ROV rollovers. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that the SSF is not an appropriate metric 

for ROV lateral stability because CPSC 

staff compared the actual lateral 

acceleration at rollover threshold of 

several ROVs, as measured by the J-turn 

test, and found that static measures 

(whether Kst, SSF, or TTA) are not 

accurate predictors of the vehicle’s 

rollover resistance. The static tests are 

unable to account fully for the dynamic 

tire deflections and suspension 

compliance exhibited by ROVs. The 

Commission believes that the threshold 

lateral acceleration at rollover (Ay) is 

the most appropriate metric to use 

because it is a direct measure of the 

vehicle’s resistance to rollover. 

2. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies and the Committee state that 

NHTSA decided not to implement a 

minimum SSF standard for on-road 

vehicles because it would have forced 

the radical redesign of the 

characteristics of many, and in some 

cases, all vehicles of certain classes, 

which would have raised issues of 

public acceptance and possibly even the 

elimination of certain classes of 

vehicles. 

Response: Contrary to the comment’s 

implication that setting a minimum 

lateral stability (in this case SSF) is 

detrimental to vehicle design, and that 

NHTSA abandoned the use of SSF, 

NHTSA concluded that there is a causal 

relationship between SSF and rollover, 

and NHTSA has incorporated the SSF in 

its New Car Assessment Program 

(NCAP) rating of vehicles. In June 1994, 

NHTSA terminated rulemaking to 

establish a minimum standard for 

rollover resistance because it would be 

difficult to develop a minimum stability 

standard that would not disqualify 

whole classes of passenger vehicles 

(light trucks and sport utility vehicles) 

that consumers demand. Instead, by 

January 2001, NHTSA concluded that 

consumer information on the rollover 

risk of passenger cars would influence 

consumers to purchase vehicles with a 

lower rollover risk and inspire 

manufacturers to produce vehicles with 

a lower rollover risk.36 NHTSA found 

consistently that given a single-vehicle 

crash, the SSF is a good statistical 

predictor of the likelihood that the 

vehicle will roll over.37 The number of 

single-vehicle crashes was used as an 

index of exposure to rollover because 

this method eliminates the additional 

complexity of multi-vehicle impacts and 

because about 82 percent of light 

vehicle rollovers occur in single-vehicle 

crashes. NHTSA decided to use the SSF 

to indicate the risk of rollover in singlevehicle crashes and to incorporate the 

new rating into NHTSA’s New Car 

Assessment Program (NCAP). Based on 

NHTSA’s statistical analysis of singlevehicle crash data and vehicle SSF 

value, the NCAP provides a 5-star rating 

system. One star represents a 40 percent 

or higher risk of rollover in a single 

vehicle crash; two stars represent a risk 

of rollover between 30 percent and 40 

percent; three stars represent a risk of 

rollover between 20 percent and 29 

percent; four stars represent a risk of 

rollover between 10 percent and 19 

percent; and five stars represent a risk 

of rollover of less than 10 percent. 

A subsequent study of SSF trends in 

automobiles found that SSF values 

increased for all vehicles after 2001, 

particularly SUVs, and SUVs tended to 

have the worst SSF values in the earlier 

years. NHTSA’s intention that 

manufacturers improve the lateral 

stability of passenger vehicles was 

achieved through the NCAP rating, a 

rating based predominantly on the SSF 

value of the vehicle. 

Based on dynamic stability tests 

conducted by SEA and improvements in 

the Yamaha Rhino after the repair 

program was initiated, the Commission 

believes that setting a minimum rollover 

resistance value for ROVs can improve 

the lateral stability of the current market 

of ROVs, without forcing radical designs 

or elimination of any models. The 

Commission also believes continued 

increase in ROV lateral stability can be 

achieved by making the value of each 

model vehicle’s threshold lateral 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68988 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

38 Gillespie, T. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle 

Dynamics. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. p. 

204–205. 

acceleration at rollover available to 

consumers. Publication of an ROV 

model’s rollover resistance value on a 

hang tag will allow consumers to make 

informed purchasing decisions 

regarding the comparative lateral 

stability of ROVs. In addition, 

publication of rollover resistance will 

provide a competitive incentive for 

manufacturers to improve the rollover 

resistance of their ROVs. 

3. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies and the Committee state that 

Kst is the more appropriate stability 

factor than SSF because it accounts for 

differences in the rear and track width, 

as well as differences in the fore and aft 

location of the vehicle’s center of 

gravity. 

Response: Kst is a three-dimensional 

calculation of the two-dimensional SSF, 

and when the front and rear track 

widths are equal, Kst equals SSF. For 

practical purposes, Kst and SSF provide 

the same information on ROVs. 

Occupant-loaded values of Kst and SSF 

are informative to the design process of 

ROVs; however, Kst and SSF values do 

not account for all the dynamic factors 

that affect actual rollover resistance. 

Therefore, they do not represent the best 

stability metric for ROVs. 

The Commission compared the actual 

lateral acceleration at rollover threshold 

of several ROVs, as measured by the Jturn test, and found that the static 

measures (whether Kst, SSF, or TTA) are 

not accurate predictors of the vehicle’s 

actual lateral stability. Direct dynamic 

measurement of the vehicle’s resistance 

to rollover is possible with ROVs. 

Therefore, the Commission believes that 

J-turn testing to determine the threshold 

lateral acceleration at rollover should be 

used as the standard requirement to 

determine lateral stability. 

4. Comment: Comments from CEI and 

the Companies state that tilt table angle 

or tilt table ratio should be used as a 

measure of lateral stability. 

Response: As stated above, the staff 

compared the actual lateral acceleration 

at rollover threshold of several ROVs, as 

measured by the J-turn test, and found 

that the static measures (whether it is Kst

or SSF or TTA) are not accurate 

predictors of the vehicle’s actual lateral 

stability. 

The Commission believes that the tilt 

table requirement in ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011 does not adequately address lateral 

stability in ROVs. A comparison of how 

the vehicles would rank if the TTA were 

used instead of the direct measurement 

of lateral acceleration at rollover (Ay) 

illustrates how poorly the TTA 

correlates to the actual rollover 

resistance of the vehicle. The tilt table 

test does not account for dynamic 

effects of tire compliance, suspension 

compliance, and vehicle handling, 

which are important factors in the 

vehicle’s lateral stability. 

Direct dynamic measurement of the 

vehicle’s resistance to rollover is 

possible with ROVs. Therefore, the 

Commission believes that J-turn testing 

to determine the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover should be used 

as the standard requirement to 

determine lateral stability. 

5. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies state that the ANSI/ROHVA 

1, American National Standard for 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, 

lateral stability requirement of Kst = 1 

and TTA = 30 degrees is adequate and 

should be adopted by CPSC. 

Response: SEA tested 10 

representative ROV samples to the tilt 

table requirements in ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011. All of the ROVs tested pass the 

minimum 30-degree TTA, which 

indicates that the tilt table requirement 

is a status quo test. Vehicle D, the 

vehicle with the lowest rollover 

resistance (Ay = 0.625 g, TTA = 33.7 

degrees), exceeds the TTA requirement 

by 3.7 degrees, or 12 percent above the 

30-degree minimum requirement. 

Vehicle A, the ROV that was part of a 

repair program to increase its roll 

resistance, exceeds the TTA 

requirement by 3.0 degrees, or 10 

percent above the 30-degree minimum. 

CPSC believes the ANSI/ROHVA and 

ANSI/OPEI tilt table requirement is a 

requirement that all ROVs can pass and 

will not promote improvement among 

vehicles that have lower rollover 

resistance. The TTA requirement in the 

voluntary standard does not correlate to 

the actual rollover resistance of ROVs; 

the requirement allows the Yamaha 

Rhino to pass the test without having 

undergone the repair; and the 

requirement provides no incentive for 

manufacturers to improve the lateral 

stability of ROVs. The Commission 

believes that the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover value is a direct 

measure for rollover resistance, and its 

use would eliminate the need for tilt 

table testing as a requirement. 

6. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies, the Committee, and several 

individuals state that the SSF values 

recommended by CPSC staff for ROVs 

would make the vehicles unusable for 

off-road use and would eliminate this 

class of vehicle. 

Response: Based on the testing and 

data discussed in this preamble, CPSC 

staff no longer recommends using the 

SSF value as a measure of an ROV’s 

rollover resistance. The SSF value of a 

vehicle represents the best theoretical 

lateral stability that the vehicle can 

achieve. CPSC staff compared the actual 

lateral acceleration at rollover threshold 

of several ROVs, as measured by the Jturn test, and found that the static 

measures (whether it is Kst, or SSF, or 

TTA) are not accurate predictors of the 

vehicle’s actual lateral stability due to 

the extreme compliance in the vehicle’s 

suspension and tires. Therefore, the 

Commission believes that neither the 

Kst, nor the SSF is an accurate measure 

of an ROV’s lateral stability. Rather, the 

vehicle’s actual lateral acceleration at 

rollover threshold is the appropriate 

measure of the vehicle’s lateral stability. 

Vehicle Handling 

1. Comment: Comments from CEI and 

the Companies state that measurements 

of understeer/oversteer made on 

pavement are not applicable to nonpavement surfaces. ROVs are intended 

for off-highway use and any pavement 

use is product misuse, they assert. 

Response: Both the ANSI/ROHVA and 

ANSI/OPEI standards specify dynamic 

testing on a paved surface. This 

indicates that ROHVA and OPEI agree 

that testing of ROVs on pavement is 

appropriate because pavement has a 

uniform high-friction surface. Tests 

conducted on pavement show how the 

vehicle responds at lateral accelerations 

that range from low lateral accelerations 

(associated with low friction surfaces 

like sand) up to the highest lateral 

acceleration that can be generated by 

friction at the vehicle’s tires. This 

provides a complete picture of how the 

vehicle handles on all level surfaces. 

The amount of friction at the tires, and 

thus, the lateral accelerations generated, 

varies on non-paved surfaces. However, 

the vehicle’s handling at each lateral 

acceleration does not change when the 

driving surface changes. 

2. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that CEI has performed various 

tests and analyses on ROVs that 

demonstrate that ROVs that exhibit 

oversteer are not unstable. 

Response: The Commission disagrees 

with the statement that ROVs that 

exhibit oversteer are stable. Vehicles 

that exhibit sub-limit oversteer have a 

unique and undesirable characteristic, 

marked by a sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration during a turn. This 

dynamic instability is called critical 

speed and is described by Thomas D. 

Gillespie in the Fundamentals of 

Vehicle Dynamics as the speed ‘‘above 

which the vehicle will be unstable.’’ 38

Gillespie further explains that an 

oversteer vehicle ‘‘becomes 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68989 

39Bundorf, R. T. (1967). The Influence of Vehicle 

Design Parameters on Characteristic Speed and 

Understeer. SAE 670078; Segel, L. (1957). Research 

in the Fundamentals of Automobile Control and 

Stability. SAE 570044. 

directionally unstable at and above the 

critical speed’’ because the lateral 

acceleration gain approaches infinity. 

CEI states that their tests demonstrate 

that ROVs that exhibit oversteer are not 

unstable. However, testing performed by 

SEA shows that oversteering ROVs can 

exhibit a sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration resulting in a roll over. 

Plots from SIS tests illustrate this 

sudden increase in lateral acceleration, 

which is found only in vehicles that 

exhibit sub-limit oversteer (see Figure 

15). Vehicle A is an ROV that transitions 

to oversteer; Vehicle H is the same 

model ROV, but a later model year in 

which the oversteer has been corrected 

to understeer. 

When Vehicle A reached its 

dynamically unstable condition, the 

lateral acceleration suddenly increased 

from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (difference of 0.19 

g) in less than 1 second, and the vehicle 

rolled over. (Outriggers on the vehicle 

prevented full rollover of the vehicle.) 

In contrast, Vehicle H never reached a 

dynamically unstable condition because 

the condition does not develop in 

understeering vehicles. The increase in 

Vehicle H’s lateral acceleration remains 

linear, and the lateral acceleration 

increase from 0.50 g to 0.69 g (same 

difference of 0.19 g) occurs in 5.5 

seconds. A driver in Vehicle H has more 

margin to correct the steering to prevent 

rollover than a driver in Vehicle A 

because Vehicle H remains in 

understeer during the turn, while 

Vehicle A transitions to oversteer and 

becomes dynamically unstable. 

SEA test results indicate that ROVs 

that exhibited sub-limit oversteer also 

exhibited a sudden increase in lateral 

acceleration that caused the vehicle to 

roll over. An ROV that exhibits this 

sudden increase in lateral acceleration 

is directionally unstable and 

uncontrollable.39 Tests conducted by 

SEA provide strong evidence that sublimit oversteer in ROVs is an unstable 

condition that can lead to a rollover 

incident, especially given the low 

rollover resistance of ROVs. 

3. Comment: Comments from CEI and 

the Companies state that all vehicles, 

whether they understeer or oversteer, 

can be driven to limit conditions and 

can spin or plough. Any vehicle can 

exhibit ‘‘limit oversteer’’ through 

manipulation by the driver. 

Response: The Commission does not 

dispute that operator input and road 

conditions can affect limit oversteer or 

understeer in a vehicle. The vehicle 

handling requirements proposed by the 

Commission specify that vehicles 

exhibit sub-limit understeer. The 

Commission believes that sub-limit 

oversteer is an unstable condition that 

can lead to a rollover incident. Ten 

sample ROVs were tested by SEA; five 

of the 10 vehicles exhibited a desirable 

sub-limit understeer condition, and five 

exhibited a transition to undesirable 

sub-limit oversteer condition. CPSC’s 

evaluation indicates that ROVs can be 

designed to understeer with minimal 

cost and without diminishing the utility 

or recreational value of this class of 

vehicle. 

4. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies state that oversteer is 

desirable for path-following capability. 

Specifically, vehicles in oversteer will 

generally follow the path and allow 

directional control of the vehicle. High 

rear tire slip angles and tire longitudinal 

slip are needed for traction on offhighway surfaces, such as loose soil. 

Response: The Commission is not 

aware of any studies that define ‘‘pathfollowing capability’’ and its relation to 

the sub-limit understeer or oversteer 

design of the vehicle. Of the 10 sample 

ROVs tested by SEA, five vehicles 

exhibited a desirable sub-limit 

understeer condition. The Commission 

is not aware of any reports of the 

steering of sub-limit understeering 

vehicles causing loss of control or 

preventing the driver from navigating 

off-road terrain. 

A significant body of research has 

been developed over many years 

regarding the science of vehicle 

dynamic handling and control. The 

Commission has reviewed technical 

papers regarding vehicle handling 

research and finds no agreement with 

the statement that ‘‘a vehicle in an 

oversteer condition will generally 

follow the path and allow directional 

control of the vehicle to be maintained 

longer.’’ In fact, the Commission’s 

research finds universal characterization 

of sub-limit oversteer as directionally 

unstable, highly undesirable, and 

dynamically unstable at or above the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.014</GPH>
68990 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

40Olley, M. (1934). Independent Wheel 

Suspension—Its Whys and Wherefores. SAE 

340080.; Stonex, K. A. (1941). Car Control Factors 

and Their Measurement. SAE 410092.; Segel, L. 

(1957). Research in the Fundamentals of 

Automobile Control and Stability. SAE 570044.; 

Bergman, W. (1965). The Basic Nature of Vehicle 

Understeer—Oversteer. SAE 650085.; Bundorf, R. T. 

and Leffert, R. L. (1976). The Cornering Compliance 

Concept for Description of Vehicle Directional 

Control Properties. SAE 760713.; and Milliken, 

William F., Jr., et al. (1976). The Static Directional 

Stability and Control of the Automobile. SAE 

760712. 

critical speed.40 The Commission’s 

review of 80 years of automotive 

research did not find support for the 

suggestion that sub-limit oversteer 

provides superior precision in handling 

and control. 

Likewise, limit oversteer is described 

by the Companies as the result of the 

driver ‘‘operating the vehicle in a turn 

at a speed beyond what is safe and 

reasonable for that turn or applying 

excessive power in a turn.’’ A vehicle in 

limit oversteer is essentially sliding 

with the rear of the vehicle rotating 

about the yaw axis. A vehicle in a slide 

is susceptible to a tripped rollover. 

ROVs have low rollover resistance and 

are at high risk of a violent, tripped 

rollover. Autonomous vehicle testing by 

SEA has duplicated these limit oversteer 

conditions and found that tripped 

rollovers can create in excess of 2 g to 

3 g of instantaneous lateral acceleration, 

which produces a violent rollover event. 

CPSC’s evaluation indicates that 

eliminating sub-limit oversteer will 

reduce unintentional transitions to limit 

oversteer. 

The Commission does not agree that 

producing power oversteer by spinning 

the rear wheels is a necessity for 

negotiating low-friction, off-highway 

surfaces. Drifting or power oversteering 

is a risky practice that presents tripped 

rollover hazards and does not improve 

the vehicle’s controllability. However, 

the practice of power oversteering is the 

result of driver choices that are not 

under the control of the manufacturer or 

the CPSC, and will not be significantly 

affected by the elimination of sub-limit 

oversteer. 

5. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies state that requiring ROVs to 

exhibit understeer characteristics could 

create unintended and adverse risk, 

such as gross loss of mobility. These 

commenters assert that CPSC would be 

trading one set of purported safety 

issues for another, equally challenging 

set of safety issues, and running against 

100 years of experience in off-highway 

vehicle design and driving practice, 

which suggests that for off-highway 

conditions, limit oversteer is at least 

sometimes, if not most often, preferable 

to limit understeer. 

Response: ROVs that exhibit sub-limit 

understeering are currently in the U.S. 

market in substantial numbers. The 

Commission is not aware of any reports 

of the steering of sub-limit 

understeering vehicles causing loss of 

control or preventing the driver from 

navigating off-road terrain. The CPSC is 

not aware of any reports of sub-limit 

understeering vehicles that exhibit the 

unintended consequences described by 

the Companies. 

The Commission believes that sublimit oversteer is an unstable condition 

that can lead to a rollover incident. 

Based on the Yamaha Rhino repair 

program and the SEA test results 

indicating that half of the sample ROVs 

tested already exhibit sub-limit 

understeer, the CPSC believes that ROVs 

can be designed to understeer with 

minimum cost and without diminishing 

the utility or recreational value of this 

class of vehicle. 

6. Comment: Comments from CEI, the 

Companies, and the Committee state 

that no correlation can be shown 

between understeer/oversteer and ROV 

crashes or rollovers. 

Response: From a design and 

engineering perspective, the physics of 

vehicle rollover inherently support the 

fact that increasing a vehicle’s resistance 

to rollover will make the vehicle more 

stable. In addition, eliminating a vehicle 

characteristic that exhibits a sudden 

increase in lateral acceleration during a 

turn will reduce the risk of rollover. The 

constant radius tests and SIS tests 

conducted by SEA provide strong 

evidence that sub-limit oversteer is an 

unstable condition that can lead to a 

rollover incident. 

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents 

reviewed by the CPSC, 291 (68 percent) 

involved lateral rollover of the vehicle, 

and more than half of these (52 percent) 

occurred while the vehicle was turning. 

Of the 147 fatal incidents that involved 

rollover, 26 (18 percent) occurred on a 

paved surface. A vehicle exhibiting 

oversteer is most susceptible to rollover 

in a turn where the undesirable sudden 

increase in lateral acceleration can 

cause rollover to occur quickly, 

especially on paved surfaces, where an 

ROV can exhibit an untripped rollover. 

The Commission believes that 

improving the rollover resistance and 

vehicle steering characteristics of ROVs 

is a practical strategy for reducing the 

occurrence of ROV rollover events. 

Occupant Protection 

1. Comment: Comments from CEI, the 

Companies, and the Committee state 

that seat belt use is critically important. 

Increasing seat belt use is the most 

productive and effective way to reduce 

ROV-related injuries and deaths because 

seat belt use is so low among those 

injured in ROV incidents. A major 

challenge is clearly how to get 

occupants to use the seat belt properly. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that the use of seat belts is important in 

restraining occupants in the event of a 

rollover or other accident. Results of the 

Commission’s testing of belted and 

unbelted occupants in simulated ROV 

rollover events indicate that seat belt 

use is required to retain occupants 

within the vehicle. Without seat belt 

use, occupants experience partial to full 

ejection from the vehicle. This scenario 

has been identified as an injury hazard 

in the CPSC’s review of ROV-related 

incidents. Of those incidents that 

involved occupant ejection, many 

occupants suffered crushing injuries 

caused by the vehicle. 

After reviewing the literature 

regarding automotive seat belts, the 

Commission believes that an 8-second 

reminder light, as required in ANSI/

ROHVA 1–2011 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2012, is not adequate to increase 

meaningfully seat belt use rates in ROVs 

because the system is not intrusive 

enough to motivate drivers and 

passengers to wear their seat belts. 

Results from past studies on automotive 

seat belt reminders conclude that visual 

reminders are ineffective. Numerous 

studies conclude further that effective 

reminder systems have to be intrusive 

enough to motivate users to buckle their 

seat belts. The more intrusive reminders 

are more effective at changing user 

behavior, as long as the reminder is not 

so intrusive that users bypass the 

system. 

Based on literature and results from 

the Westat study, the Commission 

believes that a seat belt speed limiting 

system that restricts the maximum 

speed of the vehicle to 15 mph, if the 

driver seat and any occupied front seats 

are not buckled, is the most effective 

method to increase meaningfully seat 

belt use rates in ROVs. The system is 

transparent to users at speeds of 15 mph 

and below, and the system consistently 

motivates occupants to buckle their seat 

belts to achieve speeds above 15 mph. 

2. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that four-point and five-point seat 

belts are not appropriate for ROVs. In 

contrast, several individual comments 

state that five-point seat belts should be 

required on ROVs. 

Response: The Commission identified 

lack of seat belt use as an injury hazard 

in the CPSC’s review of ROV-related 

incidents. The majority of safety 

restraints in the ROV incidents were 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68991 

three-point restraints, and to some 

extent, two-point seat belts. Although 

four-point seat belts might be superior 

to three-point seat belts in retaining 

occupants in a vehicle, three-point seat 

belts have been shown to be effective in 

reducing the risk of death and serious 

injury in automotive applications. The 

Commission believes that it is unlikely 

that users who already do not use threepoint seat belts will use the more 

cumbersome four-point and five-point 

seat belts. 

A more robust seat belt reminder 

system than the current voluntary 

standard requirement for a visual 

reminder light is necessary to motivate 

users to wear their seat belts because 

automotive studies of seat belt 

reminders indicate that visual 

reminders do not increase seat belt use. 

Dynamic rollover tests of ROVs indicate 

that a three-point seat belt, in 

conjunction with a passive shoulder 

restraint, is effective in restraining an 

occupant inside the protective zone of 

the vehicle’s ROPS during a quarter-turn 

rollover. 

3. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that occupant protection 

requirements should be based on 

meaningful tests. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that ROV occupant protection 

performance evaluations should be 

based on actual ROV rollovers or 

simulations of real-world rollovers. 

Occupant protection performance 

requirements for ROVs in the voluntary 

standard developed by ROHVA (ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1–2011) and the voluntary 

standard developed by OPEI (ANSI/

OPEI B71.9–2012) are not supported by 

data from rollover tests. 

The SEA roll simulator is the most 

accurate simulation of an ROV rollover 

event because it has been validated by 

measurements taken during actual ROV 

rollovers. Rollover tests indicate that a 

seat belt, used in conjunction with a 

passive shoulder barrier, is effective at 

restraining occupants within the 

protective zone of the vehicle’s ROPS 

during quarter-turn rollover events. 

ROV Incident Analysis 

1. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that ROV rollover incidents are 

caused by a small minority of drivers 

who intentionally drive at the limits of 

the vehicle and the driver’s abilities, 

and intentionally drive in extreme 

environments. 

Response: Of the 224 reported ROV 

incidents that involved at least one 

fatality, 147 incidents involved lateral 

rollover of the vehicle. Of the 147 lateral 

rollover fatalities, it is reported that the 

ROV was on flat terrain in 56 incidents 

(38 percent) and on a gentle incline in 

18 incidents (12 percent). Of the 224 

fatal ROV incidents, the vehicle speed is 

unknown in 164 incidents (73 percent); 

32 incidents (14 percent) occurred at 

speeds of 20 miles per hour (mph) or 

less; and 28 incidents (13 percent) 

occurred at speeds more than 20 mph. 

(Vehicle speeds were reported (i.e., not 

measured by instrumentation); so these 

speeds can be used qualitatively only 

and not as accurate values of speed at 

which incidents occurred.) Of the 224 

fatal ROV incidents, the age of the 

driver was less than 16 years old in 61 

incidents (27 percent). Of the 231 

fatalities, 77 victims (33 percent) were 

children less than 16 years of age. 

A review of the incident data shows 

no indication that the majority of 

rollover incidents are caused by drivers 

who ‘‘purposely push the vehicle to and 

beyond its limits by engaging in stunts, 

racing, and intentional use of extreme 

environments.’’ An analysis of the 

reported ROV incidents indicates that 

many of the details of the circumstances 

of the event, such as vehicle speed or 

terrain slope, are not known. In cases in 

which details of the event are known, 

roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral 

rollover incidents occurred on flat or 

gentle slope terrain; and 14 percent 

occurred at speeds below 20 miles per 

hour. Twenty-seven percent of the 

drivers in fatal rollover incidents are 

children under 16 years of age; and 33 

percent of all ROV-related fatalities are 

children under 16 years of age. 

2. Comment: Comments from the 

Companies state that the CPSC failed to 

use data from the NEISS in its analysis 

of ROV hazards. The comments suggest 

further that analysis of the NEISS data 

on utility-terrain vehicles (UTVs) 

indicate that UTVs, and therefore, 

ROVs, have a low hospitalization rate. 

Response: The joint comment’s 

conclusions based on the commenters’ 

analyses of the NEISS UTV data are not 

technically sound because the NEISS 

results do not specifically identify 

ROVs. NEISS has a product code for 

UTVs and several product codes for 

ATVs, but there is no separate product 

code for ROVs. ATVs have a straddle 

seat for the operator and handlebars for 

steering. UTVs have bucket or bench 

seats for the operator/passengers, a 

steering wheel for steering, and UTVs 

may or may not have a ROPS. ROVs are 

a subset of UTVs and are distinguished 

by having a ROPS, seat belts, and a 

maximum speed above 30 mph. 

However, many official entities, news 

media, and consumers refer to ROVs as 

ATVs. Injuries associated with ROVs are 

usually assigned to either an ATV 

product category or to the UTV product 

category in NEISS. At a minimum, 

ROVs can be thought of as a subset of 

UTVs and/or ATVs, and cannot be 

identified on a consistent basis through 

the NEISS case records because NEISS 

requires knowledge of the make/model 

of the vehicle (which is not coded in the 

NEISS for any product). Occasionally, 

the NEISS narrative contains make/

model identification, but this cannot be 

used to identify ROVs accurately and 

consistently. 

CPSC conducted a special study in 

2010, in which all cases coded as ATVs 

or UTVs were selected for telephone 

interviews to gather information about 

the product involved. Sixteen of the 668 

completed surveys had responses that 

identified the vehicle as an ROV. Staff’s 

analysis shows that many ROVs are 

coded as ATVs; many UTVs are also 

coded as ATVs; and identification of 

ROVs and UTVs is difficult because the 

NEISS narratives often do not include 

enough information to identify the 

product. The miscoding rate for UTVs 

and ROVs is high, and most likely, the 

miscoding is due to consumer-reported 

information in the emergency 

department. 

The CPSC added the UTV product 

code 5044 to the NEISS in 2005. In the 

years 2005 to 2008 (the years cited in 

the joint comment document), the UTV 

product code had mostly out-of-scope 

records, with a large number of utility 

trailers and similar records. After these 

out-of-scope records are removed, the 

only viable estimate is obtained by 

aggregating the cases across 2005 to 

2008, to get an estimated 1,300 

emergency department-treated injuries 

related to UTVs (see Tab K, Table 1). 

This estimate is considerably less than 

the estimate reported by Heiden in the 

joint comment. This estimate also does 

not include the UTV-related injuries 

that were miscoded as ATVs in the ATV 

product codes. 

As the years have passed and the UTV 

product code is being used more as 

intended, a completely different picture 

is seen for UTVs. From 2009 to 2012, 

there are an estimated 6,200 emergency 

department-treated, UTV-related 

injuries (which can be attributed to an 

increase in the number of UTV-related 

injuries, a larger portion of injuries 

being identified in NEISS as UTVs, or a 

combination of all of these and other 

factors not identified). Of these 

estimated 6,200 injuries, only 80.2 

percent are treated and released. The 

proportion of treated and released 

injuries for UTVs is significantly below 

the proportion of treated and released 

for all consumer products (92.0 percent 

of estimated consumer product-related, 

emergency department-treated injuries 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68992 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

were treated and released from 2009 to 

2012). This illustrates a hazard of more 

severe injuries associated with UTVs. 

In conclusion, data are insufficient to 

support the argument that UTV injuries 

are not as severe as those associated 

with other products. As more data have 

become available in recent years, it 

appears that about 80 percent of the 

injuries associated with UTVs have been 

treated and released as compared to 

about 92 percent of the injuries 

associated with all consumer products. 

3. Comment: The Companies 

provided their own analysis of ROVrelated reports that were used in the 

CPSC’s ANPR analysis. In particular, the 

Companies criticize Commission staff’s 

analysis because asserting that staff’s 

analysis did not include factors related 

to incident conditions and user 

behavior. 

Response: Commission staff’s analysis 

of incidents for the ANPR was a 

preliminary review of reported 

incidents to understand the overall 

hazard patterns. For the NPR, 

Commission staff conducted an 

extensive, multidisciplinary review of 

428 reported ROV-related incidents 

resulting in at least one death or injury. 

The results of this study are 

summarized in two reports in the NPR 

briefing package, along with analyses of 

victim characteristics, hazard patterns, 

environmental characteristics, and make 

and model characteristics. (The 

approach taken in the comments from 

the Companies, to remove reports from 

the analysis because there is unknown 

information, is not the Commission’s 

approach in analyzing ROV-related 

incidents.) Unknowns from all reports 

are included with the knowns to ensure 

that the full picture is seen because 

every report will have at least one piece 

of unknown information, and every 

report will have at least one piece of 

known information. The unknowns are 

reported in all tables, if unknowns were 

recorded for the variables used. 

The analysis of IDIs summarized in 

the comments from the Companies does 

not define ‘‘excessive speed,’’ 

‘‘dangerous maneuver,’’ or ‘‘sharp turn.’’ 

In fact, in other places in the comments, 

the companies mention: ‘‘There is also 

no evidence suggesting that speed is an 

important factor in preventing 

accidents.’’ The companies also state: 

‘‘Tight steering turn capability is an 

important feature in certain ROVs, 

particularly those for trail use, because 

of the need to respond quickly to avoid 

obstacles and trail-edge drop-offs, and 

otherwise navigate in these off-highway 

terrains’’ Thus, there is ambiguity in 

what the definitions could mean in the 

analysis of the IDIs (When is the vehicle 

at an excessive speed? When is a turn 

too sharp? When is a maneuver 

dangerous?). The Commission’s 

approach to analyzing the 428 incidents 

summarized in the reports available in 

the NPR briefing package is to consider 

the sequence of events, the vehicle, the 

driver, any passenger, and environment 

characteristics across all incidents. All 

definitions are set and used consistently 

by the multidisciplinary review team to 

understand the hazard patterns and 

incident characteristics across all 

incidents, not to set responsibility in 

one place or another. 

4. Comment: Comments from CEI 

state that the CPSC should begin to 

address human factors that pertain to 

risk-taking behavior of the small 

minority of ROV users who operate the 

vehicles at their limits without crashworthiness concerns. In particular, CEI 

proposes that the CPSC focus primarily 

on changing consumer behavior to 

wearing seat belts, wearing helmets, and 

refraining from driving ROVs 

irresponsibly. 

Response: The Commission agrees 

that human factors and behavior affect 

the risk of death and injury for ROV 

users. However, the CPSC believes that 

establishing minimum requirements for 

ROVs can also reduce the hazards 

associated with ROVs. As explained in 

this preamble, the ANSI/ROHVA 

voluntary standard does not adequately 

addresses the risk of injury and death 

associated with lateral rollovers of ROVs 

because the standards do not have 

robust lateral stability requirements, do 

not have vehicle handling requirement 

to ensure understeer, and do not have 

robust occupant restraint requirements 

to protect occupants from vehicle 

rollover. 

An analysis of the reported ROV 

incidents indicates that many of the 

details of an event, such as vehicle 

speed or terrain slope, are not known. 

Where details of the event are known, 

roughly 50 percent of the fatal lateral 

rollover incidents occurred on flat or 

gentle slope terrain, and 14 percent 

occurred at speeds below 20 miles per 

hour. Twenty-seven percent of the 

drivers in fatal rollover incidents are 

children under 16 years of age; and 33 

percent of all ROV-related fatalities are 

children under 16 years of age. There is 

no indication that the majority of 

rollover incidents are caused by drivers 

who intentionally drive under extreme 

conditions. 

Regarding seat belt use, results from 

past studies on automotive seat belt 

reminders conclude that visual seat belt 

reminders are ineffective. Numerous 

studies further conclude that effective 

reminder systems have to be intrusive 

enough to motivate users to buckle their 

seat belts. The more intrusive reminders 

are more effective at changing user 

behavior, as long as the reminder is not 

so intrusive that users bypass the 

system. 

The Commission believes that a seat 

belt speed-limiting system that restricts 

the maximum speed of the vehicle to 15 

mph if the driver seat and any occupied 

front seats are not buckled is the most 

effective method to increase 

meaningfully seat belt use rates in 

ROVs. The system is transparent to 

users at speeds of 15 mph and below, 

and the system consistently motivates 

occupants to buckle their seat belts to 

achieve speeds above 15 mph. 

IX. Description of the Proposed Rule 

A. Scope, Purpose, and Compliance 

Dates—§ 1422.1 

The proposed standard would apply 

to ‘‘recreational off-highway vehicles’’ 

(ROVs), as defined, which would limit 

the scope to vehicles with a maximum 

speed greater than 30 mph. The 

proposed standard would include 

requirements relating to lateral 

acceleration, vehicle handling, and 

occupant protection. The requirements 

are intended to reduce or eliminate an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with ROVs. The proposed standard 

would specifically exclude ‘‘golf cars,’’ 

‘‘all-terrain vehicles,’’ ‘‘fun karts,’’ ‘‘go 

karts,’’ and ‘‘light utility vehicles,’’ as 

defined by the relevant voluntary 

standards. The Commission proposes 

two compliance dates: ROVs would be 

required to comply with the lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements (§§ 1422.3 and 1422.4) 180 

days after publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. ROVs would be 

required to comply with the occupant 

protection requirements (§ 1422.5) 12 

months after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. The 

Commission recognizes that some ROV 

manufacturers will need to redesign and 

test new prototype vehicles to meet the 

occupant protection requirements. This 

design and test process is similar to the 

process that manufacturers use when 

introducing new model year vehicles. 

As described more fully in Section X, 

staff estimates that it will take 

approximately 9 person-months per 

ROV model to design, test, implement, 

and begin manufacturing vehicles to 

meet the occupant protection 

performance requirements. Therefore, 

the Commission believes that 12 months 

is a reasonable time period for 

manufacturers to comply with all of 

new mandatory requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68993 

41Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static 

Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and 

Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www.

nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/

index.html. 

42Walz, M.C. (2005). Trends in the Static Stability 

Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and Vans. 

Continued 

B. Definitions—§ 1422.2 

The proposed standard would provide 

that the definitions in section 3 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2051) apply. In addition, the proposed 

standard would include the following 

definitions: 

• ‘‘Recreational off-highway 

vehicle’’—a motorized vehicle designed 

for off-highway use with the following 

features: Four or more wheels with 

pneumatic tires; bench or bucket seating 

for two or more occupants; automotivetype controls for steering, throttle, and 

braking; rollover protective structures 

(ROPS); occupant restraint; and 

maximum speed capability greater than 

30 mph. 

• ‘‘two-wheel lift’’—point at which 

the inside wheels of a turning vehicle 

lift off the ground, or when the uphill 

wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table lift off 

the table. Two-wheel lift is a precursor 

to a rollover event. We use the term 

‘‘two-wheel lift’’ interchangeably with 

‘‘tip-up.’’ 

• ‘‘threshold lateral acceleration’’— 

minimum lateral acceleration of the 

vehicle at two-wheel lift. 

C. Requirements for Dynamic Lateral 

Stability—§ 1422.3 

1. Proposed Performance Requirement 

a. Description of Requirement 

The proposed rule would require that 

all ROVs meet a minimum requirement 

for lateral stability. The dynamic lateral 

stability requirement would set a 

minimum value for the lateral 

acceleration at rollover of 0.70 g, as 

determined by a 30 mph drop-throttle Jturn test. The 30 mph drop-throttle Jturn test uses a programmable steering 

controller to turn the test vehicle 

traveling at 30 mph at prescribed 

steering angles and rates to determine 

the minimum steering angle at which 

two-wheel lift is observed. These are the 

conditions and procedures that were 

used in testing with SEA. Under the 

proposed requirements, the data 

collected during these tests are analyzed 

to compute and verify the lateral 

acceleration at rollover for the vehicle. 

The greater the lateral acceleration 

value, the greater is the resistance of the 

ROV to tip or roll over. 

b. Rationale 

The J-turn test is the most appropriate 

method to measure the rollover 

resistance of ROVs because the J-turn 

test has been evaluated by NHTSA as 

the most objective and repeatable 

method for vehicles with low rollover 

resistance. As discussed previously, 

static metrics, such as SSF and TTR, 

cannot be used to evaluate accurately 

ROV rollover resistance because static 

tests are unable to account fully for the 

dynamic tire deflections and suspension 

compliance exhibited by ROVs during a 

J-turn maneuver. The Commission also 

verified that the J-turn test is objective 

and repeatable for ROVs by conducting 

numerous J-turn tests on several ROVs. 

As explained above, testing 

conducted by CPSC staff and SEA 

supports the proposed requirement that 

ROVs demonstrate a minimum 

threshold lateral acceleration at rollover 

of 0.70 g or greater in a J-turn. Results 

of J-turn tests performed on a sample of 

10 ROVs available in the U.S. market 

indicate that six of the 10 ROVs tested 

measured threshold lateral accelerations 

below 0.70 g (values ranged from 0.625 

g to 0.690 g). The Commission believes 

that minor changes to vehicle 

suspension and/or track width spacing, 

similar to the changes in the Yamaha 

Rhino repair program, can increase the 

threshold lateral acceleration of these 

vehicles to 0.70 g or greater. The 

Yamaha repair program improved the 

rollover resistance of the Yamaha Rhino 

from 0.670 g (unrepaired Yamaha 

Rhino) to 0.705 g (repaired Yamaha 

Rhino). 

Based on CPSC’s evaluation of ROV 

testing and the decrease in injuries and 

deaths associated with Yamaha Rhino 

vehicles after the repair program was 

implemented, the Commission believes 

that improving the rollover resistance of 

all ROVs can reduce injuries and deaths 

associated with ROV rollover events. 

2. Proposed Requirements for Hang Tag 

a. Description of Requirement 

The Commission is proposing a 

requirement that ROV manufacturers 

provide technical information for 

consumers on a hangtag at the point of 

purchase. 

As discussed previously, the 

Commission is proposing a requirement 

that ROVs meet a minimum lateral 

acceleration of 0.70 g at rollover, as 

identified by J-turn testing. The 

Commission proposes requiring a 

hangtag on each ROV that would state 

the actual measured lateral acceleration 

at rollover (as identified by the J-turn 

testing) of each ROV model. The 

Commission believes that the hang tag 

will allow consumers to make informed 

decisions on the comparative lateral 

stability of ROVs when making a 

purchase and will provide a competitive 

incentive for manufacturers to improve 

the rollover resistance of ROVs. 

The proposed rule specifies the 

content and format for the hang tag, and 

includes an example hang tag. Under 

the proposal, the hang tag must conform 

in content, form, and sequence as 

specified in the proposed rule. 

The Commission proposes the 

following ROV hangtag requirements: 

• Content. Every ROV shall be offered 

for sale with a hangtag that graphically 

illustrates and textually states the lateral 

acceleration threshold at rollover for 

that ROV model. The hangtag shall be 

attached to the ROV and may be 

removed only by the first purchaser. 

• Size. Every hangtag shall be at least 

15.24 cm (6 inches) wide by 10.16 cm 

(4 inches) tall. 

• Attachment. Every hangtag shall be 

attached to the ROV and be conspicuous 

to a person sitting in the driver’s seat; 

and the hangtag shall be removable only 

with deliberate effort. 

• Format. The hang tag shall provide 

all of the elements shown in the 

example hangtag (see Figure 16). 

b. Rationale 

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes 

the Commission to require, by rule, that 

manufacturers of consumer products 

provide to the Commission performance 

and technical data related to 

performance and safety as may be 

required to carry out the purposes of the 

CPSA, and to give notification of such 

performance and technical data at the 

time of original purchase to prospective 

purchasers and to the first purchaser of 

the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e)). Section 

2 of the CPSA provides that one purpose 

of the CPSA is to ‘‘assist consumers in 

evaluating the comparative safety of 

consumer products.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2051(b)(2). 

Other federal government agencies 

currently require on-product labels with 

information to help consumers in 

making purchasing decisions. For 

example, NHTSA requires automobiles 

to come with comparative information 

on vehicles regarding rollover 

resistance. 49 CFR 575.105. NHTSA 

believes that consumer information on 

the rollover risk of passenger cars would 

influence consumers to purchase 

vehicles with a lower rollover risk and 

inspire manufacturers to produce 

vehicles with a lower rollover risk.41 A 

subsequent study of SSF trends in 

automobiles found that SSF values 

increased for all vehicles after 2001, 

particularly SUVs, which tended to 

have the worst SSF values in the earlier 

years.42

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68994 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DOT HS 809868. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa. gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/

index.html. 

43Markel, M. (2001). Technical Communication. 

Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 

EnergyGuide labels, required on most 

appliances, are another example of 

federally-mandated labels to assist 

consumers in making purchase 

decisions. 16 CFR part 305. Detailed 

operating cost and energy consumption 

information on these labels allows 

consumers to compare competing 

models and identify higher efficiency 

products. The EnergyGuide label design 

was developed based on extensive 

consumer research and following a twoyear rulemaking process. 

Like NHTSA rollover resistance 

information and EnergyGuide labels, the 

proposed ROV hang tags are intended to 

provide important information to 

consumers at the time of purchase. 

Providing the value of each ROV model 

vehicle’s threshold lateral acceleration 

to consumers will assist consumers with 

evaluating the comparative safety of the 

vehicles in terms of resistance to 

rollover. Requiring that ROV lateral 

acceleration test results be stated on a 

hangtag may motivate manufacturers to 

increase the performance of their ROV 

to achieve a higher reportable lateral 

acceleration, similar to incentives 

created as a result of NHTSA’s NCAP 

program. 

The proposed hangtag is based, in 

part, on the point-of-purchase hangtag 

requirements for ATVs. ATVs must have 

hangtags that include general warning 

information regarding operation and 

operator and passenger requirements, as 

well as behavior that is warned against. 

Most ROV manufacturers are also 

manufacturers of ATVs. Accordingly, 

ROV manufacturers are likely to be 

familiar with the hangtag requirements 

for ATVs. The ANSI/SVIA 1–2010 

voluntary standard that applies to ATVs 

requires ATVs to be sold with a hangtag 

that is to be removed only by the 

purchaser and requires ATV hangtags to 

be 6-inches tall x 4-inches wide. 

Because ROV manufacturers are likely 

to be familiar with the hangtag 

requirements for ATVs, the Commission 

is proposing the same size requirements 

for ROV hang tags. 

The hang tag graph draws its format 

from well-recognized principles in 

effective warnings. When presenting 

graphical information, it is important to 

include labels so that the data can be 

understood. Graphs should have a 

unique title, and the axes should be 

fully labeled with the units of 

measurement. Graphs should also be 

distinguished from the text, by adding 

white space, or enclosing the graphs in 

a box.43


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68995 

44Hang tag not shown to scale. 

45Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., and Laughery, K. 

(1999). Warnings and Risk Communication. 

Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. 

46 Guide to EnergyGuide label retrieved at http:// 

www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0072-shoppinghome-appliances-use-energyguide-label. 

47Markel, M. 2001. 

48Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer 

product instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

49FTC. Retrieved from: https://www.consumer.

ftc.gov/articles/0072-shopping-home-appliancesuse-energyguide-label. 

50Heydinger, G. (2011) Vehicle Characteristics 

Measurements of Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.cpsc.gov/Page

Files/96037/rov.pdf. Page 18. 

(1) The ROV icon helps identify the 

product. The icon is presented at a 

slight angle to help consumers readily 

identify the label as addressing ROV 

rollover characteristics. Research has 

shown that pictorial symbols and icons 

make warnings more noticeable and 

easier to detect than warnings without 

such symbols and icons.45

(2) Graph label, ‘‘Better,’’ indicates 

that the higher the value (as shading 

increases to the right), the higher the 

ROV’s resistance to rolling over during 

a turn on a flat surface. 

(3) The Manufacturer, Model, Model 

number, Model year help the consumer 

identify the exact ROV described by the 

label. Likewise, the EnergyGuide label 

provides information on the 

manufacturer, model, and size of the 

product so that consumers can identify 

exactly what appliance the label 

describes.46 The Commission is 

proposing a similar identification of the 

ROV model on the hangtag so that 

consumers can compare values among 

different model ROVs. 

(4) Textual information. Technical 

communication that includes graphs 

should also include text to paraphrase 

the importance of the graphic and 

explain how to interpret the information 

presented.47 Additionally, including a 

graphic before introducing text may 

serve as a valuable reference for 

consumers, by maintaining attention 

and encouraging further reading.48 The 

textual informational in the hangtag 

provides consumers with more 

definition of the values given in the 

graph. 

(5) Linear scale, and anchor showing 

minimally acceptable value on the scale. 

Currently, the EnergyGuide label uses a 

linear scale with the lowest and highest 

operating costs for similar models so 

that consumers can compare products; 

the yearly operating cost for the specific 

model is identified on the linear scale.49

The Commission is proposing a linear 

scale format for the ROV hangtag, as 

well. The text identifies the minimally 

accepted lateral acceleration at rollover 

as being 0.7 g. When providing this on 

the scale, people are able to determine 

visually how a specific model compares 

to the minimal value. 

(6) Scale starts at 0.65 g to allow a 

shaded bar for those ROVs meeting only 

the minimally acceptable lateral 

acceleration value. 

D. Vehicle Handling—§ 1422.4 

1. Description of Requirement 

The proposed rule would require that 

all ROVs meet a vehicle handling 

requirement, which requires that ROVs 

exhibit understeer characteristics. The 

understeer requirement would mandate 

that ROVs exhibit understeer 

characteristics in the sublimit range of 

the turn circle test. The test for vehicle 

handling or understeer performance 

involves driving the vehicle around a 

100-foot radius circle at increasing 

speeds, with the driver making every 

effort to maintain compliance of the 

vehicle path relative to the circle. SEA 

testing was based on a 100-foot radius 

circle. Data collected during these tests 

are analyzed to determine whether the 

vehicle understeers through the 

required range. The proposed rule 

would require that all ROVs exhibit 

understeer for values of ground plane 

lateral acceleration from 0.10 to 0.50 g. 

2. Rationale 

The CPSC believes that the constant 

radius test is the most appropriate 

method to measure an ROV’s steering 

gradient because SAE J266, Surface 

Vehicle Recommended Practice, SteadyState Directional Control Test 

Procedures for Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, establishes the constant radius 

test as a method to measure understeer/ 

oversteer in passenger cars. The test 

procedures are also applicable to ROVs 

because ROVs are similar to cars, have 

four steerable wheels and a suspension 

system, and thus, ROVs obey the same 

principles of motion as automobiles. 

The Commission believes that the 

appropriate lateral acceleration range to 

measure steering gradient is from 0.10 g 

to 0.50 g because SEA test results 

indicate that spurious data occur at the 

beginning and end of a constant radius 

test conducted up to vehicle rollover. 

Data collected in the range of 0.10 g to 

0.50 g of lateral acceleration provide the 

most accurate plots of the vehicle’s 

steering characteristic.50

Tests conducted by SEA show that 

ROVs in sub-limit oversteer transition to 

a condition where the lateral 

acceleration increases suddenly and 

exponentially. Based on testing and 

relevant literature, the CPSC believes 

that this condition can lead to untripped 

ROV rollovers or may cause ROVs to 

slide into limit oversteer and experience 

tripped rollover. Ensuring sub-limit 

understeer eliminates the potential for 

sudden and exponential increase in 

lateral acceleration that can cause ROV 

rollovers. 

The decrease in Rhino-related 

incidents after the repair program was 

initiated and the low number of vehicle 

rollover incidents associated with 

repaired Rhino vehicles are evidence 

that increasing the lateral stability of an 

ROV and correcting oversteer 

characteristics to understeer reduces the 

occurrence of ROV rollover on level 

terrain. In particular, the Commission 

believes the elimination of runaway 

lateral acceleration associated with 

oversteer contributed to a decrease in 

Rhino-related rollover incidents. 

As mentioned previously, ROVs can 

be designed to understeer in sub-limit 

operation with minimum cost and 

without diminishing the utility or 

recreational value of this class of 

vehicle. Half of the vehicles CPSC tested 

already exhibit sub-limit understeer 

condition for the full range of the test, 

and this includes both utility and 

recreational model ROVs. 

E. Occupant Retention System— 

§ 1422.5 

The proposed rule includes two 

requirements that are intended to keep 

the occupant within the vehicle or the 

ROPs. First, each ROV would be 

required to have a means to restrict 

occupant egress and excursion in the 

shoulder/hip zone defined by the 

proposed rule. This requirement could 

be met by a fixed barrier structure or 

structure on the ROV or by a barrier or 

structure that can be put into place by 

the occupant using one hand in one 

operation, such as a door. Second, the 

proposed rule would require that the 

speed of an ROV be limited to a 

maximum of 15 mph, unless the seat 

belts for both the driver and any front 

seat passengers are fastened. The 

purpose of these requirements is to 

prevent deaths and injury incidents, 

especially incidents that involve full or 

partial ejection of the rider from the 

vehicle. 

1. Speed Limitation 

a. Requirement 

The Commission proposes a 

performance requirement that limits the 

maximum speed that an ROV can attain 

to 15 mph or less when tested with 

unbuckled front seat belts during the 

maximum speed test. Section 5 of ANSI/ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68996 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

51Turn radius values retrieved at: http://www.atv.

com/features/choosing-a-work-vehicle-atv-vs-utv2120.html and http://www.utvunderground.com/

2014-kawasaki-teryx-4-le-6346.html. 

ROHVA 1–2011, ‘‘Maximum Speed,’’ 

establishes test protocols to measure 

maximum speed on level ground. 

Because ROV manufacturers are already 

familiar with these test procedures and 

the proposed test would add elements to 

a test procedure manufacturers already 

conduct to meet the voluntary standard, 

the CPSC believes that the maximum 

speed test from ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 is 

the most appropriate method to measure 

the limited speed of an ROV. 

b. Rationale 

i. Importance of Seat Belts 

As discussed in section V of this 

preamble, results of the CPSC’s 

exploratory testing of belted and 

unbelted occupants in simulated ROV 

rollover events indicate that seat belt 

use is required to retain occupants 

within the vehicle. This conclusion 

corresponds with the incident data for 

ROV rollovers, in which 91 percent of 

the fatal victims who were partially or 

fully ejected from the vehicle were not 

wearing seat belts. Of the incidents that 

involved occupant ejection, many 

occupants were injured when struck by 

the vehicle after ejection. The 

Commission believes that many of the 

ROV occupant ejection deaths and 

injuries can be eliminated if occupants 

wear seat belts. 

Studies have shown that automobile 

seat belt reminders do not increase seat 

belt use, unless the reminders are 

aggressive enough to motivate users to 

buckle seat belts without alienating the 

user into bypassing or rejecting the 

system. Based on the Commission’s 

testing and literature review and the low 

seat belt use rates in ROV-related 

incidents, the Commission believes that 

a seat belt speed limiting system that 

restricts the maximum speed of the 

vehicle to 15 mph if any occupied front 

seats are not buckled, is the most 

effective method to increase seat belt 

use rates in ROVs. 

ii. Likely Acceptance of SpeedLimitation Technology 

The Commission believes that invehicle technology that limits the speed 

of the ROV if the front occupied seats 

are not buckled will be accepted by 

ROV users because the technology does 

not interfere with the operation of the 

ROV below the threshold speed, and 

users will be motivated to wear seat 

belts if they wish to exceed the 

threshold speed. This conclusion is 

based on automotive studies that show 

drivers accepted a system that reduced 

vehicle function (i.e., requiring more 

effort to depress the accelerator pedal) 

after a threshold speed, if the driver’s 

seat belt was not buckled. The system 

did not interfere with the operation of 

the vehicle below the threshold speed, 

and drivers were willing to buckle their 

seat belts to access unhindered speed 

capability of the vehicle. 

The Commission also believes that 

speed-limitation technology will be 

accepted by ROV users because the 

technology is already included on the 

BRP Can-Am Commander and Can-Am 

Maverick model ROVs, and the 

manufacturer with the largest ROV 

market share, Polaris, announced that it 

will introduce the technology on model 

year 2015 Ranger and RZR ROVs. 

The Commission’s literature review 

concludes that intrusive reminders are 

effective at changing user behavior, as 

long as the reminder is not so intrusive 

that users bypass the system. Limitation 

of vehicle speed is the intrusive 

reminder for ROV users to buckle their 

seat belt; therefore, the Commission 

believes that the threshold speed for a 

seat belt speed-limitation system should 

be as high as possible to gain user 

acceptance (and reduce bypass of the 

system), but low enough to allow 

relatively safe operation of the vehicle. 

iii. Choice of 15 MPH 

The Commission believes 15 mph is 

the appropriate speed threshold for a 

seat belt speed-limitation system. Based 

on information about ROVs and vehicles 

similar to ROVs, the Commission 

concludes that ROVs can be operated 

relatively safely at 15 mph. For 

example: 

• ANSI/NGCMA Z130.1–2004, 

American National Standard for Golf 

Carts—Safety and Performance 

Specifications, specifies the maximum 

speed for golf carts at 15 mph. This 

standard establishes 15 mph as the 

maximum acceptable speed for unbelted 

drivers and passengers (golf carts do not 

have seat belts or ROPS) in vehicles that 

are often driven in off-road conditions. 

• SAE J2258, Surface Vehicle 

Standard for Light Utility Vehicles, 

specifies a speed of 15 mph as 

acceptable for a vehicle, with a lateral 

stability of at least 25 degrees on a tilt 

table test, without seat belts or ROPS. 

This standard also establishes 15 mph 

as the maximum acceptable speed for 

unbelted drivers and passengers in 

vehicles that are driven in off-road 

conditions. 

• Polaris Ranger and RZR model year 

2015 ROVs will be equipped with a seat 

belt speed limiter that limits the vehicle 

speed to 15 mph if the driver’s seat belt 

is not buckled. The decision by the 

largest manufacturer of ROVs 

establishes 15 mph as the maximum 

acceptable speed for unbelted ROV 

drivers. 

Additionally, the principles of 

physics support this conclusion. The 

fundamental relationship between 

speed and lateral acceleration is: 

A = V2/R where A = lateral acceleration 

V = velocity 

R = radius of turn 

The minimum proposed lateral 

acceleration threshold at rollover for 

ROVs is 0.70 g, and the typical turn 

radius of an ROV is 16 feet.51 Therefore, 

without any additional effects of tire 

friction, the speed at which rollover 

would occur during a turn on level 

ground is 13 mph. (The CPSC 

recognizes that on a slope, the lateral 

acceleration due to gravity can cause 

ROV rollover at speeds below 15 mph. 

However, the CPSC believes that it is 

appropriate to use level ground as a 

baseline.) In reality, friction at the tires 

would increase the speed at which 

rollover occurs to above 13 mph. 

iv. User Acceptance of 15 mph 

Based on CPSC’s study and the 

experience of some ROVs that have 

speed limitations, the Commission 

believes that ROV users are likely to 

accept a 15 mph threshold speed 

limitation. The following reasons 

support this conclusion: 

• Results of Westat’s Phase 1 focus 

group study of ROV users indicate that 

ROV users value easy ingress and egress 

from an ROV and generally drive 

around 15 mph to 30 mph during 

typical use of the ROV. Users had mixed 

reactions to a speed threshold of 10 mph 

and were more accepting of a speedlimitation technology if the threshold 

speed was 15 mph. 

• There are many situations in which 

an ROV is used at slow speeds, such as 

mowing or plowing, carrying tools to 

jobsites, and checking property. The 

Commission believes that a speedlimitation threshold of 15 mph allows 

the most latitude for ROV users to 

perform utility tasks where seat belt use 

is often undesired. 

• The Commission believes that ROV 

user acceptance of a seat belt speedlimitation system will be higher at 15 

mph than the speed threshold of 9 mph 

on the Commander ROV. Although BRP 

continues to sell the Can-Am 

Commander and Can-Am Maverick 

ROVs with speed limitations set at 

around 10 mph, focus group responses 

indicate that many ROV users believe 

that 10 mph is too low a speed limit to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68997 

52Market share is based upon Commission 

analysis of sales data provided by Power Products 

Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2014). 

be acceptable, and therefore, these users 

will bypass the system. The 15 mph 

threshold is 50 percent higher than a 10 

mph threshold, and staff believes that 

the difference in the speed threshold 

will increase user acceptance of the 

system. Polaris’s decision to include 

seat belt speed limiters with a 15 mph 

threshold speed in model year 2015 

Ranger and RZR ROVs supports the 

Commission’s belief that user 

acceptance of a speed-limitation system 

will be higher at 15 mph than 10 mph. 

2. Shoulder Probe Test 

a. Requirement 

CPSC is proposing a performance 

requirement that ROVs pass a probe test 

at a defined area near the ROV 

occupants’ shoulder. The probe test is 

the most appropriate method to measure 

the occupant protection performance in 

the shoulder area of the ROV because 

various forms of the probe test are 

already used in the voluntary standard 

for ROVs and ATVs to determine 

occupant protection performance. 

The test applies a probe with a force 

of 163 lbs., to a defined area of the 

vehicle’s ROPS near the ROV occupants’ 

shoulder. The vertical and forward 

locations for the point of application of 

the probe are based upon 

anthropometric data. The probe 

dimensions are based on the upper arm 

of a 5th percentile adult female, and the 

dimensions of a 5th percentile adult 

female represent the smallest size 

occupant that may be driving or riding 

an ROV. The 163 lb. force application 

represents a 50th percentile adult male 

occupant pushing against the barrier 

during a rollover event. The probe is 

applied for 10 seconds and the vehicle 

structure must absorb the force without 

bending more than 1 inch. 

b. Rationale 

After exploring several methods to 

test occupant protection performance of 

ROVs during a rollover event, CPSC 

believes the SEA roll simulator is the 

most accurate simulation of a rollover 

because the roll simulator is able to 

reproduce the lateral acceleration and 

roll rate experienced by ROVs in 

rollover events. SEA conducted 

simulations of tripped and untripped 

rollovers on ROVs with belted and 

unbelted ATD occupants. CPSC’s 

analysis of SEA’s test results indicate 

that the best occupant retention 

performance results, where occupants 

remain within the protective zone of the 

vehicle’s ROPS, occurred when a seat 

belt is used in conjunction with a 

passive shoulder barrier restraint. 

F. Prohibited Stockpiling—§ 1422.6 

The proposed rule contains antistockpiling provisions to prohibit 

excessive production or importation of 

noncomplying ROVs during the period 

between the final rule’s publication and 

its effective date. Anti-stockpiling 

provisions typically exist to prevent the 

production or importation of significant 

numbers—significantly beyond typical 

rates—of noncomplying products that 

can be sold after the effective date of a 

safety standard, which could present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to 

consumers. In order to balance the 

protection of consumers and the burden 

to manufacturers and importers of 

compliance with the effective date of a 

rule, a production limit is typically set 

at some minimal percentage above a 

single year’s production rate as selected 

by the manufacturer or importer. This 

allows the manufacturer or importer to 

select the date most conductive to 

compliance, even if production or 

importation occurs at an unusually 

robust pace during the selected period. 

The prohibited stockpiling provision 

herein limits the production or 

importation of noncomplying products 

to 10% of the amount produced or 

imported in any 365-day period 

designated, at the option of each 

manufacturer or importer, beginning on 

or after October 1, 2009, and ending on 

or before the date of promulgation of the 

rule. 

G. Findings—§ 1422.7 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the CPSA, we are proposing to make 

the findings stated in section 9 of the 

CPSA. The proposed findings are 

discussed in section XVI of this 

preamble. 

X. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

The Commission is proposing to issue 

a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the 

CPSA. The CPSA requires that the 

Commission prepare a preliminary 

regulatory analysis and that the 

preliminary regulatory analysis be 

published with the text of the proposed 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The following 

discussion is extracted from staff’s 

memorandum, ‘‘Draft Proposed Rule 

Establishing Safety Standard for 

Recreational Off-Road Vehicles: 

Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.’’ 

A. Introduction 

The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule 

for ROVs. This rulemaking proceeding 

was initiated by an ANPR published in 

the Federal Register on October 28, 

2009. The proposed rule includes: (1) 

Lateral stability and vehicle handling 

requirements that specify a minimum 

level of rollover resistance for ROVs and 

requires that ROVs exhibit sublimit 

understeer characteristics, and (2) 

occupant retention requirements that 

would limit the maximum speed of an 

ROV to no more than 15 miles per hour 

(mph), unless the seat belts of both the 

driver and front passengers, if any, are 

fastened; and in addition, would require 

ROVs to have a passive means, such as 

a barrier or structure, to limit further the 

ejection of a belted occupant in the 

event of a rollover. 

Following is a preliminary regulatory 

analysis of the proposed rule, including 

a description of the potential costs and 

potential benefits. Each element of the 

proposed rule is discussed separately. 

For some elements, the benefits and 

costs cannot be quantified in monetary 

terms. Where this is the case, the 

potential costs and benefits are 

described and discussed conceptually. 

B. Market Information 

1. Manufacturers and Market Shares 

The number of manufacturers 

marketing ROVs in the United States 

has increased substantially in recent 

years. The first utility vehicle that 

exceeded 30 mph, thus putting the 

utility vehicle in the ROV category, was 

introduced in the late 1990s. No other 

manufacturer offered an ROV until 

2003. In 2013, there were 20 

manufacturers known to CPSC to be 

supplying ROVs to the U.S. market. One 

manufacturer accounted for about 60 

percent of the ROVs sold in the United 

States in 2013. Another seven 

manufacturers, including one based in 

China, accounted for about 36 percent of 

the ROVs sold in the same year. None 

of these seven manufacturers accounted 

for more than 10 percent of the market. 

The rest of the market was divided 

among about 12 other manufacturers, 

most of which were based in China or 

Taiwan.52 Commission staff’s analysis 

attempted to exclude vehicles that had 

mostly industrial or commercial 

applications and were not likely to be 

purchased by consumers. The 

Commission has identified more than 

150 individual ROV models from among 

these manufacturers. However, this 

count includes some models that appear 

to be very similar to other models 

produced by the same manufacturer but 

sold through different distributors in the 

United States. 

About 92 percent of ROVs sold in in 

the United States are manufactured in 

North America. About 7 percent of the 

ROVs sold in the United States are 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

68998 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

53This information is based upon a Commission 

analysis of sales data provided by Power Products 

Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2012). 

54MSRPs for ROVs were reported by Power 

Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2014). 

55This information is based upon a Commission 

analysis of data provided by Power Products 

Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN, (2014), and an 

examination of the suggested retail prices on several 

manufacturers’ Internet sites. 

56 ‘‘2009 Utility Vehicle Review,’’ Southern 

Sporting Journal, October 2008, Vol. 14, Issue 5, pp. 

58–70, accessed through: http://web.ebscohost.com 

on March 17. 2011. 

57Tom Behrens, ‘‘Kart Racing: Fast times out on 

the prairie,’’ The Houston Chronicle, November 27, 

2008, p. 4. (accessed from http://www.chron.com on 

January 17, 2014). 

58This information is based upon a Commission 

analysis of sales data provided by Power Products 

Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN. 

59CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, 

Associate Executive Director, Directorate for 

Epidemiology, ‘‘2001 ATV Operability Rate 

Analysis,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Bethesda Maryland (19 August 2003). 

‘‘Operability rate’’ refers to the probability that an 

ATV will remain in operation each year after the 

initial year of production. 

manufactured in China (by nine 

different manufacturers). Less than 1 

percent of ROVs are produced in other 

countries other than the United States or 

China.53

Seven recreational vehicle 

manufacturers, which together account 

for more than 90 percent of the ROV 

market, established ROHVA. The stated 

purpose of ROHVA is ‘‘to promote the 

safe and responsible use of recreational 

off-highway vehicles (ROVs) 

manufactured or distributed in North 

America.’’ ROHVA is accredited by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) to develop voluntary standards 

for ROVs. ROHVA members have 

developed a voluntary standard (ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1–2011) that sets some 

mechanical and performance 

requirements for ROVs. Some ROV 

manufacturers that emphasize the utility 

applications of their vehicles have 

worked with the Outdoor Power 

Equipment Institute (OPEI) to develop 

another ANSI voluntary standard that is 

applicable to ROVs (ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2012). This voluntary standard also sets 

mechanical and performance 

requirements for ROVs. The 

requirements of both voluntary 

standards are similar, but not identical. 

2. Retail Prices 

The average manufacturer’s suggested 

retail price (MSRP) of ROVs in 2013 was 

approximately $13,100, with a range of 

about $3,600 to $20,100. The average 

MSRP for the eight largest 

manufacturers (in terms of market share) 

was about $13,300. The average MSRP 

of ROVs sold by the smaller, mostly 

Chinese manufacturers was about 

$7,900.54

The retail prices of ROVs tend to be 

somewhat higher than the retail prices 

of other recreational and utility 

vehicles. The MSRPs of ROVs are about 

10 percent higher, on average, than the 

MSRPs of low-speed utility vehicles. A 

comparison of MSRPs for the major 

manufacturers of ATVs and ROVs 

indicates that ROVs are priced about 10 

percent to 35 percent higher than ATVs 

offered by the same manufacturer.55

Another source indicates that the price 

of one ROV or other utility vehicle is 

about two-thirds the price of two 

ATVs.56 Go-karts usually retail for 

between $2,500 and $8,000.57

3. Sales and Number in Use 

Sales of ROVs have increased 

substantially since their introduction. In 

1998, only one firm manufactured 

ROVs, and fewer than 2,000 units were 

sold. By 2003, when a second major 

manufacturer entered the market, almost 

20,000 ROVs were sold. The only dip in 

sales occurred around 2008, which 

coincided with the worst period of the 

credit crisis and a recession that also 

started about the same time. In 2013, an 

estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by 

20 different manufacturers.58 The chart 

below shows ROV sales from 1998 

through 2013. 

The number of ROVs available for use 

has also increased substantially. 

Because ROVs are a relatively new 

product, we do not have specific 

information on the expected useful life 

of ROVs. However, using the same 

operability rates that CPSC uses for 

ATVs, we estimate that there were about 

570,000 ROVs available for use in 

2010.59 By the end of 2013, there were 

an estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. 

(See Figure 17). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 68999 

60This information is based upon a Commission 

analysis of information provided by Power Products 

Marketing of Eden Prairie, MN. 

61Mathew Camp, ‘‘Nontraditional Quad Sales Hit 

465,000,’’ Dealer News, April 28, 2008. Available at: 

http://www.dealernews.com/dealernews/article/

nontraditional-quad-sales-hit-465000?page=0,0, 

accessed June 19, 2013. 

62Estimates of ATV sales are based on 

information provided by the Specialty Vehicle 

Manufacturers Association and on confidential data 

purchased from Power Products Marketing of 

Minneapolis, MN. 

63 ‘‘UTV Sales Flatten Out in 2008,’’ Dealer News, 

August 2009, p. 40(4). ‘‘2009 Kawasaki Teryx 750 

FI 4x4 Sport RUV Test Ride Review,’’ article posted 

on: http://www.atvriders.com, accessed 20 August 

2009 and Tom Kaiser, ‘‘Slowing sales: It’s now a 

trend,’’ Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 

44(1). 

64Chris Vogtman, ‘‘Ranger shifts into recreation 

mode,’’ Powersports Business, 12 February 2007, p. 

46(2). 

65 ‘‘U.S. Go-Kart Market in Serious Decline,’’ 

Dealer News, October, 2009, p. 38. 

66 (‘‘Karts Feel the Chinese Crunch,’’ Dealer News, 

November 2007, p. 44(2). 

Most ROVs are sold through retail 

dealers. Generally, dealers that offer 

ROVs also offer other products, such as 

motorcycles, scooters, ATVs, and 

similar vehicles. ROVs are also sold 

through dealers that carry farm 

equipment or commercial turf 

management supplies. 

While sales of ROVs have increased 

over the last several years, sales of 

competing vehicles have leveled off, or 

declined. Low-speed utility vehicles 

have been on the market since the early 

1980s. Their sales increased from about 

50,000 vehicles in 1998, to about 

150,000 vehicles in 2007. In 2011, 

however, sales fell to about 110,000 

vehicles. A substantial portion of these 

sales were for commercial applications 

rather than consumer applications.60

After several years of rapid growth, 

U.S. sales of ATVs peaked in 2006, 

when more than 1.1 million ATVs were 

sold.61 Sales have declined substantially 

since then. In 2012, less than 320,000 

ATVs were sold, including those 

intended for adults, as well as those 

intended for children under the age of 

16 years.62

One factor that could account for part 

of the decline in ATV sales is that after 

many years of increasing sales, the 

market may be saturated. Consequently, 

a greater proportion of future sales will 

likely be replacement vehicles or 

vehicles sold due to population growth. 

Another factor could be the increase in 

sales of ROVs. Some riders find that 

ROVs offer a more comfortable or easier 

ride, and ROVs are more likely to appeal 

to people who prefer the bench or 

bucket seating on ROVs over the 

straddle seating of ATVs. It is also easier 

to carry passengers on ROVs. Most 

ATVs are not intended to carry 

passengers, and the side-by-side seating 

offered by ROVs appears to be preferred 

over the tandem seating on the few 

ATVs intended to carry passengers.63 A 

disadvantage of an ROV compared to an 

ATV is that many ROVs are too wide to 

travel on some trail systems intended 

for ATVs. However, some of the more 

narrow ROVs are capable of negotiating 

many ATV trails.64

Of the several types of vehicles that 

could be substitutes for ROVs, go-karts 

appear to be the smallest market 

segment. After increasing sales for 

several years, go-kart sales peaked at 

about 109,000 vehicles in 2004. Sales of 

go-karts have since declined 

significantly. In 2013, fewer than 20,000 

units were sold. However, many of these 

are aimed at young riders or intended 

for use on tracks or other prepared 

surfaces and would not be reasonable 

substitutes for ROVs for some 

purposes.65 The decline in go-kart sales 

may be due to the influx of inexpensive 

ATVs imported from China, which may 

have led some consumers to purchase 

an ATV rather than a go-kart.66

C. Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries 

Associated With ROVs 

The intent of the proposed rule is to 

reduce the risk of injury and death 

associated with incidents involving 

ROVs. Therefore, any benefits of the 

proposed rule could be measured as a 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.016</GPH>
69000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

67Schroeder T, Ault K. The NEISS Sample 

(Design and Implementation): 1999 to Present. 

Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission; 2001. Available at: http://www.cpsc.

gov/neiss/2001d011-6b6.pdf. 

68Sarah Garland, Directorate for Hazard Analysis, 

‘‘NEISS Injury Estimates for Recreational OffHighway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (September 2011). 

69For a more complete discussion of the Injury 

Cost Model see Ted R. Miller, et al., The Consumer 

Product Safety Commission’s Revised Injury Cost 

Model, (December 2000). Available at: http://www.

cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100304/

costmodept2.PDF. 

70Using the ICM estimates for all cases involving 

ATVs and UTVs, injuries that were initially treated 

in a hospital emergency department accounted for 

about 35 percent of all medically-attended injuries. 

If this estimated ratio, which is based on a larger 

sample, but that includes vehicles that are not 

ROVs, was used instead of the ratio based strictly 

on the 16 known ROV NEISS cases in 2010, the 

estimated number of medically-attended injuries 

would be 8,600. 

71Memorandum from Sarah Garland, Division of 

Hazard Analysis, ‘‘Additional ROV-related 

incidents reported from January 1, 2012 through 

April 5, 2013,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Bethesda, MD (8 April 2013). 72A detailed description of the cost components, 

and the general methodology and data sources used 

to develop the CPSC’s Injury Cost Model, can be 

found in Miller et al. (2000), available at http://

www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF 

and http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/100304/

costmodept2.PDF. 

reduction in the societal costs of injuries 

and deaths associated with ROVs. This 

section discusses the societal costs of 

injuries and deaths. 

1. ROV Injuries 

a. Nonfatal Injuries 

To estimate the number of nonfatal 

injuries associated with ROVs that were 

treated in hospital emergency 

departments, CPSC undertook a special 

study to identify cases that involved 

ROVs that were reported through the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to 

August 31, 2010. NEISS is a stratified 

national probability sample of hospital 

emergency departments that allows the 

Commission to make national estimates 

of product-related injuries. The sample 

consists of about 100 of the 

approximately 5,400 U.S. hospitals that 

have at least six beds and provide 24- 

hour emergency service.67

NEISS does not contain a separate 

product code for ROVs. Injuries 

associated with ROVs are usually 

assigned to either an ATV product code 

(NEISS product codes 3286–3287) or to 

the utility vehicle category (NEISS 

product code 5044). Therefore, the 

Commission reviewed all NEISS cases 

that were coded as involving an ATV or 

a UTV that occurred during the first 8 

months of 2010 and attempted followup interviews with each victim (or a 

relative of the victim) to gather more 

information about the incidents and the 

vehicles involved. The Commission 

determined whether the vehicle 

involved was an ROV based on the 

make and model of the vehicle reported 

in the interviews. If the make and model 

of the vehicle was not reported, the case 

was not counted as an ROV. Out of 

2,018 NEISS cases involving an ATV or 

UTV during the study period, a total of 

668 interviews were completed for a 

response rate of about 33 percent. 

Sixteen of the completed interviews 

were determined to involve an ROV. To 

estimate the number of ROV-related 

injuries initially treated in an 

emergency department in 2010, the 

NEISS weights were adjusted to account 

for both non-response and the fact that 

the survey only covered incidents that 

occurred during the first 8 months of the 

year. Variances were calculated based 

on the adjusted weights. Based on this 

work, the Directorate for Epidemiology 

estimated that there were about 3,000 

injuries (95 percent confidence interval 

of 1,100 to 4,900) involving ROVs in 

2010 that were initially treated in 

hospital emergency departments.68

NEISS injury estimates are limited to 

injuries initially treated in hospital 

emergency departments. NEISS does not 

provide estimates of the number of 

medically attended injuries that were 

treated in other settings, such as 

physicians’ offices, ambulatory care 

centers, or injury victims who bypassed 

the emergency departments and were 

directly admitted to a hospital. 

However, the Injury Cost Model (ICM), 

developed by CPSC for estimating the 

societal cost of injuries, uses empirical 

relationships between cases initially 

treated in hospital emergency 

departments and cases initially treated 

in other medical settings to estimate the 

number of medically attended injuries 

that were treated outside of a hospital 

emergency department.69 According to 

ICM estimates, based on the 16 NEISS 

cases that were identified in the 2010 

study, injuries treated in hospital 

emergency departments accounted for 

about 27 percent of all medically treated 

injuries involving ROVs. Using this 

percentage, the estimate of 3,000 

emergency department-treated injuries 

involving ROVs suggests that there were 

about 11,100 medically treated injuries 

involving ROVs in 2010 (i.e., 3,000 

injuries initially treated in emergency 

departments and 8,100 other medically 

attended injuries) or 194 medically 

attended injuries per 10,000 ROVs in 

use (11,100 ÷ 570,000 × 10,000).70

b. Fatal Injuries 

In addition to the nonfatal injuries, 

there are fatal injuries involving ROVs 

each year. As of April 5, 2013, the 

Commission had identified 49 fatalities 

involving ROVs that occurred in 2010, 

or about 0.9 deaths per 10,000 ROVs in 

use ((49 ÷ 570,000) × 10,000). The actual 

number of deaths in 2010 could be 

higher because reporting is ongoing for 

2010. Overall, CPSC has counted 335 

ROV deaths that occurred from January 

1, 2003 to April 5, 2013. There were no 

reported deaths in 2003, when relatively 

few ROVs were in use. As of April 5, 

2013, there had been 76 deaths reported 

to CPSC that occurred in 2012.71

2. Societal Cost of Injuries and Deaths 

Associated With ROVs 

a. Societal Cost of Nonfatal Injuries 

The CPSC’s ICM provides 

comprehensive estimates of the societal 

costs of nonfatal injuries. The ICM is 

fully integrated with NEISS and 

provides estimates of the societal costs 

of injuries reported through NEISS. The 

major aggregated components of the 

ICM include: Medical costs; work 

losses; and the intangible costs 

associated with lost quality of life or 

pain and suffering.72

Medical costs include three categories 

of expenditure: (1) Medical and hospital 

costs associated with treating the injury 

victim during the initial recovery period 

and in the long run, the costs associated 

with corrective surgery, the treatment of 

chronic injuries, and rehabilitation 

services; (2) ancillary costs, such as 

costs for prescriptions, medical 

equipment, and ambulance transport; 

and (3) costs of health insurance claims 

processing. Cost estimates for these 

expenditure categories were derived 

from a number of national and state 

databases, including the National 

Healthcare Cost and Utilization 

Project—National Inpatient Sample and 

the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 

both sponsored by the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality. 

Work loss estimates, based on 

information from the National Health 

Interview Survey and the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, as well as a number of 

published wage studies, include: (1) The 

forgone earnings of parents and visitors, 

including lost wage work and 

household work, (2) imputed long term 

work losses of the victim that would be 

associated with permanent impairment, 

and (3) employer productivity losses, 

such as the costs incurred when 

employers spend time juggling 

schedules or training replacement 

workers. The earnings estimates were 

updated most recently with weekly 

earnings data from the Current 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69001 

73Rice, D.P. & MacKenzie, E.J. (1989). Cost of 

injury in the United States: A report to Congress, 

Institute for Health and Aging. San Francisco, CA: 

University of California and The Johns Hopkins 

University. 

74 Viscusi, W.K. (1988). Pain and suffering in 

product liability cases: Systematic compensation or 

capricious awards? Int. Rev. Law Econ. 8, 203–220 

and Rodgers, G.B. (1993). Estimating jury 

compensation for pain and suffering in product 

liability cases involving nonfatal personal injury. J. 

For. Econ. 6(3), 251–262. 

75An alternative method for estimating the injury 

costs would be to assume that the patterns of injury 

associated with ROVs are similar to the injury 

patterns associated with all ATVs and UTVs. 

According to ICM estimates for all ATVs and UTVs 

(NEISS Product Codes 3285–3287 and 5044), 

injuries treated in hospital emergency departments 

accounted for about 35 percent of the medically 

attended injuries. This would suggest that the 

number of medically attended injuries involving an 

ROV was about 8,600. The average cost of a 

medically attended injury involving an ATV or 

UTV was $42,737. Therefore, the total societal cost 

of medically attended injuries would be $367.5 

million. 

76The estimate of the VSL developed by the EPA 

is explained EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing 

Economic Analysis, Appendix B: Mortality Risk 

Valuation Estimates (Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2014) and is available at http://yosemite.

epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/

$file/EE-0568-50.pdf. The OMB’s 2013 Draft Report 

to Congress is available at: http://www.whitehouse.

gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/2013_cb/draft_

2013_cost_benefit_report.pdf. Both reports were 

accessed on August 6, 2014. 

77CPSC Memorandum from Mark S. Levenson, 

Division of Hazard Analysis, to Susan Ahmed, 

Associate Executive Director, Directorate for 

Epidemiology, ‘‘2001 ATV Operability Rate 

Analysis,’’ U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Bethesda MD (19 August 2003). 

78The choice of discount rate is consistent with 

research suggesting that a real rate of 3 percent is 

an appropriate discount rate for interventions 

involving public health (see Gold, Marthe R, Joanna 

E. Siegel, Louise B. Russell and Milton C. 

Continued 

Population Survey conducted by the 

Bureau of the Census in conjunction 

with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Intangible, or non-economic, costs of 

injury reflect the physical and 

emotional trauma of injury as well as 

the mental anguish of victims and 

caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult 

to quantify because they do not 

represent products or resources traded 

in the marketplace. Nevertheless, they 

typically represent the largest 

component of injury cost and need to be 

accounted for in any benefit-cost 

analysis involving health outcomes.73

The Injury Cost Model develops a 

monetary estimate of these intangible 

costs from jury awards for pain and 

suffering. While these awards can vary 

widely on a case-by-case basis, studies 

have shown them to be systematically 

related to a number of factors, including 

economic losses, the type and severity 

of injury, and the age of the victim.74

Estimates for the Injury Cost Model 

were derived from a regression analysis 

of about 2,000 jury awards in nonfatal 

product liability cases involving 

consumer products compiled by Jury 

Verdicts Research, Inc. 

In addition to estimating the costs of 

injuries treated in U.S. hospital 

emergency departments and reported 

through NEISS, the Injury Cost Model 

uses empirical relationships between 

emergency department injuries and 

those treated in other settings (e.g., 

physicians’ offices, clinics, ambulatory 

surgery centers, and direct hospital 

admissions) to estimate the number, 

types, and costs of injuries treated 

outside of hospital emergency 

departments. Thus, the ICM allows us to 

expand on NEISS by combining (1) the 

number and costs of emergency 

department injuries with (2) the number 

and costs of medically attended injuries 

treated in other settings to estimate the 

total number of medically attended 

injuries and their costs across all 

treatment levels. 

In this analysis, we use injury data 

from 2010, as a baseline from which to 

estimate the societal cost of injuries 

associated with ROVs. We use the year 

2010 because 2010 is the year for which 

we have the most comprehensive 

estimates of both fatal and nonfatal 

injuries associated with ROVs. 

According to ICM, the average societal 

cost of a medically attended injury 

associated with ROVs in 2010 was 

$29,383 in 2012 dollars. Based on this 

estimate, the total societal costs of the 

medically attended injuries involving 

ROVs in 2010 was about $326.2 million 

in 2012 dollars (11,100 injuries × 

$29,383). About 75 percent of the cost 

was related to the pain and suffering. 

About 9 percent of the cost was related 

to medical treatment, and about 16 

percent was related to work and 

productivity losses victim, caregivers, 

visitors, and employers. Less than 1 

percent of the cost was associated with 

the costs of the legal and liability 

system. 

These cost estimates are based on a 

small sample of only 16 NEISS cases. 

This sample is too small to reflect the 

full range of injury patterns (i.e., the 

different combinations of injury 

diagnoses, body parts, and injury 

dispositions) and rider characteristics 

(i.e., age and sex) associated with ROV 

injuries. In fact, because the 16 NEISS 

cases did not include any case in which 

the victim required admission to a 

hospital, the cost estimates are probably 

low. Nevertheless, this estimate will be 

used in this analysis with the 

knowledge that the estimate’s use 

probably leads to an underestimate of 

the societal costs associated with ROVs 

and underestimates of the potential 

benefits of the proposed rule intended 

to reduce the risk of injury associated 

with ROVs.75

b. Societal Cost of Fatal Injuries 

As discussed above, there were at 

least 49 fatal injuries involving ROVs in 

2010. If we assign a cost of $8.4 million 

for each death, then the societal costs 

associated with these deaths would 

amount to about $411.6 million (49 

deaths × $8.4 million). The estimate of 

$8.4 million is the estimate of $7.4 

million (in 2006 dollars) developed by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) updated to 2012 dollars 

and is consistent with willingness-topay estimates of the value of a statistical 

life (VSL). According to OMB’s 2013 

Draft Report to Congress on the Benefits 

and Costs of Federal Regulations and 

Agency Compliance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, willingness-topay-estimates of the VSL generally vary 

from about $1.3 million to $12.2 million 

in 2010 dollars. In 2012 dollars, the 

range would be $1.3 million to 13.0 

million.76

c. Societal Cost of Injuries per ROV in 

Use 

Based on the previous discussion, the 

total estimated societal costs of deaths 

and injuries associated with ROVs were 

$737.8 million in 2010 (expressed in 

2012 dollars). The estimate does not 

include the costs associated with any 

property damage, such as property 

damage to the ROVs involved or other 

property, such as another vehicle or 

object that might have been involved in 

an incident. 

Given the earlier estimate that about 

570,000 ROVs were in use at the end of 

2010, the estimated societal costs of 

deaths and medically attended injuries 

was about $1,294 per ROV in use 

($737.8 million ÷ 570,000) in 2010. 

However, because the typical ROV is 

expected to be in use for 15 to 20 years, 

the expected societal cost of fatalities or 

deaths per ROV over the vehicle’s useful 

life is the present value of the annual 

societal costs summed over the ROV’s 

expected useful life. CPSC has not 

estimated the operability rates of ROVs 

as they age. However, CPSC has 

estimated the operability rates for ATVs 

as they age, based on the results of 

exposure surveys.77 ROVs and ATVs are 

similar vehicles in that they are both offroad recreational vehicles generally 

produced by the same manufacturers. If 

ROVs have the same operability rates as 

they age as ATVs, the present value of 

the societal cost of injuries over the 

expected useful life of an ROV (at a 3 

percent discount rate) is $17,784.78

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69002 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Weinstein, 1996, Cost-Effectiveness in Health and 

Medicine, New York: Oxford University Press). 

79This estimate is based on the rates that CPSC 

has most recently paid a contractor for conducting 

these tests. For example, see contract CPSC–D–11– 

0003, which provides the following costs estimates: 

$3,000 for static measurement to determine center 

of gravity location, $19,000 to perform dynamic 

test, and $2,000 to ship vehicles. This amounts to 

approximately $24,000. 

D. Requirements of the Proposed Rule: 

Costs and Benefits 

The proposed rule would establish a 

mandatory safety standard for ROVs. 

The requirements of the proposed rule 

can be divided into two general 

categories: (1) Lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements, and (2) 

occupant-retention requirements. 

Following is a discussion of the costs 

and benefits that are expected to be 

associated with the requirements of the 

proposed rule. As discussed earlier, we 

use 2010 as the base year for this 

analysis because it is the only year for 

which we have estimates of both fatal 

and nonfatal injuries associated with 

ROVs. However, where quantified, the 

costs and benefits are expressed in 2012 

dollars. 

In general, the cost estimates were 

developed in consultation with the 

Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES 

staff). Estimates are based on ES staff’s 

interactions with manufacturers and 

knowledge related to ROV design and 

manufacturing process as well as direct 

experience with testing ROVs and 

similar products. In many cases, we 

relied on ES staff’s expert judgment. 

Consequently, we note that these 

estimates are preliminary and welcome 

comments on their accuracy and the 

assumptions underlying their 

constructions. We are especially 

interested in data that would help us to 

refine our estimates to more accurately 

reflect the expected costs of the draft 

proposed rule as well as any alternative 

estimates that interested parties can 

provide. 

1. Lateral Stability and Vehicle 

Handling Requirements 

The lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirements of the proposed 

rule would require that all ROVs meet 

a minimum level of rollover resistance 

and that ROVs exhibit sub-limit 

understeer characteristics. The dynamic 

lateral stability requirement would set a 

minimum value for the lateral 

acceleration at roll-over of 0.70 g (unit 

of standard gravity), as determined by a 

30 mph drop-throttle J-turn test. The 

greater the lateral acceleration value, the 

greater the resistance of the ROV is to 

tipping or rolling over. The understeer 

requirement would mandate that ROVs 

exhibit understeer characteristics in the 

sublimit range of the turn circle test 

described in the proposed rule. 

The proposed rule would also require 

manufacturers to place a hangtag on all 

new vehicles that provides the lateral 

acceleration at rollover value for the 

model and provides information to the 

consumer about how to interpret this 

value. The intent of the hangtag is to 

provide the potential consumer with 

information about the rollover 

propensity of the model to aid in the 

comparison of ROV models before 

purchase. The content and format of the 

hangtag are described in Section IX.C.2. 

The proposed rule describes the test 

procedures required to measure the 

dynamic rollover resistance and the 

understeering performance of the ROV, 

including the requirements for the test 

surface, the loading of test vehicles, and 

the instrumentation required for 

conducting the tests and for dataacquisition during the tests. The test for 

rollover resistance would use a 30 mph 

drop-throttle J-turn test. This test uses a 

programmable steering controller to turn 

the test vehicle traveling at 30 mph at 

prescribed steering angles and rates to 

determine the minimum steering angle 

at which two-wheel lift is observed. The 

data collected during these tests are 

analyzed to compute and verify the 

lateral acceleration at rollover for the 

vehicle. 

The test for vehicle handling or 

understeer performance involves 

driving the vehicle around a 100-foot 

radius circle at increasing speeds, with 

the driver making every effort to 

maintain compliance of the vehicle path 

relative to the circle. Data collected 

during the tests are analyzed to 

determine whether the vehicle 

understeers through the required range. 

The proposed rule would require that 

all ROVs exhibit understeer for values of 

ground plane lateral acceleration from 

0.10 to 0.50 g. 

a. Cost of Lateral Stability and Vehicle 

Handling Requirements 

All manufacturers would have to 

conduct the tests prescribed in the 

proposed rule to determine whether 

their models meet the requirements and 

to obtain the information on dynamic 

lateral stability that must be reported to 

consumers on the hangtag. If any model 

fails to meet one or both of the 

requirements, the manufacturer would 

have to make adjustments or 

modifications to the design of the 

model. After the model has been 

modified, the manufacturer would have 

to conduct tests on the modified models 

to check that the model meets the 

requirements. 

There is substantial overlap in the 

conditions under which the tests for 

dynamic lateral stability and vehicle 

handling must be performed. The test 

surfaces are the same, and the vehicle 

condition, loading, and instrumentation 

required for both tests are virtually the 

same. The one difference is that the test 

for dynamic lateral stability also 

requires that the test vehicle be 

equipped with a programmable steering 

controller. Because there is substantial 

overlap in the conditions under which 

the tests must be conducted, 

manufacturers likely will conduct both 

sets of tests on the same day. This 

would save manufacturers the cost of 

loading and instrumenting the test 

vehicle twice and renting a test facility 

for more than one day. 

We estimate that the cost of 

conducting the dynamic lateral stability 

tests and the vehicle handling tests will 

be about $24,000 per model.79 This 

includes the cost of conducting both 

sets of tests, measuring the center of 

gravity of the test vehicle, which is 

required for the dynamic lateral stability 

test, transporting the test vehicle to and 

from the test site, outfitting the test 

vehicles with the needed equipment 

and instruments, and the cost of renting 

the test facility. This estimate also 

assumes that both tests are being 

conducted on the same day and that the 

manufacturer only needs to rent the test 

facility for one day and pay for loading 

and instrumenting the test vehicles 

once. 

If the model meets the requirements 

of both tests, the manufacturer would 

have no additional costs associated with 

these requirements. The tests would not 

have to be conducted again, unless the 

manufacturer makes changes to the 

model that could affect the vehicle’s 

performance in these tests. 

If the model does not meet the 

requirements of one or both of the tests, 

the manufacturer will incur costs to 

adjust the vehicle’s design. Engineers 

specializing in the design of utility and 

recreational vehicles are likely to have 

a good understanding of vehicle 

characteristics that influence vehicle 

stability and handling. Therefore, these 

engineers should be able to modify 

easily the design of a vehicle to meet the 

stability and handling requirements. 

The Yamaha Rhino repair program 

demonstrated that an ROV that did not 

meet the lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirements was successfully 

modified to meet the requirements by 

increasing the track width and reducing 

the rear suspension stiffness (by 

removing the sway bar) of the ROV. 

Based on experience with automotive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69003 

80 If the ROV already met the lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements, the low estimate of 

$24,000 could overstate the incremental cost of 

meeting the requirements if the manufacturer was 

already performing the tests prescribed in the 

proposed rule. 

81 In 2011, the average number of units sold per 

model was about 1,800. Depending on the 

particular model, the units sold ranged from less 

than 10 for some models, to more than 10,000 for 

others (based on an analysis by CPSC staff of a 

database obtained from Power Products Marketing 

of Eden Prairie, MN). 

82These per-unit cost estimates are an attempt to 

estimate the average per-unit costs across all ROV 

models. The actual per-unit cost for any ROV model 

would depend upon the sales volume for that 

model. If the sales were substantially more than 

1,800 units annually, then the per-unit cost would 

be substantially lower than the estimate above. If 

sales were substantially less than 1,800 units 

annually, then the per-unit cost of the proposed 

requirements would be substantially higher. 

83U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 

(Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC), total compensation for production, 

transportation, and material moving for all workers 

in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of 

Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ece0c_

09112012.pdf 

84U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 

(Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC), total compensation for all management, 

professional, and related for all workers in private 

industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. 

Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

09112012.pdf. 

manufacturing, ES staff believes that 

less than 1 or 2 person-months would be 

required to modify an ROV model that 

did not comply with the requirements. 

A high estimate would be that a 

manufacturer might require as many as 

4 person-months (or about 700 hours) to 

modify. Assuming an hourly rate of 

$61.75, which is the estimated total 

hourly compensation for management, 

professional, and related workers, the 

cost to modify the design of an ROV 

model to meet the stability and handling 

requirements, using the high estimate, 

would be about $43,000. 

The Commission believes that most 

modifications that might be required to 

meet the lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirements will have 

minimal, if any, impact on the 

production or manufacturing costs 

because the assembly of an ROV already 

includes installation of a wheel axle and 

installing a longer wheel axle or wheel 

spacer would not change the current 

assembly procedure; likewise, the 

assembly of an ROV already includes 

installation of sway bars and shock 

absorbers and installing different 

variations of these suspension 

components would not affect the 

current assembly procedure. 

Once an ROV model has been 

modified to comply with the 

requirements, the manufacturer will 

have to retest the vehicle to check that 

the model does comply with the 

requirements. Both the dynamic 

stability and vehicle handling tests will 

have to be conducted on the redesigned 

model, even if the original model failed 

only one of the tests. This is because the 

design changes could have impacted the 

ROVs ability to comply with either 

requirement. Therefore, the full cost of 

the proposed lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements could 

range from a low of about $24,000 for 

a model that already met the 

requirements, up to $91,000, for a 

scenario in which the model was tested, 

the manufacturer required 4 personmonths to modify the vehicle, and the 

vehicle was retested to check that the 

modified vehicle complied with the 

requirements.80

Although the plausible range for the 

cost of the lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirement is $24,000 to 

$91,000 per model, the Commission 

believes that the average cost per model 

will be toward the low end of this range 

because CPSC tested 10 ROVs that 

represented the recreational and utility 

oriented ROVs available in 2010, and 

found that four out of 10 ROVs met the 

lateral stability requirement and five out 

of 10 ROVs met the vehicle handling 

requirements. As discussed previously, 

for models that already meet the 

requirements, the manufacturer will 

incur no additional costs other than the 

cost of the testing. Based upon CPSC 

examination of models that do not meet 

the requirements, CPSC believes in most 

cases the manufacturers should be able 

to bring the model into compliance with 

the requirements by making simple 

changes to the track width, or to the 

suspension of the vehicle. These are 

relatively modest modifications that 

probably can be accomplished in less 

time than the high estimate of 4 months. 

However, the Commission welcomes 

comments on our underlying rationale 

for the estimates as well as the estimates 

themselves. 

It is frequently useful to compare the 

benefits and costs of a rule on a per-unit 

basis. Based on 2011 sales data, the 

average unit sales price per ROV model 

was about 1,800.81 ROVs are a relatively 

new product and the average number of 

years a ROV model will be produced 

before being redesigned is uncertain. It 

is often observed that automobile 

models are redesigned every 4 to 6 

years. If a ROV model is produced for 

about 5 years before being redesigned, 

then the cost of testing the model for 

compliance with the dynamic lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements, and, if necessary, 

modifying the design of the vehicle to 

comply with the requirements and 

retesting the vehicle would apply to 

about 9,000 units. (The Commission 

welcomes comments on this 

assumption.) Therefore, the average perunit cost of the proposed dynamic 

lateral stability and vehicle handling 

requirements would be about $3 per 

unit ($24,000 ÷ 9,000), if the model 

already complies with the requirements. 

Using the high estimate of the time that 

it could take to modify a model that fails 

or one or both of the tests, the per-unit 

cost would be about $10 per unit 

($91,000 ÷ 9,000).82

The proposed rule requires that the 

manufacturer attach a hangtag on each 

new ROV that provides the ROV’s 

lateral acceleration at rollover value, 

which can be used by the consumer to 

compare the rollover resistance of 

different ROVs. We estimate that the 

cost of the hangtag, including the 

designing and printing of the hangtag, 

and attaching the hang tag to the 

vehicle, will be less than $0.25 per 

vehicle. Our estimates are based on the 

following assumptions: (1) The cost of 

printing the hang tag and the wire for 

attaching the hang tag is about 8 cents 

per vehicle, (2) placing the hang tag on 

each vehicle will require about 20 

seconds at an hourly rate of $26.11 83

and (3) designing and laying out the 

hang tag for each model will require 

about 30 minutes at an hourly rate of 

$61.75.84 The estimate of 30 minutes for 

the hang tag design reflects that the 

proposed rule provides a sample of the 

required hang tag and guidance 

regarding the layout of the hang tag for 

manufacturers to follow. Also, if the 

manufacturer has multiple models, the 

same template could be used across 

models; the manufacturer would simply 

need to change the lateral acceleration 

number and model identification. In 

light of these considerations, CPSC 

believes that 30 minutes per model 

represents a reasonable estimate of the 

effort involved, but we welcome 

comments on this estimate, especially 

comments that will assist us in refining 

the estimate. 

According to several ROV 

manufacturers, some ROV users ‘‘might 

prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway 

environment.’’ This assertion appeared 

in a public comment on the ANPR for 

ROVs (Docket No. CPSC–2009–0087), 

submitted jointly on behalf of Arctic 

Cat, Inc., Bombardier Recreational 

Products, Inc., Polaris Industries, Inc., 

and Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA. 

To the extent that the requirements in 

the proposed rule would reduce the 

ability of these users to reach limit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69004 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

85Sarah Garland, Ph.D., Analysis of Reported 

Incidents Involving Deaths or Injuries Associated 

with Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs), 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Bethesda, MD (May 2012). 

86 65 FR 34988 (June 1, 2000). 87Walz, M. C. (2005). Trends in the Static 

Stability Factor of Passenger Cars, Light Trucks, and 

Vans. DOT HS 809 868. Retrieved from http://www.

nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809868/pages/

index.html. 

oversteer intentionally, the proposed 

rule could have some adverse impact on 

the utility or enjoyment that these users 

receive from ROVs. These impacts 

would probably be limited to a small 

number of recreational users who enjoy 

activities or stunts that involve power 

oversteering or limit oversteer. 

Although the impact on consumers 

who prefer limit oversteer cannot be 

quantified, the Commission expects that 

the impact will be low. Any impact 

would be limited to those consumers 

who wish to engage intentionally in 

activities involving the loss of traction 

or power oversteer. The practice of 

power oversteer, such as the speed at 

which a user takes a turn, results from 

driver choice. The proposed rule would 

not prevent ROVs from reaching limit 

oversteer under all conditions; nor 

would the rule prevent consumers from 

engaging in these activities. At most, the 

proposed rule might make reaching 

limit oversteer in an ROV to be 

somewhat more difficult for users to 

achieve. 

b. Benefits of the Lateral Stability and 

Vehicle Handling Requirements 

The benefit of the dynamic lateral 

stability and vehicle handling or 

understeer requirements would be the 

reduction of injuries and deaths 

attributable to these requirements. The 

intent of the dynamic lateral stability 

requirement is to reduce rollover 

incidents that involve ROVs. A CPSC 

analysis of 428 ROV incidents showed 

that at least 68 percent involved the 

vehicle rolling sideways. More than half 

of the overturning incidents (or 35 

percent of the total incidents) occurred 

during a turn. There were other 

incidents (24 percent of the total 

incidents) in which the vehicle rolled 

sideways, but it is not known whether 

the incident occurred during a turn.85

The dynamic lateral stability 

requirement is intended to ensure that 

all ROVs on the market have at least a 

minimum level of resistance to rollover 

during turns, as determined by the test 

in the proposed rule. Additionally, by 

requiring through the use of hang tags 

that consumers be informed of the 

rollover resistance of ROV models, the 

proposed rule would make it easier for 

consumers to compare the rollover 

resistance of ROV models before making 

a purchase. Manufacturers might be 

encouraged to develop ROV models 

with greater resistance to rollover if 

consumers show a clear preference for 

ROVs with the higher values for lateral 

acceleration threshold at rollover when 

they purchase new ROVs. As a similar 

example, in 2001, NHTSA began 

including rollover resistance 

information in its new car assessment 

program (NCAP).86 NHTSA believed 

that consumer information on the 

rollover risk of passenger cars would 

influence consumers to purchase 

vehicles with a lower rollover risk and 

inspire manufacturers to produce 

vehicles with a lower rollover risk.87 A 

subsequent study of static stability 

factor (SSF) trends in automobiles found 

that SSF values increased for all 

vehicles after 2001, particularly SUVs, 

which tended to have the worst SSF 

values in the earlier years.87

The understeer requirement is 

intended to reduce the likelihood of a 

driver losing control of an ROV during 

a turn, which can lead to the vehicle 

rollover, striking another vehicle, or 

striking a fixed object. Oversteer is an 

undesirable trait because it is a 

directionally unstable steering response 

that leads to dynamic instability and 

loss of control. For this reason, 

automobiles are designed to exhibit 

understeer characteristics up to the 

traction limits of the tires. Sub-limit 

oversteer is also undesirable for offhighway vehicles due to the numerous 

trip hazards that exist in the offhighway environment and can cause the 

vehicles to roll over. 

Although the Commission believes 

that the dynamic lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements will 

reduce the number of deaths and 

injuries involving ROVs, it is not 

possible to quantify this benefit because 

we do not have sufficient data to 

estimate the injury rates of models that 

already meet the requirements and 

models that do not meet the 

requirements. Thus, we cannot estimate 

the potential effectiveness of the 

dynamic lateral stability and vehicle 

handling requirements in preventing 

injuries. However, these requirements 

are intended to reduce the risk of an 

ROV rolling sideways when making a 

turn. Because the estimated societal cost 

of deaths and injuries associated with 

ROVs is $17,784 over the useful life of 

an ROV, and because at least 35 percent 

of the injuries occurred when an ROV 

rolled sideways when making a turn, 

these requirements would address 

approximately $6,224 in societal costs 

per ROV ($17,784 × .35). Consequently, 

given that the estimated cost of the 

lateral stability and handling 

requirements is less than $10 per ROV, 

the requirements would have to prevent 

less than about 0.2 percent of these 

incidents ($10 ÷ $6,224) for the benefits 

of the requirements to exceed the costs. 

2. Occupant Retention Requirements 

The occupant retention requirements 

of the proposed rule are intended to 

keep the occupant within the vehicle or 

within the rollover protective structure 

(ROPs). First, each ROV would be 

required to have a means to restrict 

occupant egress and excursion in the 

shoulder/hip zone, as defined by the 

proposed rule. This requirement could 

be met by a fixed barrier or structure on 

the ROV or by a barrier or structure that 

can be put into place by the occupant 

using one hand in one operation, such 

as a door. Second, the proposed rule 

would require that the speed of an ROV 

be limited to a maximum of 15 mph, 

unless the seat belts for both the driver 

and any front seat passengers are 

fastened. The purpose of these 

requirements is to prevent deaths and 

injuries, especially incidents involving 

full or partial ejection of the rider from 

the vehicle. 

a. Costs of Occupant Retention 

Requirements 

i. Means To Restrict Occupant Egress or 

Excursion 

Most ROVs already have some 

occupant protection barriers or 

structures. In some cases, these 

structures might already meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule. In 

other cases, they could be modified or 

repositioned to meet the requirements of 

the proposed rule. A simple barrier that 

would meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule could be fabricated out of 

a length of metal tubing that is bent and 

bolted or welded to the ROPs or other 

suitable structure of the vehicle in the 

shoulder/hip zone of the vehicle, as 

defined in the proposed rule. ES staff 

believes that any additional metal 

tubing required to form such a barrier 

could be obtained for a cost of about $2 

per barrier. ES also believes that the 

additional time that would be required 

to bolt or weld the barrier to the vehicle 

would be less than 1 minute. Assuming 

an hourly labor cost of $26.11, the labor 

time required would be less than $0.50. 

ES staff also believes that it would take 

manufacturers only a few hours to 

determine how an existing ROV model 

would need to be modified to comply 

with the requirement and to make the 

necessary drawings to implement the 

change. When spread over the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69005 

88U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 

(Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC), total compensation for all management, 

professional, and related for all workers in private 

industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of Labor. 

Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

09112012.pdf. 

89The estimate has been rounded to the nearest 

$10,000. 

90NHTSA estimated the cost of a seat belt use 

sensor to be $2 to $5 in 1997 dollars. The cost has 

been adjusted to 2012 dollars using the CPI 

Inflation Calculator at: http://www.bls.gov/data/

inflation_calculator.htm. 

production of the model, this cost 

would only amount to a few cents per 

vehicle. Therefore, the estimated cost is 

expected to be less than $3 per barrier. 

Based on a cost of less than $3 per 

barrier, the cost per vehicle would be 

less than $6 for ROVs that do not have 

rear seats and $12 for ROVs with rear 

seats. One exposure study found that 

about 20 percent of ROVs had a seating 

capacity of 4 or more, which indicates 

that these ROVs have rear seats. 

Therefore, if all ROV models required 

modification to meet the standard, the 

weighted average cost per ROV would 

be about $7 ($6 × 0.8 + $12 × 0.2). 

However, CPSC tested 10 ROVs that 

represented the recreational and utility 

oriented ROVs available in 2010, and 

found that four out 10 ROVs had a 

passive shoulder barrier that passed a 

probe test specified in ANSI/ROHVA 1– 

2011. Therefore, this estimate of the 

average cost is high because there would 

be no additional cost for models that 

already meet the proposed requirement. 

We welcome comments on these costs 

and the assumptions underlying their 

constructions. We are especially 

interested in data that would help us to 

refine our estimates to more accurately 

reflect the expected costs of this 

proposed requirement as well as any 

alternative estimates that interested 

parties can provide. 

ii. Requirement To Limit Speed If the 

Driver’s Seat Belt Is Not Fastened 

The requirement that the speed of the 

vehicle be limited if the driver’s seat 

belt is unfastened does not mandate any 

specific technology. Therefore, 

manufacturers would have some 

flexibility in implementing this 

requirement. Nevertheless, based on 

staff’s examination of and experience 

with speed-limiting technology, 

including examination of current ROV 

models with this feature, most systems 

to meet this requirement will probably 

include the following components: 

1. A seat belt use sensor in the seat 

belt latch, which detects when the seat 

belt is fastened; 

2. a means to limit the speed of the 

vehicle when the seat belt is not 

fastened; 

3. a means to provide a visual signal 

to the driver of the vehicle when the 

speed of the vehicle is limited because 

the seat belt is not fastened; 

4. wiring or other means for the 

sensor in the seat belt latch to send 

signals to the vehicle components used 

to limit the speed of the vehicle and 

provide feedback to the driver. 

Before implementing any changes to 

their vehicles to meet the requirement, 

manufacturers would have to analyze 

their options for meeting the 

requirement. This process would 

include developing prototypes of system 

designs, testing the prototypes, and 

refining the design of the systems based 

on this testing. Once the manufacturer 

has settled upon a system for meeting 

the requirement, the system will have to 

be incorporated into the manufacturing 

process of the vehicle. This will involve 

producing the engineering 

specifications and drawings of the 

system, parts, assemblies, and 

subassemblies that are required. 

Manufacturers will need to obtain the 

needed parts from their suppliers and 

incorporate the steps needed to install 

the system on the vehicles in the 

assembly line. 

ES staff believes that it will take about 

nine person-months per ROV model to 

design, test, implement, and begin 

manufacturing vehicles that meet the 

requirements. The total compensation 

for management, professional, and 

related occupations as of 2012, is about 

$61.75 per hour.88 Therefore, if 

designing and implementing a system to 

meet the requirement entails about nine 

person months (or 1,560 hours), the cost 

to the company would be about 

$100,000 per ROV model.89

Manufacturers would be expected to 

perform certification tests, following the 

procedure described in the proposed 

rule, at least once for each model the 

manufacturer produces, to ensure that 

the model, as manufactured, meets the 

rule’s requirements. Additionally, 

manufacturers would be expected to 

perform the certification testing again if 

they make any changes to the design or 

components used in a vehicle that could 

impact the ROV’s compliance with this 

requirement. We estimate that the cost 

of this testing would be about $4,000 

per model. This estimate assumes that 

the testing will require three 

professional employees 4 hours to 

conduct the testing at $61.75 per hour, 

per person. Additionally, the rental of 

the test facility will cost $1,000; rental 

of the radar gun will cost $400; and 

transportation to the test facility will 

cost $1,400, and that the test vehicle can 

be sold after the testing is completed. 

In addition to the cost of developing 

and implementing the system, 

manufacturers will incur costs to 

acquire any parts required for the 

system and to install the parts on the 

vehicles. We estimate the cost of adding 

a seat belt-use sensor to detect when the 

seat belt is fastened to be about $7 per 

seat belt. This estimate is based on 

figures used by the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

in its preliminary economic assessment 

of an advanced air bag rule.90 This is a 

widely used technology; virtually all 

passenger cars have such sensors in 

their driver side seat belt latches to 

signal the seat belt reminder system in 

the car. The sensors and seat belt latches 

that would be expected to be used to 

meet this requirement in ROVs are 

virtually the same as the sensors used in 

passenger cars. 

There is more than one method 

manufacturers could use to limit the 

maximum speed of the vehicle when the 

driver’s seat belt is unfastened. One 

method would be to use a device, such 

as a solenoid, that limits mechanically 

the throttle opening. Based on observed 

retail prices for solenoid valves used in 

automotive applications, the cost to 

manufacturers of such a solenoid should 

be no more than about $25 per vehicle. 

One retailer had 24 different solenoids 

available at retail prices ranging from 

about $24 to $102. We expect that a 

manufacturer would be able to obtain 

similar solenoids for substantially less 

than the retail price. Thus, using the 

low end of the observed retail prices 

suggests that manufacturers would 

probably be able to acquire acceptable 

solenoids for about $25 each. 

Manufacturers of ROVs equipped 

with electronic throttle control (ETC or 

‘‘throttle by wire’’) would have at least 

one other option for limiting the 

maximum speed of the vehicle. Instead 

of using a mechanical means to limit the 

throttle opening, the engine control unit 

(ECU) of the vehicle, which controls the 

throttle, could be reprogrammed or 

‘‘mapped’’ in a way that would limit the 

speed of the vehicle if the seat belt was 

not fastened. If the ECU can be used to 

limit the maximum speed of the ROV, 

the only cost would be the cost of 

reprogramming or mapping the ECU, 

which would be completed in the 

implementation stage of development, 

discussed previously. There would be 

no additional manufacturing costs 

involved. 

There would be at least two options 

for providing a visual signal to the 

driver that the speed of the vehicle is 

limited because seat belts are not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

91U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 

(Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC), total compensation for production, 

transportation, and material moving for all workers 

in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of 

Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

09112012.pdf 

fastened. One option would be to use an 

LCD display. Most ROV models already 

have an LCD display in the dashboard 

that could be used for this purpose. If 

an LCD display is present, the only cost 

would be the cost of the programming 

required for the display to show this 

message. This cost would be included in 

the estimated cost of the research and 

development, and there would be no 

additional manufacturing cost. 

Another option for providing a visual 

signal to the driver that the speed of the 

vehicle is limited would be to use a 

lighted message or icon on the 

dashboard or control panel of the 

vehicle. Both voluntary standards 

already require a ‘‘lighted seat belt 

reminder.’’ To comply with this 

proposed requirement, the current 

visual reminder would have to be 

modified. For example, the wording or 

icons of the reminder would change, 

and the reminder would probably 

require a somewhat larger area on the 

dashboard or control panel. There could 

be some additional cost for an extra bulb 

or lamp to illuminate the larger area or 

icon. Based on its experience, ES staff 

believes that the cost of an additional 

bulb or lamp would be about $1 or less 

per vehicle. 

There will be some labor costs 

involved in installing the components 

needed to meet this requirement, 

including installing and connecting the 

wires. We expect that the components 

would be installed at the stage of 

assembly that would minimize the 

amount of labor required. If the amount 

of additional labor per vehicle was 

about 5 minutes, and assuming a total 

labor compensation rate of $26.11 an 

hour,91 the labor cost is estimated to 

amount to approximately $2 per vehicle. 

In addition to the certification testing 

discussed previously, most 

manufacturers would be expected to 

conduct some quality assurance testing 

on vehicles as the vehicles come off the 

assembly line. Virtually all 

manufacturers already perform some 

quality control or quality assurance tests 

on their vehicles. The tests are intended 

to ensure, among other things, that the 

vehicle starts properly, that the throttle 

and brakes function properly, and that 

any lights function properly. Testing of 

the system limiting the maximum speed 

when the driver’s seat belt is not 

fastened would likely be incorporated 

into this testing to ensure that the 

system is working as intended. These 

tests could simply involve running the 

vehicle once with the seat belt 

unfastened to determine whether speed 

was limited and running the vehicle 

again with the seat belt fastened to 

determine whether the maximum speed 

was no longer limited. If this testing 

added an additional 10 minutes to the 

amount of time it takes to test each 

vehicle, the cost would be about $4 per 

vehicle, assuming a total hourly 

compensation rate of $26.11. 

The manufacturing costs that would 

be associated with meeting the seat belt 

reminder and speed limitation 

requirement of the proposed rule are 

summarized in Table 8. These costs 

include the cost of one seat belt-use 

sensor, the throttle or engine control, 

the visual feedback to the driver, and 

about 5 minutes of labor time and about 

10 minutes for testing. 

TABLE 8—ESTIMATED MANUFACTURING

COSTS OF REQUIREMENT, PER ROV 

Component Cost 

Seat Belt-Use Sensor ........ $7. 

Throttle or Engine Control $0 to $25. 

Visual Signal to Driver ....... $1. 

Labor .................................. $2. 

Quality Control Testing ...... $4. 

Total ............................... $14 to $39. 

As discussed previously, we estimate 

the upfront research, design, and 

implementation costs to be about 

$100,000 per model, and the 

certification testing costs are estimated 

to be about $4,000 per model. 

Assuming, as before, that the average 

annual sales per model are 1,800 units, 

and assuming that the typical model is 

produced for 5 years, then the research, 

design, and certification testing costs 

would average about $12 per vehicle. 

The average cost for models produced at 

lower volumes would be higher, and the 

average cost for models produced at 

higher-than-average volumes would be 

lower. Given the average cost of the 

design and development and the costs 

of the parts and manufacturing, we 

estimate that this requirement would 

cost between $26 ($14 + $12) and $51 

($39 + 12) per vehicle. 

Unquantifiable Costs to Users—The 

requirement could impose some 

unquantifiable costs on certain users 

who would prefer not to use seat belts. 

The cost to these users would be the 

time required to buckle and unbuckle 

their seat belts and any disutility cost, 

such as discomfort caused by wearing 

the seat belt. We cannot quantify these 

costs because we do not know how 

many ROV users choose not to wear 

their seat belts. Nor do we have the 

ability to quantify any discomfort or 

disutility that ROV users would 

experience from wearing seat belts. 

However, the proposed rule does not 

require that the seat belts be fastened, 

unless the vehicle is traveling 15 mph 

or faster. This requirement should serve 

to mitigate these costs because many 

people who would be inconvenienced 

or discomforted by the requirement, 

such as people using the vehicle for 

work or utility purposes, or people who 

must get on and off the vehicle 

frequently, are likely to be traveling at 

lower speeds. 

iii. Requirement To Limit Speed If Seat 

Belts for Front Passengers Are Not 

Fastened 

The proposed rule would also require 

that the speed of the ROV be limited to 

no more than 15 mph if the seat belt of 

any front passenger, who is seated in a 

location intended by the manufacturer 

as a seat, is not fastened. Based on 

conversations with ES staff, designing a 

system that also limits the speed of the 

vehicle if the seat belt of a passenger is 

not fastened would require only minor 

adjustments to the system limiting the 

speed if the driver’s seat belt is not 

fastened. The speed-limiting system 

uses sensor switches (seat belt latch 

sensors and/or occupant presence 

sensors) to determine if seat belts are in 

use, and the speed-limiting system 

controls the vehicle’s speed based on 

whether the switch is activated or not. 

ES staff believes adding requirements 

for front passenger seat belt use will not 

add significant time to the research and 

design effort for a speed-limitation 

system because the system would only 

have to incorporate additional switches 

to the side of the system that determines 

whether vehicle speed should be 

limited. 

However, incorporating the front 

passenger seats into the requirement 

would require additional switches or 

sensors. A seat belt-use sensor like the 

one used on the driver’s side seat belt 

latch, would be required for each 

passenger seat belt. The cost of a seat 

belt-use sensor was estimated to be 

about $7. Additionally, there would 

likely be a sensor switch in each front 

passenger seat to detect the presence of 

a passenger. This switch could be 

similar to the seat switches in riding 

lawn mowers that shut off the engine if 

a rider is not detected. Similarly, in a 

ROV, if the presence of a passenger is 

not detected, the switch would not 

include the passenger seat belt sensor in 

circuit for determining whether the 

speed of the ROV should be limited. We 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69007 

92U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 

(Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

(ECEC), total compensation for production, 

transportation, and material moving for all workers 

in private industry), June 2012. U.S. Department of 

Labor. Accessed on January 9, 2014. Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_

09112012.pdf. 

93Heiden Associates et al. provided results from 

a 2009 ROV Survey, which is included in Appendix 

2 of Docket No. CPSC—2009–0087). 

94Charles J. Kahane, ‘‘Fatality Reduction by 

Safety Belts for Front-Seat Occupants of Cars and 

Light Trucks: Updated and Expanded Estimates 

Based on 1986–99 FARS Data,’’ U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Report No. DOT HS 809 199, 

(December 2000). 

95 ‘‘Analysis of Reported Incidents Involving 

Deaths or Injuries Associated with Recreational OffHighway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD (May 2012). 

96Robert Rutledge, Allen Lalor, Dale Oller, et al., 

‘‘The Cost of Not Wearing Seat Belts: A Comparison 

of Outcome in 3396 Patients,’’ Annals of Surgery, 

Vol. 217, No. 2, 122–127 (1993). 

97Note that the Rutledge study looked only at the 

difference in the severity of cases involving belted, 

as opposed to unbelted victims. It did not estimate 

the number of injuries that were actually prevented. 

It should also be noted that the Rutledge study 

focused only on patients that were hospitalized for 

at least one day. It might not be as applicable to 

patients who were treated and released without 

being admitted to a hospital. 

98 In these incidents, the researchers found the 

effectiveness of seat belts was 74 percent in 

passenger cars and 80 percent in light trucks. 

Incidents involving overturning of the vehicle or 

the ejection of the victim are associated with a 

larger proportion of the fatal injuries involving 

ROVs. At least 65 percent of the fatalities were in 

incidents where the vehicle rolled sideways and at 

least 70 percent of those injured or killed were 

either fully or partially ejected. 

estimate that the cost of this switch is 

$13 per seat, based on the retail price of 

a replacement switch for the seat switch 

in a riding lawn mower. 

There will be labor costs involved in 

installing the components needed to 

meet this requirement. The components 

would probably be installed at the stage 

of assembly that would minimize the 

amount of labor required and would 

probably not require more than about 5 

minutes. Additionally, manufacturers 

will need to conduct tests of the system 

to ensure that the system functions as 

required. These tests could take an 

additional 5 minutes per vehicle. 

Assuming a total labor compensation 

rate of $26.11 an hour,92 the labor cost 

would probably amount to about $4 per 

vehicle. Therefore, the full cost of 

meeting this requirement would be 

about $24 per passenger seat ($7 for seat 

belt latch sensor + $13 for seat switch 

+ $4 for labor). Therefore, the 

quantifiable cost of extending the seat 

belt/speed limitation requirement to 

include the front passenger seat belts 

would be $24 for ROVs with only two 

seating positions in the front, (i.e., the 

driver and right front passenger) and 

$48 for ROVs that have three seating 

positions in the front. According to a 

survey by Heiden Associates, about 9 

percent of ROVs were reported to have 

a seating capacity of three.93 Therefore, 

the average cost of extending the seat 

belt/speed limitation requirement per 

ROV would be $26 ($24 + 0.09 x $24). 

An additional cost that is 

unquantifiable but should be considered 

nevertheless, is the impact that the 

failure of a component of the system 

could have on consumers. The more 

components that a system has, or the 

more complicated that a system is, the 

more likely it is that there will be a 

failure of a component somewhere in 

the system. A system that limits the 

speed of an ROV if a front passenger’s 

seat belt is unbuckled would consist of 

more components and the system would 

be more complicated than a system that 

only limited the speed of the vehicle if 

the driver’s seat belt is unfastened. 

Failure in one or more of the 

components would impose some costs 

on the consumer, and this failure could 

possibly affect consumer acceptance of 

the requirement. For example, if the 

sensor in a passenger’s seat belt failed 

to detect that the seat belt was latched, 

the speed of the vehicle could be 

limited, even though the seat belts were 

fastened. The consumer would incur the 

costs of repairing the vehicle and the 

loss in utility because the speed was 

limited until the repairs were made. 

b. Benefits of the Occupant Retention 

Requirements 

The benefit of the occupant-retention 

requirement is the reduction in the 

societal cost of fatal and nonfatal 

injuries that could be attributable to the 

requirements. In passenger cars, NHTSA 

assumes that a belted driver has a 45 

percent reduction in the risk of death.94

Research confirms the validity of that 

estimate.95 The effectiveness of seat 

belts in reducing the number or severity 

of nonfatal injuries is less certain than 

in the cases resulting in deaths. 

Nevertheless, there is evidence that the 

use of seat belts is associated with a 

reduction in injury severity. A study by 

Robert Rutledge and others found 

statistically significant decreases in the 

severity of injuries in belted patients 

versus unbelted patients admitted to 

trauma center hospitals in North 

Carolina for variables such as the 

trauma scores, the Glasgow coma scale, 

days on a ventilator, days in an 

intensive care unit, days in a hospital, 

and hospital charges.96 This study 

found, for example, that the mean stay 

in the hospital for belted patients was 

about 20 percent shorter than for 

unbelted patients: 10.5 days for belted 

patients as opposed to 13.2 days for 

unbelted patients. The hospital charges 

for belted patients were 31 percent less 

than the charges incurred by unbelted 

patients: $10,500 versus $15,250.97

In this analysis, we assume that the 

effectiveness estimate that NHTSA uses 

for seat belts in automobiles is a 

reasonable approximation of the 

effectiveness of seat belts at reducing 

fatalities in ROVs. However, according 

to Kahane (2000), the effectiveness of 

seat belts was significantly higher in 

accidents involving rollover and other 

incidents where the potential for 

ejection was high.98 A significant 

portion of the fatal and nonfatal injuries 

associated with ROVs are associated 

with rollovers, which suggests that a 

higher effectiveness estimate could be 

warranted. 

The work by Rutledge, et al., showed 

that mean hospital stays were about 20 

percent less and hospital charges were 

31 percent less for belted patients. This 

work provides some evidence that seat 

belts can reduce some components of 

the societal costs of nonfatal injuries by 

20 to 31 percent. In this analysis we use 

the low end of this range, 20 percent, 

and assume that it applies to all 

components of the societal costs 

associated with nonfatal ROV injuries, 

including work losses and pain and 

suffering. The assumed 20 percent 

reduction in societal costs could come 

about because some injuries were 

prevented entirely or because the 

severity of some injuries was reduced. 

These assumptions are justified 

because the seat belts used in ROVs are 

the same type of seat belts used in 

automobiles. Additionally, the 

requirement that ROVs have a passive 

means to restrict the egress or excursion 

of an occupant in the event of a rollover 

would ensure that there would be some 

passive features on ROVs that will help 

to retain occupants within the 

protective structure of the ROV just as 

there are in automobiles. We welcome 

comment on the accuracy of these 

estimates and underlying assumptions 

and will consider alternative estimates 

or assumptions that commenters wish to 

provide. 

A separate estimate of the benefit of 

the requirement for a passive means to 

restrict occupant egress or excursion is 

not calculated. The primary benefit of 

this requirement is to ensure that ROVs 

have passive features that are more 

effective at retaining occupants within 

the protective zone of the vehicle in the 

event of a rollover. Therefore, the 

passive means to restrict occupant 

egress or excursion acts synergistically 

with the seat belt requirements to keep 

occupants within the protective zone of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

99The collection of fatalities associated with 

ROVs in 2010 was ongoing at the time this analysis 

was conducted. The actual number of deaths 

associated with ROVs in 2010 could be higher. 

100Alternatively, the drivers could opt to leave 

their seat belts unfastened and accept the lower 

speed. Because the risk of having an accident is 

probably directly related to the speed of the vehicle, 

this option would also be expected to reduce the 

number of fatal injuries. 

the vehicle or ROPS, and in addition, 

provides justification for applying to the 

proposed rule for ROVs estimates from 

studies on the effectiveness of seat belts 

in automobiles. 

i. Benefit of Limiting Speed If Driver’s 

Seat Belt Is Not Fastened 

As noted previously, the benefit of the 

occupant-retention requirements would 

be the reduction in the societal costs of 

fatal and nonfatal injuries that would be 

expected. The incremental benefit of 

applying the requirement to limit the 

speed of the vehicle if the driver’s seat 

belt is not fastened is discussed below. 

The incremental benefit of applying the 

same requirement to the front 

passengers is discussed separately. 

Potential Reduction in Fatal Injuries 

Table 9 shows the 231 fatality cases 

that CPSC has reviewed according to the 

seating location of the victim and 

whether the victim was wearing a seat 

belt. Ignoring the cases in which the 

location of the victim or the seat belt use 

by the victim is unknown (and thereby, 

erring on the side of underestimating 

the benefits), the data show that about 

40 percent (92 ÷ 231) of the deaths 

happened to drivers who were not 

wearing seat belts. If the pattern of 

deaths in 2010 is presumed to match the 

overall pattern of the deaths reviewed 

by CPSC, then about 20 of the reported 

49 deaths associated with ROVs in 

2010 99 would have been to drivers who 

did not have their seat belts fastened. 

(The actual pattern of deaths in any 

given year will likely be higher or lower 

than the overall or average pattern. In 

this analysis, we imposed the overall 

pattern to the reported fatalities in 2010, 

so that the results would be more 

representative of all reported ROV 

fatalities.) 

TABLE 9—ROV FATALITIES BY VICTIM LOCATION AND SEAT BELT USE

[2003 through 2011] 

Location 

Seat belt use 

Yes No Unknown or 

N/A Total 

Driver ............................................................................................................................... 16 92 33 141 

Right Front Passenger ..................................................................................................... 10 33 6 49 

Middle Front Passenger .................................................................................................. 0 6 0 6

Rear Passenger ............................................................................................................... 0 3 1 4 

Unknown Location ........................................................................................................... 1 6 5 12 

Cargo Area ...................................................................................................................... 1 8 1 10 

Bystander or Other .......................................................................................................... 0 3 6 9 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 28 150 53 231 

Source: CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology. 

The requirement limiting the 

maximum speed would apply only to 

incidents involving unbelted drivers 

that occurred at speeds of greater than 

15 mph. Of the ROV incidents that the 

Commission has reviewed, the speed of 

the vehicle was reported for only 89 of 

the 428 incidents. Therefore, estimates 

based on this data need to be used 

cautiously. Nevertheless, for victims 

who are known to have been injured 

and for which both their the seat belt 

use and the speed of the vehicle are 

known, about 73 percent of the unbelted 

victims were traveling at speeds greater 

than 15 mph. (Victims who were 

involved in an ROV incident but were 

not injured, or whose injury status is not 

known, were not included in this 

analysis.) Consequently, if we assume 

that 73 percent of the fatalities occurred 

to unbelted drivers who were traveling 

at speeds greater than 15 mph, then 

about 15 (20 × 0.73) of the fatalities in 

2010 would have been addressed, 

although not necessarily prevented, by 

the proposed requirement. 

As discussed previously, in passenger 

cars, NHTSA assumes that a belted 

driver has a 45 percent reduction in the 

risk of death. If seat belts have the same 

effectiveness in reducing the risk of 

death in ROVs, the seat belt/speed 

limitation requirement would have 

reduced the number of fatal injuries to 

drivers of ROVs by about 7 (15 × 0.45) 

in 2010, if all ROVs in use at the time 

had met this requirement.100 This 

represents an annual risk reduction of 

0.0000123 deaths per ROV in use (7 ÷ 

570,000). 

As discussed previously, in this 

analysis, we assume a value of $8.4 

million for each fatality averted. 

However, in this analysis, we assume 

that each fatal injury prevented by the 

use of seat belts still resulted in a 

serious, but nonfatal, injury. The 

average societal cost of a hospitalized 

injury involving all ATVs and UTVs in 

2010 was about $350,000 in 2012 

dollars. (Based on the ICM estimates of 

the cost of a hospitalized injury using 

NEISS Product Codes 3285, 3286, 3287, 

and 5044.) Subtracting this from the 

assumed societal cost of $8.4 million 

per death results in a societal cost 

reduction of $8.05 million per death 

averted. Thus, a reduction in societal 

costs of fatal injuries of about $99 per 

ROV in use (0.0000123 × $8.05 million) 

per year could be attributable to the seat 

belt/speed limitation requirement. 

Potential Reduction in Societal Cost of 

Nonfatal Injuries 

As discussed previously, for this 

analysis, we assumed that the seat belt/ 

speed limitation requirement will 

reduce the societal cost of nonfatal ROV 

injuries by 20 percent. The assumed 20 

percent reduction in societal costs could 

result because some injuries were 

prevented entirely, or because the 

severity of some injuries was reduced. 

The CPSC has investigated several 

hundred nonfatal injuries associated 

with ROVs. Table 10 summarizes the 

nonfatal injuries according to seating 

location and seat belt use. (Cases in 

which the occupant was not injured, or 

cases in which it is unknown whether 

the occupant was injured, were not 

included in this analysis.) Again, 

ignoring the cases in which the location 

of the victim or the seat belt use by the 

victim is unknown (and thereby, erring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69009 

on the side of underestimating the 

benefits), the data indicate that about 12 

percent (46 ÷ 388) of the nonfatal 

injuries happened to drivers who were 

not wearing seat belts. This suggests that 

1,332 (11,100 × 0.12) of the 

approximately 11,100 medically 

attended injuries in 2010 would have 

involved unbelted drivers. Assuming, as 

with the fatal injuries, that 73 percent 

were traveling at a speed greater than 15 

mph at the time of incident, 972 (1,332 

× 0.73) of the injuries in 2010 could 

have been addressed by the proposed 

seat belt/speed limitation requirement. 

These 972 injuries in 2010 represent an 

injury rate of about 0.00170526 (972 ÷ 

570,000) per ROV in use. 

TABLE 10—NONFATAL ROV INJURIES BY VICTIM LOCATION AND SEAT BELT USE

[2003 to 2011] 

Location of victim 

Seat belt use 

Yes No Unknown or 

N/A Total 

Driver ............................................................................................................................... 23 46 51 120 

Right Front Passenger ..................................................................................................... 28 35 9 72 

Middle Front Passenger .................................................................................................. 0 14 1 15 

Rear Passenger ............................................................................................................... 2 3 0 5 

Unknown Location ........................................................................................................... 8 21 128 157 

Cargo Area ...................................................................................................................... 3 13 0 16 

Bystander ......................................................................................................................... 0 0 3 3 

Total .......................................................................................................................... 64 132 192 388 

Source: CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology. 

Based on estimates from the CPSC’s 

ICM, the average societal cost of the 

injuries addressed is estimated to be 

$29,383. Applying this cost estimate to 

the estimated injuries per ROV that 

could be addressed by the standard 

results in an annual societal cost of 

about $50 per ROV in use (0.00170526 

× $29,383). If wearing seat belts could 

have reduced this cost by 20 percent (by 

reducing either the number or severity 

of injuries), the societal benefit, in terms 

of the reduced costs associated with 

nonfatal injuries, would be about $10 

per ROV in use. 

Total Benefit Over the Useful Life of an 

ROV 

The total benefit of the seat belt/speed 

limitation requirement per ROV would 

be the present value of the expected 

annual benefit per ROV in use, summed 

over the vehicle’s expected useful life. 

Above, using 2010 as the base year, we 

estimated that the annual benefit per 

ROV was about $99 in terms of reduced 

deaths and $10 in terms of reduced 

nonfatal injuries, for a total of $109 per 

ROV. Assuming that ROVs have the 

same operability rates as ATVs, the 

present value of the estimated benefit 

over the useful life of an ROV would be 

approximately $1,498 per vehicle, at a 3 

percent discount rate. 

The cost of the requirement to limit 

the speed of the vehicle if the driver’s 

seat belt is not fastened was estimated 

to be between $26 and $51 per vehicle. 

Additionally, the cost of the 

requirement for a means to restrict 

occupant egress and excursion via a 

passive method was estimated to be 

about $7 per vehicle. Therefore, the total 

cost would be between $33 and $58 per 

vehicle. The benefit of the requirement, 

estimated to be about $1,498 per 

vehicle, is substantially greater than the 

estimated cost of the requirement. 

ii. Benefit of Limiting Speed If a Front 

Passenger’s Seat Belt Is Not Fastened 

The potential incremental benefit of 

limiting the speed of an ROV if a front 

passenger’s seat belt is not fastened can 

be calculated following the same 

procedure used to calculate the benefits 

of a requirement limiting the maximum 

speed when the driver’s seat belt is not 

fastened. From the data presented in 

Table 9 (and ignoring the cases in which 

the seating location of the victim or the 

seat belt use is unknown), there were 33 

victims seated in the right front 

passenger position, and six who were 

seated in the middle front passenger 

position were not using a seatbelt. 

However, some of the victims listed as 

a middle front seat passenger were not 

seated in places intended to be a seat. 

In some cases, the victim might have 

been seated on a console; in other cases, 

the victim might have been sharing the 

right front passenger seat and not a 

separate seat. Based on the information 

available about the incidents, we believe 

that only three of the six victims 

reported to be ‘‘middle front 

passengers,’’ were actually in positions 

intended by the manufacturer to be 

middle seats. Therefore, about 16 

percent (36 ÷ 231) of the fatal injuries 

involved front seat passengers who were 

not wearing seat belts. 

Applying this estimate to the fatalities 

in 2010 suggests that about 8 of the 49 

fatalities happened to front passengers 

who were not wearing seat belts. 

Assuming that about 73 percent of the 

incidents involved vehicles traveling 

faster than 15 mph, about 6 of the 

fatalities would have been addressed, 

but not necessarily prevented, by the 

requirement. Assuming that seat belts 

reduce the risk of fatal injuries by 45 

percent, about 3 fatalities might have 

been averted. This represents a risk 

reduction of 0.00000526 deaths per ROV 

in use (3 ÷ 570,000). Assuming a 

societal benefit of $8.05 million for each 

death averted results in an estimated 

annual benefit of about $42 per ROV in 

use ($8.05 million × 0.00000526) in 

reduced fatal injuries. 

Similarly, the data show that 35 of the 

victims who suffered nonfatal injuries 

were seated in the right front passenger 

location, and 14 were seated in the 

middle front position. However, we 

believe that only 8 of the 14 were 

actually seated in a position intended by 

the manufacturer to be a seat. Therefore, 

43 of the 388 victims (or about 11 

percent of the total) with nonfatal 

injuries were front passengers who were 

not wearing seat belts. This suggests that 

1,221 of the estimated 11,100 medically 

attended injuries in 2010 involved 

unbelted front passengers. Using the 

assumption that 73 percent of these 

incidents occurred at speeds greater 

than 15 mph, then about 891 of the 

injuries might have been addressed by 

the requirement, or about 0.00156315 

injuries per ROV in use (891 ÷ 570,000). 

Assuming that the average cost of a 

nonfatal injury involving ROVs is 

$29383, the estimated societal cost of 

these injuries is about $46 per ROV in 

use. If wearing seat belts could have 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69010 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

reduced the societal cost of the nonfatal 

injuries by 20 percent, then the benefits 

of the requirement would have been 

about $9 per ROV in use, per year. 

Combining the benefits of the 

reduction in the societal cost of deaths 

($42 per ROV in use) and the societal 

cost of injuries ($9 per ROV in use) 

yields an estimated benefit of $51 per 

ROV in use. Assuming that ROVs have 

the same operability rates as ATVs over 

time, and assuming a discount rate of 3 

percent, the estimated benefit would be 

$701 over the expected useful life of an 

ROV. This is greater than the expected 

cost of this potential requirement of $26 

per vehicle. 

iii. Impact of Any Correlation in Seat 

Belt Use Between Driver and Passengers 

The analysis above used a simplifying 

assumption that the use of seat belts by 

the passenger is independent of the use 

of seat belts by the driver. Therefore, we 

assumed that limiting the maximum 

speed of the ROV if the driver’s seat belt 

was not fastened would have no impact 

on the seat belt use by any passenger. 

However, there is some evidence that 

the use of seat belts by passengers is 

correlated with the seat belt use of the 

driver. In the incidents examined by the 

Commission, of the 121 right front 

passengers with known seat belt usage, 

the driver and right passenger had the 

same seat belt use status most of the 

time (about 82 percent). In other words, 

most of the time, the driver’s and right 

passenger’s seat belts were either both 

fastened or both unfastened. This 

suggests that if the drivers were required 

to fasten his or her seat belt, at least 

some of the passengers would also 

fasten their seat belts. 

The implication that a correlation 

exists between seat belt use by drivers 

and by passengers indicates that the 

benefits of requiring the driver’s seat 

belt to be fastened were underestimated 

and the benefits of extending the 

requirement to include the right front 

passenger are over estimated. For 

example, if 80 percent of the passengers 

who would not normally wear their seat 

belts were to wear their seat belts 

because the driver was required to wear 

his or her seat belt (for the ROV to 

exceed 15 mph), then 80 percent of the 

benefit, or $561 ($701 × 0.80) attributed 

above to extending the speed limitation 

requirement to the front passengers 

would be attributed rightfully to the 

requirement that the driver’s seat belt be 

fastened; and only 20 percent, or $140 

($701 × 0.20) would be attributable to 

the requirement that the front 

passengers’ seat belts be fastened. In this 

example, the $140 in benefits attributed 

to extending the speed limitation 

requirement to include the front 

passenger’s seat belts would still exceed 

the quantifiable cost of doing so, which 

was estimated to be $26. 

E. Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 

the Proposed Rule 

As described previously, 

manufacturers would incur costs of 

$128,000 to $195,000 per model to test 

ROV models for compliance with the 

requirements of the proposed rule and 

to research, develop, and implement 

any needed changes to the models so 

that they would comply with the 

requirements. These costs would be 

incurred before the model is brought to 

market. To express these costs on a perunit basis, we assumed that, on average, 

1,800 units of a model were produced 

annually and that a typical model is 

produced for 5 years. These costs are 

summarized in Table 11. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF CERTIFICATION TESTING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS

Description Cost per model Cost per unit* 

Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements: 

Compliance Testing .............................................................................................................................. $24,000 ..................... $3 

Redesign of Noncomplying Models ...................................................................................................... $43,000 ..................... $5 

Retesting of Redesigned Models .......................................................................................................... $24,000 ..................... $3 

Total Costs for Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling .................................................................. $24,000 to $91,000 ... $3 to $10 

Occupant Retention Requirements: 

Research, Design, Implementation ....................................................................................................... $100,000 ................... $11 

Certification Testing .............................................................................................................................. $4,000 ....................... <$1 

Total R&D and Testing Costs for Seat Belt Requirement ............................................................. $104,000 ................... $12 

Total Certification Testing and Research and Development Costs ....................................... $128,000 to $195,000 $14 to $22 

* Per-unit costs are rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The sums might not equal the totals due to rounding. 

In addition to the testing, research, 

and development costs described above, 

manufacturers will incur some 

additional manufacturing costs for extra 

parts or labor required to manufacture 

ROVs that meet the requirements for the 

proposed rule. These costs are 

summarized in Table 12. As for the 

vehicle handling requirements, some 

modifications to vehicles that do not 

comply might increase manufacturing 

costs; other modifications could 

decrease manufacturing costs. 

Therefore, we have assumed, on 

average, that there will not be any 

additional manufacturing costs required 

to meet the vehicle handling 

requirements. However, most 

manufacturers will incur additional 

manufacturing costs to meet the 

occupant-retention requirements. These 

costs are expected to average between 

$47 and $72 per vehicle. Adding the 

estimated upfront testing, research, 

development, and implementation costs 

per unit from Table 11 brings the total 

cost of the proposed rule to an estimated 

$61 to $94 per vehicle. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69011 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF PER-UNIT COSTS AND BENEFITS

Description Value per unit 

Costs 

Manufacturing Costs: 

Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements ......................................................................................................... $0 

Passive Occupant Retention Requirement .......................................................................................................................... $7 

Seat Belt/Speed Limitation Requirement—Driver Seats ..................................................................................................... $14 to $39 

Seat Belt/Speed Limitation Requirement—Front Passenger Seats .................................................................................... $26 

Total Manufacturing Costs ............................................................................................................................................ $47 to $72 

Certification Testing and Research and Development Costs (from Table 4) ............................................................................. $14 to $22 

Total Quantifiable Cost ........................................................................................................................................................ $61 to $94 

Benefits 

Lateral Stability and Vehicle Handling Requirements ................................................................................................................. (not quantifiable) 

Occupant Retention Requirements ............................................................................................................................................. $2,199 

Total Quantifiable Benefits ................................................................................................................................................... $2,199 

Net Quantifiable Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................ $2,105 to $2,138 

We were able to estimate benefits for 

the occupant retention requirement. 

Applying this requirement to just the 

driver’s seat belt would result in 

benefits of about $1,498 per unit. 

Applying the seat belt/speed limitation 

requirement to the front passenger seat 

belts could result in an additional 

benefit of $701 per unit. Therefore, the 

quantifiable benefits of the proposed 

rule would be $2,199 per unit. The 

benefit associated with the vehicle 

handling and lateral stability 

requirement could not be quantified. 

Therefore, the benefits of the proposed 

rule could exceed the $2,199 estimated 

above. 

The fact that the potential benefits of 

the lateral stability and vehicle handling 

requirements could not be quantified 

should not be interpreted to mean that 

they are low or insignificant. This only 

means that we have not developed the 

data necessary to quantify these 

benefits. The purpose of the occupant 

retention requirements is to reduce the 

severity of injuries, but this requirement 

is not expected to reduce the risk of an 

incident occurring. The lateral stability 

and vehicle handling requirement, on 

the other hand, is intended to reduce 

the risk of an incident occurring that 

involves an ROV, and therefore, prevent 

injuries from happening in the first 

place. At this time, however, we do not 

have a basis for estimating what would 

be the effectiveness of the lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements. 

Notably, to the extent that the lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements are effective in reducing 

the number of incidents, the 

incremental benefit of the occupant 

retention requirements also would be 

reduced. Additionally, if the lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements can reduce the number of 

accidents involving ROVs, there would 

be fewer resulting injuries whose 

severity would be reduced by the 

occupant retention requirements. 

However, the resulting decrease in the 

incremental benefit of the seat belt/

speed limitation requirement would be 

less than the benefit attributable to the 

lateral stability and vehicle handling 

requirements. Again, this is largely 

because the benefit of preventing an 

injury from occurring in the first place 

is greater than the benefit of reducing 

the severity of harm of the injury. 

Although some assumptions used in 

this analysis would serve to reduce the 

estimated benefit of the draft proposed 

rule (e.g., ignoring incidents in which 

the use of seat belts was unknown), the 

analysis also assumes that all drivers 

and front seat passengers would opt to 

fasten their seat belts if the speed of the 

vehicle was limited; and the analysis 

also would assume that no driver or 

passenger would attempt to defeat the 

system, which could be accomplished 

simply by passing the belt behind the 

rider, or passing the belt behind the seat 

before latching the belt. To the extent 

that consumers attempt to defeat the 

seat belt/speed limitation system, the 

benefits are overestimated. 

The estimated costs and benefits of 

the rule on an annual basis can be 

calculated by multiplying the estimated 

benefits and costs per-unit by the 

number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 

2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the 

proposed rule had been in effect that 

year, the total quantifiable cost would 

have been between $14.3 million and 

$22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied 

by 234,000 units, respectively). The 

total quantifiable benefits would have 

been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 

234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 

million (or about 88 percent) would 

have resulted from the reduction in fatal 

injuries, and about $62 million (or about 

12 percent) of the benefits would have 

resulted from a reduction in the societal 

cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 

million of the reduction in the societal 

cost of nonfatal injuries would have 

been due to a reduction in pain and 

suffering. 

F. Alternatives 

The Commission considered several 

alternatives to the requirements in the 

proposed rule. The alternatives 

considered included: (1) Not issuing a 

mandatory rule, but instead, relying on 

voluntary standards; (2) including the 

dynamic lateral stability requirement or 

the understeer requirement, but not 

both; (3) requiring a more intrusive 

audible or visual seatbelt reminder, 

instead of limiting the speed of the 

vehicle if the seatbelt is not fastened; (4) 

extending the seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirement to include rear seats; (5) 

requiring an ignition interlock if the 

seatbelts are not fastened instead of 

limiting the maximum speed; and (6) 

limiting the maximum speed to 10 mph, 

instead of 15 mph, if the seatbelts are 

not fastened. Each of these alternatives 

is discussed below. The discussion 

includes the reasons that the 

Commission did not include the 

alternative in the proposed rule as well 

as qualitative discussion of costs and 

benefits where possible. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69012 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

101Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal for Seatbelt Speed 

Limiter On Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles 

(ROVs),’’ CPSC Memorandum (2013). 

102Ron Van Houten, Bryan Hilton, Richard 

Schulman, and Ian Reagan, ‘‘Using Haptic Feedback 

to Increase Seatbelt Use of Service Vehicle Drivers,’’ 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT 

HS 811 434 (January 2011). 

103The Honda system increased seatbelt use from 

84 percent to 90 percent. Therefore, the percentage 

of unbelted drivers was reduced by about 38 

percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 percent. The 

Ford system increased seatbelt use from 71 percent 

to 76 percent. Therefore, the percentage of unbelted 

drivers was reduced by about 17 percent, or 5 

percent divided by 29 percent. 

1. No Mandatory Standard/Rely on 

Voluntary Standard 

If CPSC did not issue a mandatory 

standard, most manufacturers would 

comply with one of the two voluntary 

standards that apply to ROVs. However, 

neither voluntary standard requires that 

ROVs understeer, as required by the 

proposed rule. According to ES staff, 

drivers are more likely to lose control of 

vehicles that oversteer, which can lead 

to the vehicle rolling over or causing 

other types of accidents. 

Both voluntary standards have 

requirements that are intended to set 

standards for dynamic lateral stability. 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle 

test for dynamic lateral stability that is 

more similar to the test in the proposed 

rule (for whether the vehicle 

understeers) than it is to the test for 

dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic 

stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the 

proposed rule, but measures different 

variables during the test and uses a 

different acceptance criterion. However, 

ES staff does not believe that the tests 

procedures in either standard have been 

validated properly to be deemed capable 

of providing useful information about 

the dynamic stability of the vehicle. 

Moreover, the voluntary standards 

would find some vehicles to be 

acceptable, even though their lateral 

acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 

g, which is the acceptance criterion in 

the proposed rule. 

Both voluntary standards require 

manufacturers to include a lighted seatbelt reminder that is visible to the driver 

and remains on for at least 8 seconds 

after the vehicle is started, unless the 

driver’s seatbelt is fastened. However, 

virtually all ROVs on the market already 

include this feature; and therefore, 

relying only on the voluntary standards 

would not be expected to raise seatbelt 

use over current levels of use. 

The voluntary standards include 

requirements for retaining the occupant 

within the protective zone of the vehicle 

if a rollover occurs, including two 

options for restraining the occupants in 

the shoulder/hip area. However, testing 

performed by CPSC identified 

weaknesses in the performance-based 

tilt table test option that allows 

unacceptable occupant head ejection 

beyond the protective zone of the 

vehicle ROPs. CPSC testing indicated 

that a passive shoulder barrier could 

reduce the head excursion of a belted 

occupant during quarter-turn rollover 

events. The Commission believes that 

this can be accomplished by a 

requirement for a passive barrier, based 

on the dimensions of the upper arm of 

a 5th percentile adult female, at a 

defined area near the ROV occupants’ 

shoulder, as contained in the proposed 

rule. 

In summary, not mandating a 

standard would not impose any 

additional costs on manufacturers, but 

neither would it result in any additional 

benefits in terms of reduced deaths and 

injuries. Therefore, not issuing a 

mandatory standard was not proposed 

by the Commission. 

2. Removing Either the Lateral Stability 

Requirement or the Handling 

Requirement 

The CPSC considered including a 

requirement for either dynamic stability 

or vehicle handling, but not both. 

However, the Commission believes that 

both of these characteristics need to be 

addressed. According to ES staff, a 

vehicle that meets both the dynamic 

stability requirement and the understeer 

requirement should be safer than a 

vehicle that meets only one of the 

requirements. Moreover, the cost of 

meeting just one requirement is not 

substantially lower than the cost of 

meeting both requirements. The cost of 

testing a vehicle for compliance with 

both the dynamic lateral stability 

requirement and the vehicle handling/

understeer requirement was estimated 

to be about $24,000. However, the cost 

of testing for compliance with just the 

dynamic stability requirement would be 

about $20,000, or only about 17 percent 

less than the cost of testing for 

compliance with both requirements. 

This is because the cost of renting and 

transporting the vehicle to the test site, 

instrumenting the vehicle for the tests, 

and making some initial static 

measurements are virtually the same for 

both requirements and would only have 

to be done once, if the tests for both 

requirements were conducted on the 

same day. Moreover, changes in the 

vehicle design that affect the lateral 

stability of the vehicle could also impact 

the handling of the vehicle. For these 

reasons, the proposed rule includes a 

dynamic stability requirement and a 

vehicle handling requirement. 

3. Require Intrusive Seatbelt Reminder 

in Lieu of the Speed Limitation 

Requirements 

Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirements in the proposed rule, the 

Commission considered a requirement 

for ROVs to have loud or intrusive 

seatbelt reminders. Currently, most 

ROVs meet the voluntary standards that 

require an 8-second visual seatbelt 

reminder. Some more intrusive systems 

have been used on passenger cars. For 

example, the Ford ‘‘BeltMinder’’ system 

resumes warning the driver after about 

65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not 

fastened and the car is traveling at more 

than 3 mph. The system flashes a 

warning light and sounds a chime for 6 

seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 

minutes so long as the car is operating 

and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. 

Honda developed a similar system in 

which the warning could last for longer 

than 9 minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is 

not fastened. Studies of both systems 

found that a statistically significant 

increase in the use of seatbelts of 5 

percent (from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 

percent (from 84 to 90 percent), 

respectively.101 However, these more 

intrusive seatbelt warning systems are 

unlikely to be as effective as the seatbelt 

speed limitation requirement in the 

proposed rule. The Commission 

believes that the requirement will cause 

most drivers and passengers who wish 

to exceed 15 mph to fasten their 

seatbelts. Research supports this 

position. One experiment used a haptic 

feedback system to increase the force 

the driver needed to exert to depress the 

gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 

mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. 

The system did not prevent the driver 

from exceeding 25 mph, but it increased 

the amount of force required to depress 

the gas pedal to maintain a speed greater 

than 25 mph. In this experiment all 

seven participants chose to fasten their 

seatbelts.102

The more intrusive seatbelt reminder 

systems used on some passenger cars 

have been more limited in their 

effectiveness. The Honda system, for 

example, reduced the number of 

unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; 

the Ford system reduced the number of 

unbelted drivers by only 17 percent.103

Additionally, ROVs are open vehicles 

and the ambient noise is likely higher 

than in the enclosed passenger 

compartment of a car. It is likely that 

some ROV drivers would not hear the 

warning and be motivated to fasten their 

seatbelts unless the warning was 

substantially louder than the systems 

used in passenger cars. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69013 

104This estimate is based on manufacturing cost 

estimates of $39 to apply the requirement to the 

driver’s seat and $26 to apply the requirement to 

the front passenger’s seat, plus $12 for research, 

development and certification testing. 

105Heiden Associates, Results from the 2008 ROV 

Exposure Survey (APPENDIX 2 to Joint Comments 

of Arctic Cat Inc., Bombardier Recreational 

Products Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Yamaha 

Motor Corporation, U.S.A regarding CPSC Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-Standard for 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles: Docket No. 

CPSC—2009–0087), Alexandria Virginia (December 

4, 2009).) This suggests that there were about 

114,000 ROVs with rear passenger seats in 2010 (0.2 

× 570,000). 

106The potential net benefit of the seatbelt/speed 

limitation requirement resulting from its 

application to the driver and front passengers was 

estimated to be $2,199 per ROV. The potential net 

benefit resulting from its application to the rear 

seats was estimated to be $234 per ROV with rear 

seats. However, only about 20 percent of ROVs were 

assumed to have rear seats. Therefore, the weighted 

benefit over all ROVs of extending the seatbelt/

speed limitation requirement to include the rear 

seats would be about $47 per ROV ($234 × 0.2). The 

potential weighted benefit would be $2,246, of 

which about 2 percent ($47 ÷ $2,246) would be 

attributable to extending the requirement to the rear 

seats. 

107Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal for Seatbelt Speed 

Limiter on Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles 

(ROVs),’’ CPSC Memorandum (2013). U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda 

MD (2013). 

The cost to manufacturers of some 

forms of more intrusive seat belt 

reminders could be less than the cost of 

the speed limitation requirement in the 

draft proposed rule. However, the cost 

of the seat belt/speed limitation 

requirement was estimated to be less 

than $72 per ROV.104 If the experience 

with the Honda and Ford systems 

discussed above are relevant to ROVs, 

the benefits of a more intrusive seat belt 

reminder system could be less than 38 

percent of the benefits estimated for the 

requirement in the draft proposed rule 

or less than $835 per ROV. Therefore, 

even if the cost of a more intrusive seat 

belt reminder system was close to $0, 

the net benefits would be less than the 

seat belt/speed limitation requirement 

in the draft proposed rule, which were 

estimated to be at least $2,105. 

Therefore, the alternative of a more 

intrusive seat belt reminder was not 

included in the proposed rule. 

4. Extending the Seatbelt/Speed 

Limitation Requirement To Include Rear 

Seats 

The Commission considered 

extending the seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirement to include the rear 

passenger seats, when present. 

According to one exposure survey, 

about 20 percent of the respondents 

reported that their ROVs had a seating 

capacity of at least four occupants, 

which indicates that the ROV had rear 

passenger seating locations.105

The cost of extending this 

requirement to include the rear 

passenger seats would be expected to be 

the same per seat as extending the 

requirement to include the right-front 

and middle-front passengers, or $24 per 

seat. Therefore, the cost of this 

requirement would be $48 to $72 per 

ROV, depending upon whether the ROV 

had two or three rear seating locations. 

Three of the 231 fatalities (or 1.3 

percent) involved a person in a rear seat 

who did not have their seatbelt fastened. 

Using the same assumptions used to 

calculate the benefits of the seatbelt/

speed limitation for passengers in the 

front seats (i.e., that 73 percent occurred 

at speeds of 15 mph or greater and 

seatbelts would reduce the risk of death 

by 45 percent), extending the 

requirement to include the rear seats 

could have potentially reduced the 

number of fatalities in 2010 by 0.2 or 

about one death every 5 years, all other 

things equal. Therefore, extending the 

seatbelt/speed limitation requirement to 

the rear passenger seats could reduce 

the annual risk of fatal injury by 

0.00000175 (0.2 ÷ 114,000) per ROV in 

use. Assuming a societal benefit of $8.05 

million per death averted results in an 

estimated annual benefit of about $14 

per ROV in use ($8.05 million × 

0.00000175) in terms of reduced fatal 

injuries. 

Three of the 388 nonfatal injuries (or 

0.8 percent) involved passengers in rear 

seats who did not have their seatbelts 

fastened. This suggests that about 89 of 

the estimated 11,100 medically attended 

injuries in 2010 may have happened to 

unbelted rear passengers. Again, 

assuming that 73 percent of these 

occurred at speeds of 15 mph or faster, 

about 65 medically attended injuries 

might have been addressed by the 

seatbelt/speed limitation requirement if 

applied to the rear seating locations. 

This represents a risk of a nonfatal, 

medically attended injury of 0.0005702 

(65 ÷ 114,000) per ROV in use per year. 

The societal cost of this risk is $17, 

assuming an average nonfatal, medically 

attended injury cost of $29,383. If 

seatbelts could reduce the cost of these 

injuries by 20 percent, by reducing the 

number of injuries in their severity, the 

value of the reduction would be $3 per 

ROV in use per year. 

Combining the benefit of $14 for the 

reduction in fatal injuries and $3 for the 

reduced cost of nonfatal, medically 

attended injuries yields a combined 

benefit of $17 per ROV in use per year. 

The present value of this estimated 

benefit over the expected useful life of 

a ROV is $234. This is greater than the 

quantifiable cost of $48 to $72. 

However, these estimates of the costs 

and benefits are probably oversimplified 

the costs may have been understated 

and the benefits overstated. The 

Commission is hesitant to recommend 

this alternative for the several reasons. 

First, as discussed earlier, a system 

that includes all passenger seats would 

comprise more parts than a system that 

included only the front passenger seats. 

A failure in only one of the parts could 

result in significant cost to the users for 

repairs, lost time and utility of the 

vehicle while it is being repaired, or the 

inability of the vehicle to reach its 

potential speed. These failures could 

occur because a faulty seat belt latch 

sensor does not detect or signal that a 

seatbelt is latched or because a faulty 

seat switch incorrectly registers the 

presence of a passenger when a 

passenger is not present. This cost 

cannot be quantified. However, if such 

failures are possible, the costs of 

extending the seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirement to include the rear seats 

would be higher than the $48 to $72 

estimated above. 

Second, as discussed previously, 

there is some correlation between the 

seatbelt use of the driver and other 

passengers on the ROV. If the driver and 

front passengers fasten their seatbelts, 

there is reason to believe that some rear 

passengers will also fasten their 

seatbelts. If so, the benefits of including 

the rear seat passengers could be 

overestimated above. Moreover, even if 

there was no correlation, including only 

the driver and front seat passengers 

would still achieve about 98 percent of 

the total potential benefits from the 

seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirement.106

5. Requiring an Ignition Interlock 

Instead of Limiting the Maximum Speed 

The Commission considered whether 

an ignition interlock requirement that 

did not allow the vehicle to be started 

unless the driver’s seatbelt was buckled 

would be appropriate for ROVs. 

However, the history of ignition 

interlock systems to encourage seatbelt 

use on passenger cars suggests that 

consumer resistance to an ignition 

interlock system could be strong. In 

1973, NHTSA proposed requiring an 

interlock system on passenger cars. 

However, public opposition to the 

proposed requirement led Congress to 

prohibit NHTSA from requiring an 

ignition interlock system.107 For this 

reason, the Commission is not 

proposing this alternative. Instead, the 

proposed rule would allow people to 

use ROVs at low speeds without 

requiring seat belts to be fastened. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69014 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6. Limiting the Maximum Speed to 10 

mph if the Driver’s Seatbelt Is Not 

Fastened 

The Commission considered limiting 

the maximum speed of the ROV to 10 

mph if the driver’s seatbelt was not 

fastened, instead of 15 mph, as in the 

proposed rule. In making this 

determination, we weigh some 

potentially quantifiable factors against 

some unquantifiable factors. The 

expected benefits of limiting the 

maximum speed to 10 mph are higher 

than the expected benefits of limiting 

the maximum speed to 15 mph. Based 

on the injuries reported to CPSC for 

which the speed was reported and the 

seatbelt use was known, about 15 

percent of the people injured in ROV 

accidents who were not wearing 

seatbelts were traveling between 10 and 

15 mph. Therefore, decreasing the 

maximum allowed speed of an ROV to 

10 mph if the driver’s or right front 

passenger’s seatbelt is not fastened 

could increase the expected benefits of 

the requirement by up to 21 percent 

(0.15 ÷ 0.73). There would be no 

difference between the two alternatives 

in terms of the quantified costs. 

Although the quantified benefits 

would be increased and the quantified 

costs would not be affected by this 

alternative, the Commission believes 

that the unquantifiable costs would be 

higher if the maximum speed allowed 

was set at 10 mph instead of 15 mph. 

Commission staff believes this could 

have a negative impact on consumer 

acceptance of the requirement. The 

unquantifiable costs include: The time, 

inconvenience, and discomfort to some 

users who would prefer not to wear 

seatbelts. These users could include: 

People using the ROVs for work or 

utility purposes, who might have to get 

on and off the ROV frequently, and who 

are likely to be traveling at lower rates 

of speed, but who occasionally could 

exceed 10 mph. Some of these users 

could be motivated to defeat the 

requirement (and this could be done 

easily), which could reduce the benefits 

of the proposed rule. Allowing ROVs to 

reach speeds of up to 15 mph without 

requiring the seatbelt to be fastened 

would mitigate some of the 

inconvenience or discomfort of the 

requirement to these users, and 

correspondingly, consumers would have 

less motivation to attempt to defeat the 

requirement. 

ROV manufacturers would have the 

option of setting the maximum speed 

that their models could reach without 

requiring the seatbelts to be fastened— 

so long as the maximum speed was no 

greater than 15 miles per hour. 

Therefore, manufacturers could set a 

maximum speed of less than 15 mph if 

they believed this was in their interest 

to do so. One ROV manufacturer has 

introduced ROV models that will not 

exceed 9.3 mph (15 km/hr.) unless the 

driver’s seatbelt is fastened. 

G. Conclusion 

We estimate the quantifiable benefits 

of the proposed rule to be about $2,199 

per ROV, and we estimate the 

quantifiable costs to be about $61 to $94 

per ROV. Therefore, the benefits would 

exceed the costs by a substantial margin. 

However, the only benefits that could be 

quantified would be the benefits 

associated with the seat belt/speed 

limitation requirement. The lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements would also be expected to 

reduce deaths and injuries and so result 

in additional benefits, but these were 

not quantifiable. 

There could be some unquantifiable 

costs associated with the rule. Some 

consumers might find the requirement 

to fasten their seat belts before the 

vehicle can exceed 15 mph to be 

inconvenient or uncomfortable. The 15 

mph threshold as opposed to a 10 mph 

threshold was selected for the 

requirement to limit the number of 

consumers who would be 

inconvenienced by the requirement and 

might be motivated to defeat the system. 

Some consumers might prefer an ROV 

that oversteers under more conditions 

than the proposed rule would allow. 

However, the number of consumers who 

have a strong preference for oversteering 

vehicles is probably low. 

Several alternatives to requirements 

in the proposed rule were considered, 

including relying on voluntary 

standards or requiring more intrusive 

seat belt reminders (as opposed to the 

speed limitation requirement). However, 

the Commission determined that the 

benefits of the requirements in the 

proposed rule would probably exceed 

their costs, considering both the 

quantifiable and unquantifiable costs 

and benefits. 

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). In this document, pursuant to 44 

U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), we set forth: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• a summary of the collection of 

information; 

• a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• an estimate of the burden that shall 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• notice that comments may be 

submitted to the OMB. 

Title: Safety Standard for Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs). 

Number of Respondents: We have 

identified 20 manufacturers of ROVs. 

Number of Models: We estimate that 

there are about 130 different models of 

ROVs, or an average of 6.5 models per 

manufacturer. This estimate counts as a 

single model, all models of a 

manufacturer that do not appear to 

differ from each other in terms of 

performance, such as engine size, width, 

number of seats, weight, horsepower, 

capacity, and wheel size. In other 

words, if the models differed only in 

terms of accessory packages, or in the 

case of foreign manufacturers, differed 

only in the names of the domestic 

distributors, then they were counted as 

the same model. 

Number of Reports per Year: 

Manufacturers will have to place a hang 

tag on each ROV sold. In 2013, about 

234,000 ROVs were sold, or about 1,800 

units per model. This would be a 

reasonable estimate of the number of 

responses per year. On average, each 

manufacturer would have about 11,700 

responses per year. 

Burden Estimates per Model: The 

reporting burden of this requirement 

can be divided into two parts. The first 

is designing the hang tag for each 

model. The second is printing and 

physically attaching the hang tag to the 

ROV. These are discussed in more detail 

below. 

Designing the Hang tag: We estimate 

that it will take about 30 minutes to 

design the hang tag for each model. The 

first year the rule is in effect, 

manufacturers will have to design the 

hang tag for each of their models. 

However, the same model might be in 

production for more than one year. If 

ROV models have a production life of 

about 5 years before being redesigned, 

then the same hang tag might be useable 

for more than 1 year. Therefore, in year 

1, on average, the burden on each 

manufacturer will be about 3.25 hours 

to design the hang tag (0.5 hours per 

model × 6.5 models). In subsequent 

years, the burden on each manufacturer 

will be about 0.65 hours assuming that 

manufacturers will have to redesign the 

hang tag only when they redesign the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69015 

108This estimate is based on the total 

compensation for management, professional, and 

related workers in private, goods producing 

industries, as reported by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (March 2014), available at http://www.bls.

gov/ncs/. Please note, in the draft regulatory 

analysis, we are using 2010 as the base year with 

all values expressed in 2012 dollars. Therefore, 

these estimates might be slightly higher than 

estimated in the regulatory analysis. 

109Estimate is based on the total compensation 

for production, transportation, and material-moving 

workers, private, goods-producing industries, as 

reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (March 

2014), available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/. 

ROV and that ROVs are redesigned, on 

average, about every 5 years. Assuming 

this work will be performed by a 

professional employee, the cost per 

manufacturer will be $206 the first year 

and $41 in each subsequent year.108

Printing and Placing the Hang tag on 

Each Vehicle: Based on estimates for 

printing obtained at: http://

www.uprinting.com and estimates for 

the ties obtained from http://

blanksusa.com, we estimate that the 

cost of the printed hang tag and wire for 

attaching the hang tag to the ROV will 

be about $0.08. Therefore, the total cost 

of materials for the average 

manufacturer with 6.5 models, 

producing 1,800 units of each model, 

would be about $936 per year ($0.08 × 

6.5 models × 1,800 units). 

We estimate that it will take about 20 

seconds to attach a hang tag to each 

vehicle. Assuming an annual 

production of 1,800 units of each model, 

on average, this comes to 10 hours per 

model or an average of 65 hours per 

manufacturer or respondent, assuming 

an average of 6.5 models per 

manufacturer. Assuming a total 

compensation of $26.12 per hour, the 

cost would be $261 per model or $1,698 

per manufacturer, assuming an average 

of 6.5 models per manufacturer.109

Total Burden of the Hang tag 

Requirement: The total burden of the 

hang tag requirement the first year will 

consist of the following components: 

Designing the Hang tags: 65 hours (0.5 

hours × 130 models). Assuming a total 

compensation rate of $63.36 per hour 

(professional and related workers), the 

cost would be $4,118. 

Placing the Hang tags on the Vehicles: 

1,300 hours (234,000 vehicles × 20 

seconds). Assuming a total 

compensation rate of 26.12 per hour 

(production, transportation, and 

material moving workers), the total cost 

is $33,956. 

Total Compensation Cost: The total 

compensation cost for this requirement 

would be $38,074 in the first year. In 

subsequent years, the burden of 

designing the hang tag is estimated to be 

about one-fifth the burden in the initial 

year, or 13 hours, assuming that each 

ROV model either undergoes a 

significant design change or is replaced 

by a different model every 5 years. 

Therefore, the compensation cost of 

designing the hang tag in subsequent 

years would be about $824 ($4,118/5). 

The total compensation cost in 

subsequent years would be $34,780. 

Total Material Cost: The cost of the 

printed hang tags and ties for attaching 

the hang tag to the vehicles is estimated 

to be about 8 cents each. Therefore, the 

total material cost would be $18,720 

($0.08 × 234,000 units). 

Total Cost of Hang tag Requirement: 

Based on the above estimates, the total 

cost of the hang tag requirement in the 

initial year is estimated to be about 

$56,794. In subsequent years, the total 

cost would be slightly less, about 

$53,500. 

In compliance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to the OMB for review. 

Interested persons are requested to 

submit comments regarding information 

collection by December 19, 2014, to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this notice). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

we invite comments on: 

• Whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• the accuracy of the CPSC’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; 

• ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; and 

• the estimated burden hours 

associated with label modification, 

including any alternative estimates. 

XII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

This section provides an analysis of 

the impact on small businesses of a 

proposed rule that would establish a 

mandatory safety standard for ROVs. 

Whenever an agency is required to 

publish a proposed rule, section 603 of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612) requires that the agency 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) that describes the 

impact that the rule would have on 

small businesses and other entities. An 

IRFA is not required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must 

contain: 

(1) A description of why action by the 

agency is being considered; 

(2) a succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

(3) a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

(4) a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(5) an identification to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

which may duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with the proposed rule. 

An IRFA must also contain a 

description of any significant 

alternatives that would accomplish the 

stated objectives of the applicable 

statutes and that would minimize any 

significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

Alternatives could include: (1) 

Establishment of differing compliance 

or reporting requirements that take into 

account the resources available to small 

businesses; (2) clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

for small entities; (3) use of performance 

rather than design standards; and (4) an 

exemption from coverage of the rule, or 

any part of the rule thereof, for small 

entities. 

A. Reason for Agency Action 

ROVs were first introduced in the late 

1990s. Sales of ROVs increased 

substantially over the next 15 years. The 

number of deaths associated with ROVs 

has substantially increased over the 

same period, from no reported deaths in 

2003, to at least 76 reported deaths in 

2012. As explained in this preamble, 

some ROVs on the market have 

hazardous characteristics that could be 

addressed through a mandatory safety 

standard. 

B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

The Commission proposes this rule to 

reduce the risk of death and injury 

associated with the use of ROVs. The 

rule is promulgated under the authority 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69016 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

110The Commission made these determinations 

using information from Dun & Bradstreet, Reference 

USAGov, company Web sites, and regional business 

publications. 

111The one percent of gross revenue threshold is 

cited as example criteria by the SBA and is 

commonly used by agencies in determining 

economic significance (see U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Advocacy. A Guide for 

Government Agencies: How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Implementing the 

President’s Small Business Agenda and Executive 

Order 13272. May 2012, pp. 18–20. http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/ 

rfaguide_0512_0.pdf). 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act 

(CPSA). 

C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

The proposed rule would apply to all 

manufacturers and importers of ROVs. 

Under criteria set by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration (SBA), 

manufacturers of ROVs are considered 

small businesses if they have fewer than 

500 employees. We have identified one 

ROV manufacturer with fewer than 500 

employees. 

Importers of ROVs could be 

wholesalers or retailers. Under the 

criteria set by the SBA, wholesalers of 

ROVs and other motor vehicles or 

powersport vehicles are considered 

small businesses if they have fewer than 

100 employees; and retail dealers that 

import ROVs and other motor or 

powersport vehicle dealers are 

considered small if their annual sales 

volume is less than $30 million. We are 

aware of about 20 firms in 2013 that 

import ROVs from foreign suppliers that 

would be considered small 

businesses.110 (There may be other 

small firms that manufacture or import 

ROVs of which we are not aware.) 

D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record 

Keeping Requirements of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would establish a 

mandatory safety standard consisting of 

several performance requirements for 

ROVs sold in the United States. The 

proposed rule would also establish test 

procedures through which compliance 

with the performance requirements 

would be determined. The proposed 

rule includes: (1) Lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements that 

specify a minimum level of rollover 

resistance for ROVs and a requirement 

that ROVs exhibit sub-limit understeer 

characteristics; and (2) occupant 

retention requirements that would limit 

the maximum speed of an ROV to no 

more than 15 miles per hour (mph), 

unless the seat belts of the driver and 

front passengers are fastened, and 

would require ROVs to have a passive 

means, such as a barrier or structure, to 

limit the ejection of a belted occupant 

in the event of a rollover. 

Manufacturers would be required to 

test their ROV models to check that the 

models comply with the requirements of 

the proposed rule, and if necessary, 

modify their ROV models to comply. 

The costs of these requirements are 

discussed more fully in the preliminary 

regulatory analysis. Based on that 

analysis, we expect that the test for 

lateral stability and the test for vehicle 

handling will be conducted at the same 

time, and we estimate that the cost of 

this combined testing would be about 

$24,000 per model. In many cases, we 

expect that this testing will be 

performed by a third party engineering 

consulting or testing firm. If an ROV 

model must be modified to comply with 

the requirement and then retested, we 

estimate that the cost to manufacturers 

could reach $91,000 per model, 

including the cost of the initial testing, 

the cost of modifying design of the 

model, and the cost of retesting the 

model after the model has been 

modified. We estimate that the cost of 

implementing the occupant retention 

requirements will be about $104,000 per 

model. This includes the cost to 

research, develop, implement, and test a 

system that will limit the speed of the 

ROV when the seat belts are not 

fastened, as well as an occupant 

protection barrier or structure. 

Therefore, the total cost of certification 

testing and research and design could 

range from about $128,000 to $195,000. 

(Costs are expressed in 2012 dollars.) 

In addition to the upfront testing and 

research and development costs, there 

will be some ongoing manufacturing 

costs associated with the proposed rule. 

These manufacturing costs include the 

cost of the parts required to meet any of 

the requirements of the proposed rule, 

such as seat belt use sensors and the 

necessary wiring and the cost of 

installing these parts on the vehicles 

during assembly. As estimated in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis, the 

ongoing manufacturing costs would be 

$47 to $72 per vehicle. 

The proposed rule includes a 

requirement that manufacturers report 

the lateral acceleration at rollover value 

of an ROV model to potential consumers 

through the use of a hang tag attached 

to the ROV. Manufacturers would obtain 

the rollover resistance value when they 

conduct the lateral stability and vehicle 

handling tests to determine compliance 

with both requirements. The required 

format of the hangtag is described in the 

proposed rule. We estimate that it will 

cost manufacturers less than $0.25 per 

vehicle to print the hangtags with the 

rollover resistance values and to attach 

the hangtags to the vehicles. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

In accordance with Section 14 of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 

manufacturers would have to issue a 

general conformity certificate (GCC) for 

each ROV model, certifying that the 

model complies with the proposed rule. 

According to Section 14 of CPSA, GCCs 

must be based on a test of each product 

or a reasonable testing program; and 

GCCs must be provided to all 

distributors or retailers of the product. 

The manufacturer would have to 

comply with 16 CFR part 1110 

concerning the content of the GCC, 

retention of the associated records, and 

any other applicable requirement. 

F. Potential Impact on Small Entities 

One purpose of the regulatory 

flexibility analysis is to evaluate the 

impact of a regulatory action and 

determine whether the impact is 

economically significant. Although the 

SBA allows considerable flexibility in 

determining ‘‘economically significant,’’ 

CPSC staff typically uses one percent of 

gross revenue as the threshold for 

determining ‘‘economic significance.’’ 

When we cannot demonstrate that the 

impact is lower than one percent of 

gross revenue, we prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis.111

1. Impact on Small Manufacturers 

The sole, small ROV manufacturer 

may need to devote some resources to 

bringing its ROV models into 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

This is a relatively new manufacturer of 

ROVs and other utility vehicles. We do 

not have information on the extent to 

which the models offered by this 

manufacturer would meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule or the 

extent to which this particular 

manufacturer would be impacted by the 

proposed rule. 

2. Impact on Small Importers 

CPSC is aware of about 20 firms that 

import ROVs from foreign suppliers that 

would be considered small businesses. 

As explained more fully below, a small 

importer could be adversely impacted 

by the proposed rule if its foreign 

supplier does not provide testing reports 

or a GCC and the small importer must 

conduct the testing in support of a GCC. 

Additionally, a small importer could 

experience a significant impact if the 

foreign supplier withdraws from the 

U.S. market rather than conduct the 

necessary testing or modify the ROVs to 

comply with the proposed rule. If sales 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69017 

of ROVs are a substantial source of the 

importer’s business, and the importer 

cannot find an alternative supplier of 

ROVs, the impact could be significant. 

However, we do not expect a 

widespread exodus of foreign 

manufacturers from the U.S. market. 

The U.S. market for ROVs has been 

growing rapidly in recent years, and at 

least some foreign manufacturers will 

likely want to continue taking advantage 

of these business opportunities by 

maintaining a U.S. presence. In 

addition, most of these importers also 

import products other than ROVs, such 

as scooters, motorcycles, and other 

powersport equipment. Therefore, ROVs 

are not their sole source of revenue. 

Importers may be able to reduce any 

impact on their revenue by increasing 

imports and sales of these other 

products. 

Small importers will be responsible 

for issuing a GCC certifying that their 

ROVs comply with the proposed rule if 

the rule becomes final. However, 

importers may issue GCCs based upon 

certifications provided by or testing 

performed by their suppliers. The 

impact on small importers should not be 

significant if their suppliers provide the 

certificates of conformity or testing 

reports on which the importers may rely 

to issue their own GCCs. 

If a small importer’s supplier does not 

provide the GCC or testing reports, then 

the importer would have to test each 

model for conformity. Importers would 

likely contract with an engineering 

consulting or testing firm to conduct the 

certification tests. As discussed in the 

regulatory analysis, the certification 

testing could cost more than $28,000 per 

model ($24,000 for the lateral stability 

and vehicle handling requirements and 

$4,000 for the seat belt/speed limitation 

requirement). This would exceed 1 

percent of the revenue for about onehalf of the small importers, assuming 

that they continue to import the same 

mix of products as in the pre-regulatory 

environment. 

G. Conclusion 

We do not know how many, if any, 

foreign suppliers might exit the market 

rather than comply with the proposed 

rule. Nor do we know the number of 

foreign suppliers that may not be 

willing to provide small importers with 

testing reports or GCCs. A small 

importer could experience a significant 

impact if the importer has to conduct 

testing in support of a GCC. We expect 

that most importers, however, will rely 

upon certifications or testing performed 

by their suppliers. Thus, although 

uncertainty exists, the proposed rule 

will not likely have a significant direct 

impact on a substantial number of small 

firms. 

H. Alternatives for Reducing the 

Adverse Impact on Small Businesses 

The Commission welcomes comments 

on this IRFA. Small businesses that 

believe they will be affected by the 

proposed rule are especially encouraged 

to submit comments. The comments 

should be specific and describe the 

potential impact, magnitude, and 

alternatives that could reduce the 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

businesses. 

Several alternatives to the proposed 

rule were considered, some of which 

could reduce the potential impact on 

some small firms. These include: (1) Not 

issuing a mandatory standard; (2) 

dropping the lateral stability 

requirement or the vehicle handling 

requirement; (3) requiring a more 

intrusive seat belt reminder instead of 

the speed limitation requirement; and 

(4) requiring an ignition interlock if a 

seat belt is not fastened, instead of 

limiting the maximum speed. For the 

reasons discussed below, the CPSC did 

not include these alternatives in the 

proposed rule. 

1. Not Issuing a Mandatory Standard 

If CPSC did not issue a mandatory 

standard, most manufacturers would 

comply with one of the two voluntary 

standards that apply to ROVs and there 

would be no impact on the small 

manufacturer or small importers. 

However, neither voluntary standard 

requires that ROVs understeer, as 

required by the proposed rule. 

According to ES staff, drivers are more 

likely to lose control of vehicles that 

oversteer, which can lead to the vehicle 

rolling over or to other types of 

accidents. Additionally, although both 

voluntary standards have requirements 

for dynamic lateral stability or rollover 

resistance, ES staff does not believe that 

the test procedures in these standards 

have been properly validated as being 

capable of providing useful information 

about the dynamic stability of the 

vehicle. 

The voluntary standards require that 

manufacturers include a lighted seatbelt reminder that is visible to the driver 

and remains on for at least 8 seconds 

after the vehicle is started, unless the 

driver’s seat belt is fastened. However, 

virtually all ROVs on the market already 

include this feature; and therefore, 

relying only on the voluntary standards 

would not be expected to raise seat belt 

use over its current level. Moreover, the 

preliminary regulatory analysis showed 

that the projected benefits of the seat 

belt/speed limitation requirement 

would be substantially greater than the 

costs. 

Finally, the Commission believes that 

the occupant retention barrier in the 

current ROVs could be improved at a 

modest cost per ROV. For these reasons, 

the Commission believes that relying on 

compliance with voluntary standards is 

not satisfactory and is adopting the 

requirements in the proposed rule. 

2. Dropping the Lateral Stability 

Requirement or the Understeer 

Requirement 

The Commission considered 

including a performance requirement 

for either lateral stability or vehicle 

handling, but not both. As mentioned 

previously, the vehicle handling 

requirement is designed to allow ROVs 

to understeer. However, the 

Commission believes that both of these 

characteristics need to be addressed. 

According to ES staff, a vehicle that 

meets both the lateral stability 

requirement and the understeer 

requirement should be safer than a 

vehicle that meets only one of the 

requirements. Moreover, the cost of 

meeting just one requirement is not 

substantially lower than the cost of 

meeting both requirements. The cost of 

testing a vehicle for compliance with 

both the dynamic lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements was 

estimated to be about $24,000. The cost 

of testing for compliance with the lateral 

stability requirement would be about 

$20,000, and the cost of testing for 

compliance with just the vehicle 

handling requirement would be about 

$17,000. Moreover, changes in the 

vehicle design that affect the lateral 

stability of the vehicle could also impact 

the handling of the vehicle. For these 

reasons, the proposed rule includes both 

the lateral stability and understeer 

requirements in the proposed rule. 

3. Require ROVs To Have Loud or 

Intrusive Seat Belt Reminders in Lieu of 

the Speed Limitation Requirements 

Instead of seat belt/speed limitation 

requirements in the proposed rule, the 

Commission considered requiring ROVs 

to have loud or intrusive seat belt 

reminders. Most ROVs currently have a 

seat belt reminder in the form of a 

warning light that comes on for about 8 

seconds. Most do not include any 

audible warning. As discussed in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis, staff 

considered requiring a more intrusive 

seat belt reminder, such as a loud 

audible warning that would sound for a 

minute or more. Manufacturers would 

incur some costs to comply with a 

requirement for a more intrusive seat 

belt reminder. For example, the seat belt 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69018 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

112Memorandum from Caroleene Paul, ‘‘Proposal 

for Seat Belt Speed Limiter on Recreational OffHighway Vehicles (ROVs),’’ U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 8 December 

2013). 

use sensors (estimated to cost about $7 

per seat) and sensor switches (estimated 

to cost about $13 per seat) would still 

be required. However, the research and 

development costs to design and 

implement a more intrusive seat belt 

reminder system would probably be less 

than the estimated cost to develop a 

system that limited the maximum speed 

of the vehicle. 

Some intrusive systems have been 

used on passenger cars and have been 

found to be effective in increasing seat 

belt use. One system reduced the 

number of unbelted drivers by 17 

percent and another by about 38 

percent.112 However, a more intrusive 

seat belt warning system is unlikely to 

be as effective as the seat belt/speed 

limitation requirement in the proposed 

rule. ROVs are open vehicles and the 

ambient noise is likely higher than in 

the enclosed passenger compartment of 

a car. It is likely that some ROV drivers 

would not hear the warning and be 

motivated to fasten their seat belts, 

unless the warning was substantially 

louder than the systems used in 

passenger cars. The Commission 

believes that the requirement will cause 

most drivers and passengers who want 

to exceed 15 mph to fasten their seat 

belts. Moreover, the analysis in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis showed 

that the societal benefits of the seat belt/ 

speed limitation requirement in the 

proposed rule would exceed the costs 

by a substantial margin. Because CPSC 

does not believe that a more intrusive 

seat belt reminder would be effective in 

a ROV, and because Commission staff 

believes that the seat belt/speed 

limitation requirement would result in 

substantial net benefits, this alternative 

was not included in the proposed rule. 

4. Requiring an Ignition Interlock 

Instead of Limiting the Maximum Speed 

CPSC considered whether an ignition 

interlock requirement that did not allow 

the vehicle to be started unless the 

driver’s seat belt was buckled would be 

appropriate for ROVs. However, the 

history of ignition interlock systems as 

a way to encourage seat belt use on 

passenger cars suggests that consumer 

resistance to an ignition interlock 

system that prevents starting the vehicle 

could be strong. For this reason, CPSC 

rejects this alternative, and instead, 

proposes a rule that allows people to 

use ROVs at low speeds without having 

to fasten their seat belts. However, 

manufacturers who believe that the cost 

of an ignition interlock system will be 

substantially lower than a system that 

limits the maximum speed of the 

vehicle, and who do not believe that 

consumer rejection of an ignition 

interlock system will be a problem, can 

use an ignition interlock system to 

comply with the seat belt speed 

limitation requirement. 

XIII. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether we are required to prepare an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. If our 

rule has ‘‘little or no potential for 

affecting the human environment,’’ the 

rule will be categorically exempted from 

this requirement. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). 

The proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exemption. 

XIV. Executive Order 12988 

(Preemption) 

As required by Executive Order 12988 

(February 5, 1996), the CPSC states the 

preemptive effect of the proposed rule, 

as follows: 

The regulation for ROVs is proposed 

under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 

2051–2089). Section 26 of the CPSA 

provides that ‘‘whenever a consumer 

product safety standard under this Act 

is in effect and applies to a risk of injury 

associated with a consumer product, no 

State or political subdivision of a State 

shall have any authority either to 

establish or to continue in effect any 

provision of a safety standard or 

regulation which prescribes any 

requirements as the performance, 

composition, contents, design, finish, 

construction, packaging or labeling of 

such product which are designed to deal 

with the same risk of injury associated 

with such consumer product, unless 

such requirements are identical to the 

requirements of the Federal Standard’’. 

15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Upon application to 

the Commission, a state or local 

standard may be excepted from this 

preemptive effect if the state or local 

standard: (1) Provides a higher degree of 

protection from the risk of injury or 

illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) 

does not unduly burden interstate 

commerce. In addition, the federal 

government, or a state or local 

government, may establish and continue 

in effect a non-identical requirement 

that provides a higher degree of 

protection than the CPSA requirement 

for the hazardous substance for the 

federal, state or local government’s use. 

15 U.S.C. 2075(b). 

Thus, with the exceptions noted 

above, the ROV requirements proposed 

in today’s Federal Register would 

preempt non-identical state or local 

requirements for ROVs designed to 

protect against the same risk of injury if 

the rule is issued in final. 

XV. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA imposes the 

requirement that products subject to a 

consumer product safety rule under the 

CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard 

or regulation under any other act 

enforced by the Commission, must be 

certified as complying with all 

applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 

15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule on ROVs 

would subject ROVs to this certification 

requirement. 

XVI. Effective Date 

The CPSA requires that consumer 

product safety rules take effect not later 

than 180 days from their promulgation 

unless the Commission finds there is 

good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. 

2058(g)(1). The Commission proposes 

that this rule would take effect 180 days 

after publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register and would have two 

compliance dates. ROVs would be 

required to comply with the lateral 

stability and vehicle handling 

requirements (§§ 1411.3 and 1422.4) 180 

days after publication of a final rule in 

the Federal Register. ROVs would be 

required to comply with the occupant 

protection requirements (§ 1422.5) 12 

months after publication of a final rule 

in the Federal Register. The 

requirements would apply to all ROVs 

manufactured or imported on or after 

the applicable date. 

CPSC believes ROV models that do 

not comply with the lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements can be 

modified, with changes to track width 

and suspension, in less than 4 personmonths (a high estimate) and can be 

tested for compliance in one day. 

Therefore, CPSC believes 180 days is a 

reasonable time period for 

manufacturers to modify vehicles if 

necessary, conduct necessary tests, and 

analyze test results to ensure 

compliance with the lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements. 

The Commission is proposing the 

longer compliance date for the occupant 

protection requirements because we 

understand that some manufacturers 

will need to redesign and test new 

prototype vehicles to meet these 

requirements. This design and test 

process is similar to the process that 

manufacturers use when introducing 

new model year vehicles. We also 

estimate that it will take approximately 

9 person-months per ROV model to 

design, test, implement, and begin 

manufacturing vehicles to meet the 

occupant protection performance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69019 

requirements. Therefore, staff believes 

that 12 months from publication of a 

final rule would be sufficient time for 

ROVs to comply with all of the 

proposed requirements. 

XVII. Proposed Findings 

The CPSA requires the Commission to 

make certain findings when issuing a 

consumer product safety standard. 

Specifically, the CPSA requires that the 

Commission consider and make 

findings about the degree and nature of 

the risk of injury; the number of 

consumer products subject to the rule; 

the need of the public for the rule and 

the probable effect on utility, cost, and 

availability of the product; and other 

means to achieve the objective of the 

rule, while minimizing the impact on 

competition, manufacturing, and 

commercial practices. The CPSA also 

requires that the rule must be 

reasonably necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with the product and issuing 

the rule must be in the public interest. 

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). 

In addition, the Commission must 

find that: (1) If an applicable voluntary 

standard has been adopted and 

implemented, that compliance with the 

voluntary standard is not likely to 

reduce adequately the risk of injury, or 

compliance with the voluntary standard 

is not likely to be substantial; (2) that 

benefits expected from the regulation 

bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs; and (3) that the regulation 

imposes the least burdensome 

requirement that would prevent or 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. Id. 

These findings are discussed below. 

Degree and nature of the risk of 

injury. CPSC received 428 reports of 

ROV-related incidents from the Injury 

and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and 

In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases 

that occurred between January 1, 2003 

and December 31, 2011, and were 

received by December 31, 2011. There 

were a total of 826 victims involved in 

the 428 incidents. Among the 428 ROVrelated incidents, there were a total of 

231 reported fatalities and 388 reported 

injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries 

(19 percent) could be classified as 

severe; that is, the victim has lasting 

repercussions from the injuries received 

in the incident, based on the 

information available. The remaining 

207 victims were either not injured or 

their injury information was not known. 

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 

involved drivers under 16 years of age 

(18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 

years of age or older (53 percent); and 

125 involved drivers of unknown age 

(29 percent). 

Using data reported through NEISS 

from January 1, 2010 to August 31, 

2010, the Commission conducted a 

special study to identify cases that 

involved ROVs that were reported 

through NEISS. Based on information 

obtained through the special study, the 

estimated number of emergency 

department-treated ROV-related injuries 

occurring in the United States between 

January 1, 2010 and August 31, 2010, is 

2,200 injuries. Extrapolating for the year 

2010, the estimated number of 

emergency department-treated ROVrelated injuries is 3,000, with a 

corresponding 95 percent confidence 

interval of 1,100 to 4,900. 

Number of consumer products subject 

to the rule. Sales of ROVs have 

increased substantially since their 

introduction. In 1998, only one firm 

manufactured ROVs, and fewer than 

2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a 

second major manufacturer entered the 

market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. 

The only dip in sales occurred around 

2008, which coincided with the worst of 

the credit crisis and a recession that also 

started about the same time. In 2013, an 

estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by 

about 20 different manufacturers. 

The number of ROVs available for use 

has also increased substantially. 

Because ROVs are a relatively new 

product, we do not have any specific 

information on the expected useful life 

of ROVs. However, using the same 

operability rates that CPSC uses for 

ATVs, we estimate that there were about 

570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. 

By the end of 2013, there were an 

estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. 

The need of the public for ROVs and 

the effects of the rule on their utility, 

cost, and availability. 

Currently there are two varieties of 

ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early 

ROV models emphasized the utility 

aspects of the vehicles, but the 

recreational aspects of the vehicles have 

become very popular. 

Regarding the effects of the rule on 

ROVs utility, according to comments on 

the ANPR provided by several ROV 

manufacturers, some ROV users ‘‘might 

prefer limit oversteer in the off-highway 

environment.’’ To the extent that the 

requirements in the proposed rule 

would reduce the ability of these users 

to reach limit oversteer intentionally, 

the proposed rule could have some 

adverse impact on the utility or 

enjoyment that these users receive from 

ROVs. These impacts would probably be 

limited to a small number of 

recreational users who enjoy activities 

or stunts that involve power 

oversteering or limit oversteer. 

Although the impact on consumers 

who prefer limit oversteer cannot be 

quantified, the Commission expects that 

the impact will be low. Any impact 

would be limited to consumers who 

wish to engage intentionally in activities 

involving the loss of traction or power 

oversteer. The practice of power 

oversteer, such as the speed at which a 

user takes a turn, is the result of driver 

choice. The proposed rule would not 

prevent ROVs from reaching limit 

oversteer under all conditions; nor 

would the proposed rule prevent 

consumers from engaging in these 

activities. At most, the proposed rule 

might make it somewhat more difficult 

for users to reach limit oversteer in an 

ROV. 

The seat belt speed limiter 

requirement could have an effect on 

utility and impose some unquantifiable 

costs on some users who would prefer 

not to use seat belts. The cost to these 

users would be the time required to 

buckle and unbuckle their seat belts and 

any disutility cost, such as discomfort 

caused by wearing the seat belt. We 

cannot quantify these costs because we 

do not know how many ROV users 

choose not to wear their seat belts; nor 

do we have the ability to quantify any 

discomfort or disutility that they would 

experience from wearing seat belts. 

However, the proposed rule does not 

require that the seat belts be fastened 

unless the vehicle is traveling faster 

than 15 mph. This should serve to 

mitigate these costs because many 

people who would be inconvenienced 

or discomforted by the requirement, 

such as people using the vehicle for 

work or utility purposes, or who must 

frequently get on and off the vehicle, are 

likely to be traveling at lower speeds. 

The effect of the rule on cost and 

availability of ROVs is expected to be 

minimal. The average manufacturer’s 

suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, 

weighted by units sold, was about 

$13,100 in 2013, with a range of about 

$3,600 to $20,100. The Commission 

estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of 

the rule to be $61 to $94. Because this 

per-unit cost resulting from the rule is 

a very small percentage of the overall 

retail price of an ROV, it is unlikely that 

the rule would have much of an effect 

on the cost or availability of ROVs. 

Other means to achieve the objective 

of the rule, while minimizing the impact 

on competition and manufacturing. The 

Commission does not believe the rule 

will have adverse impact on 

competition. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis estimates the per-unit cost to 

ROVs of the rule to be $61 to $94. The 

average manufacturer’s suggested retail 

prices (MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

units sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, 

with a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. 

The per-unit cost resulting from the rule 

is a very small percentage of the overall 

retail price of an ROV. With such a 

relatively low impact, it is unlikely that 

ROV companies would withdraw from 

the market or that the number of ROV 

models will be affected. Therefore, the 

preliminary regulatory analysis supports 

a finding that the proposed rule is 

unlikely to have an impact on 

competition. 

The Commission believes that some, 

but not all, ROV models already meet 

the rule’s requirement that the speed of 

the vehicle be limited if the driver’s seat 

belt is not fastened. Before 

implementing any changes to their 

vehicles to meet the requirement, 

manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet 

the seatbelt speed limiter requirement 

would have to analyze their options for 

meeting the requirement. This process 

would include developing prototypes of 

system designs, testing the prototypes, 

and refining the design of the systems 

based on this testing. Once the 

manufacturer has settled on a system for 

meeting the requirement, the system 

will have to be incorporated into the 

manufacturing process of the vehicle. 

This will involve producing the 

engineering specifications and drawings 

of the system, parts, assemblies, and 

subassemblies that are required. 

Manufacturers will need to obtain the 

needed parts from their suppliers and 

incorporate the steps needed to install 

the system on the vehicles in the 

assembly line. The Commission believes 

that manufacturers should be able to 

complete activities related to meeting 

the lateral stability and handling 

requirements within 180 days after 

publication of the final rule and 

activities related to meeting the 

occupant protection requirements 

within 12 months after publication of 

the final rule. The Commission’s 

proposed effective date of 12 months for 

the occupant protection requirements 

may reduce the impact of the proposed 

requirements on manufacturing. 

Unreasonable risk. CPSC received 428 

reports of ROV-related incidents from 

the Injury and Potential Injury Incident 

(IPII) and In-Depth Investigation (INDP) 

databases that occurred between January 

1, 2003 and December 31, 2011, and 

were received by December 31, 2011. 

There were a total of 826 victims 

involved in the 428 incidents. Among 

the 428 ROV-related incidents, there 

were a total of 231 reported fatalities 

and 388 reported injuries. Seventy-five 

of the 388 injuries (19 percent) could be 

classified as severe; that is, the victim 

has lasting repercussions from the 

injuries received in the incident based 

on the information available. 

The estimated cost and benefits of the 

rule on an annual basis can be 

calculated by multiplying the estimated 

benefits and costs per unit by the 

number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 

2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the 

proposed rule had been in effect that 

year, the total quantifiable cost would 

have been between $14.3 million and 

$225.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied 

by 234,000 units, respectively). The 

total quantifiable benefits would have 

been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 

234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 

million (or about 88 percent) would 

have resulted from the reduction in fatal 

injuries, and about $62 million (or about 

12 percent) of the benefits would have 

resulted from a reduction in the societal 

cost of nonfatal injuries. The reduction 

in the societal cost of nonfatal injuries, 

which amounts to about $47 million, 

would represent a reduction in pain and 

suffering. The Commission concludes 

preliminarily that ROVs pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury and finds 

that the proposed rule is reasonably 

necessary to reduce that unreasonable 

risk of injury. 

Public interest. This proposed rule is 

intended to address identified aspects of 

ROVs, ROV design, and ROV use, which 

are believed to contribute to ROV deaths 

and injuries, with a goal of reducing 

such incidents. The CPSC believes that 

adherence to the requirements of the 

proposed rule will reduce ROV deaths 

and injuries in the future; thus the rule 

is in the public interest. Specifically, the 

Commission believes that improving 

lateral stability (by increasing rollover 

resistance) and improving vehicle 

handling (by correcting oversteer to 

understeer) are the most effective 

approaches to reducing the occurrence 

of ROV rollover incidents. ROVs with 

higher lateral stability are less likely to 

roll over because more lateral force is 

necessary to cause rollover. ROVs 

exhibiting understeer during a turn are 

also less likely to roll over because 

lateral acceleration decreases as the path 

of the ROV makes a wider turn, and the 

vehicle is more stable if a sudden 

change in direction occurs. 

Furthermore, the Commission 

believes that when rollovers do occur, 

improving occupant protection 

performance (by increasing seat belt 

use) will mitigate injury severity. CPSC 

analysis of ROV incidents indicates that 

91 percent of fatally ejected victims 

were not wearing a seat belt at the time 

of the incident. Increasing seat belt use, 

in conjunction with better shoulder 

retention performance, will significantly 

reduce injuries and deaths associated 

with an ROV rollover event. 

In summary, the Commission finds 

preliminarily that promulgating the 

proposed rule is in the public interest. 

Voluntary standards. The 

Commission is aware of two voluntary 

standards that are applicable to ROVs, 

ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National 

Standard for Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicles, and ANSI/B71.9, American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. As described 

previously in detail in the preamble, the 

Commission believes that the current 

voluntary standard requirements do not 

adequately reduce the risk of injury or 

death associated with ROVs. Neither 

voluntary standard requires that ROVs 

understeer, as required by the proposed 

rule. Based on testing and experience 

with the Yamaha Rhino repair program, 

the Commission believes that drivers are 

more likely to lose control of vehicles 

that oversteer, which can lead to the 

vehicle rolling over or to other types of 

accidents. 

Both voluntary standards have 

requirements that are intended to set 

standards for dynamic lateral stability. 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle 

test for dynamic lateral stability. That is 

more similar to the test in the proposed 

rule for determining whether the vehicle 

understeers, than it is to the test for 

dynamic lateral stability. The dynamic 

stability requirement in ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2012 uses a J-turn test, like the 

proposed rule, but measures different 

variables during the test and uses a 

different acceptance criterion. The 

Commission does not believe that the 

tests procedures in either standard have 

been validated properly as being 

capable of providing useful information 

about the dynamic stability of the 

vehicle. Moreover, the voluntary 

standards would find some vehicles 

acceptable, even though their lateral 

acceleration at rollover is less than 0.70 

g, which is the acceptance criterion in 

the proposed rule. 

Both voluntary standards require that 

manufacturers include a lighted seatbelt reminder that is visible to the driver 

and that remains on for at least 8 

seconds after the vehicle is started, 

unless the driver’s seatbelt is fastened. 

However, virtually all ROVs on the 

market already include this feature, and 

therefore, relying only on the voluntary 

standards would not be expected to 

raise seatbelt use over its current level. 

The voluntary standards include 

requirements for retaining the occupant 

within the protective zone of the vehicle 

in the event of a rollover, including two 

options for restraining the occupants in 

the shoulder/hip area. However, testing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69021 

performed by CPSC identified 

weaknesses in the performance-based 

tilt table test option that allows 

unacceptable occupant head ejection 

beyond the protective zone of the 

vehicle Rollover Protective Structure 

(ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a 

passive shoulder barrier could reduce 

the head excursion of a belted occupant 

during quarter-turn rollover events. The 

Commission believes that this can be 

accomplished by a requirement for a 

passive barrier based on the dimensions 

of the upper arm of a 5th percentile 

adult female, at a defined area near the 

ROV occupants’ shoulder, as contained 

in the proposed rule. 

Relationship of benefits to costs. The 

estimated costs and benefits of the rule 

on an annual basis can be calculated by 

multiplying the estimated benefits and 

costs per unit, by the number of ROVs 

sold in a given year. In 2013, 234,000 

ROVs were sold. If the proposed rule 

had been in effect that year, the total 

quantifiable cost would have been 

between $14.3 million and $22.0 

million ($61 and $94 multiplied by 

234,000 units, respectively). The total 

quantifiable benefits would have been at 

least $515 million ($2,199 × 234,000). 

On a per-unit basis, we estimate the 

total cost of the proposed rule to be $61 

to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the total 

quantifiable benefits of the proposed 

rule to be $2,199 per unit. This results 

in net quantifiable benefits of $2,105 to 

$2,138 per unit. Quantifiable benefits of 

the proposed rule could exceed the 

estimated $1,329 per unit because the 

benefit associated with the vehicle 

handling and lateral stability 

requirement could not be quantified. 

Based on this analysis, the 

Commission finds preliminarily that the 

benefits expected from the rule bear a 

reasonable relationship to the 

anticipated costs of the rule. 

Least burdensome requirement. The 

Commission considered lessburdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule on ROVs, but we 

concluded that none of these 

alternatives would adequately reduce 

the risk of injury: 

(1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but 

instead relying upon voluntary 

standards. If CPSC did not issue a 

mandatory standard, most 

manufacturers would comply with one 

of the two voluntary standards that 

apply to ROVs. As discussed previously, 

the Commission does not believe either 

voluntary standard adequately 

addresses the risk of injury and death 

associated with ROVs. 

(2) Including the dynamic lateral 

stability requirement or the understeer 

requirement, but not both. The 

Commission believes that both of these 

characteristics need to be addressed. A 

vehicle that meets both the dynamic 

stability requirement and the understeer 

requirement should be safer than a 

vehicle that meets only one of the 

requirements. Moreover, the cost of 

meeting just one requirement is not 

substantially lower than the cost of 

meeting both requirements. The cost of 

testing a vehicle for compliance with 

both the dynamic lateral stability and 

vehicle handling/understeer 

requirement was estimated to be about 

$24,000. However, the cost of testing for 

compliance with just the dynamic 

stability requirement would be about 

$20,000, or only about 17 percent less 

than the cost of testing for compliance 

with both requirements. This is because 

the cost of renting and transporting the 

vehicle to the test site, instrumenting 

the vehicle for the tests, and making 

some initial static measurements are 

virtually the same for both requirements 

and would only have to be done once 

if the tests for both requirements were 

conducted on the same day. Moreover, 

changes in the vehicle design that affect 

the lateral stability of the vehicle could 

also impact the handling of the vehicle. 

For these reasons, the proposed rule 

includes both a dynamic stability and 

vehicle handling requirement. 

(3) Instead of seatbelt/speed limitation 

requirements in the proposed rule, the 

Commission considered a requirement 

for ROVs to have loud or intrusive 

seatbelt reminders. Currently, most 

ROVs meet the voluntary standards that 

require an 8-second visual seatbelt 

reminder. Some more intrusive systems 

have been used on passenger cars. For 

example, the Ford ‘‘BeltMinder’’ system 

resumes warning the driver after about 

65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not 

fastened and the car is traveling at more 

than 3 mph. The system flashes a 

warning light and sounds a chime for 6 

seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 

minutes as long as the car is operating 

and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. 

Honda developed a similar system in 

which the warning could last for longer 

than 9 minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is 

not fastened. Studies of both systems 

found that a statistically significant 

increase in the use seatbelts of 5 percent 

(from 71 to 76 percent) and 6 percent 

(from 84 to 90 percent), respectively. 

However, these more intrusive 

seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to 

be as effective as the seatbelt speed 

limitation requirement in the proposed 

rule. The Commission believes that the 

seatbelt speed limitation requirement 

will cause most drivers and passengers 

who desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten 

their seatbelts. Research supports this 

position. One experiment used a haptic 

feedback system to increase the force 

the driver needed to exert to depress the 

gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 

mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. 

The system did not prevent the driver 

from exceeding 25 mph, but the system 

increased the amount of force required 

to depress the gas pedal to maintain a 

speed greater than 25 mph. In this 

experiment, all seven participants chose 

to fasten their seatbelts. A follow-up 

study on the haptic feedback study 

focused on 20 young drivers ranging in 

age from 18 to 21, and a feedback force 

set at 20 mph instead of 25 mph. The 

study results showed that the mean seat 

belt use increased from 54.7 percent to 

99.7 percent, and the few instances in 

which seat belts were not worn were on 

trips of 2 minutes long or less. Most 

significantly, participants rated the 

system as very acceptable and agreeable 

(9 out of a 10-point scale). 

The more intrusive seatbelt reminder 

systems used on some passenger cars 

have been more limited in their 

effectiveness. The Honda system, for 

example, reduced the number of 

unbelted drivers by about 38 percent; 

the Ford system reduced the number of 

unbelted drivers by only 17 percent. 

(The Honda system increased seatbelt 

use from 84 percent to 90 percent. 

Therefore, the percentage of unbelted 

drivers was reduced by about 38 

percent, or 6 percent divided by 16 

percent. The Ford system increased 

seatbelt use from 71 percent to 76 

percent. Therefore, the percentage of 

unbelted drivers was reduced by about 

17 percent, or 5 percent divided by 29 

percent.) Additionally, ROVs are open 

vehicles and the ambient noise is likely 

higher than in the enclosed passenger 

compartment of a car. It is likely that 

some ROV drivers would not hear the 

warning, and therefore, they would be 

motivated to fasten their seatbelts, 

unless the warning was substantially 

louder than the systems used in 

passenger cars. Therefore, the 

Commission believes that the loud or 

intrusive seat belt reminders would not 

be as effective as the seat belt speed 

limiter requirement. 

For the reasons set forth above, the 

Commission finds preliminarily that the 

rule imposes the least burdensome 

requirement that prevents or adequately 

reduces the risk of injury for which 

promulgation of the rule is proposed. 

XVIII. Request for Comments 

We invite all interested persons to 

submit comments on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. In particular, the 

Commission invites comments 

regarding the estimates used in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69022 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

preliminary regulatory analysis and the 

assumptions underlying these estimates. 

The Commission is especially interested 

in data that would help the Commission 

to refine its estimates to more accurately 

reflect the expected costs of the 

proposed rule as well as any alternate 

estimates that interested parties can 

provide. The Commission is also 

interested in comments addressing 

whether the proposed compliance dates 

of 180 days after the publication of the 

final rule to meet the lateral stability 

and vehicle handling requirements and 

12 months after the publication of the 

final rule to meet the occupant 

protection requirements are appropriate. 

The Commission also seeks comments 

on the following: 

• Additional key issues related to 

seatbelts for ROVs, including: available 

technology to prevent any hazards from 

the application of a passenger seatbelt 

requirement (such as sudden speed 

reductions if a passenger unbuckles); 

whether CPSC should extend the phasein period for the seat-belt requirement; 

and any other relevant information 

related to the proposed seatbelt 

requirements. 

• Whether CPSC should allow the use 

of doors or other mechanisms capable of 

meeting specified loading criteria to 

meet the shoulder restraint requirement. 

• Whether there are further consistent 

and repeatable testing requirements that 

should be added to the proposed rule 

that would capture off-road conditions 

drivers experience in ROVs. If so, set 

forth the specifics of such further 

requirements. 

• Whether CPSC should establish 

separate requirements for utility 

vehicles, including: definitions, scope, 

additional standards, and/or exemptions 

that would be suitable for requirements 

specific to utility vehicles. 

The Commission seeks comment, data 

testing parameters and testing results 

concerning: 

• Oversteer and understeer, 

dynamically unstable handling, and 

minimal path-following capabilities; 

and 

• Whether there is a need for 

supplemental criteria in addition to 

specific lateral stability acceleration 

limits to avoid potential unintended 

consequences of a single criterion. 

The public is invited to submit 

additional information about any other 

issues that stakeholders find relevant. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. 

XIV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, the Commission proposes 

requirements for lateral stability, vehicle 

handing, and occupant protection to 

address an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with ROVs. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1422 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Information, Labeling, Recreation and 

Recreation areas, Incorporation by 

reference, Safety. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

■ 1. Add part 1422 to read as follows: 

PART 1422—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

RECREATIONAL OFF-HIGHWAY 

VEHICLES 

Sec. 

1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance 

dates. 

1422.2 Definitions. 

1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral 

stability. 

1422.4 Requirements for vehicle handling. 

1422.5 Requirements for occupant 

protection performance. 

1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling. 

1422.7 Findings. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076. 

§ 1422.1 Scope, purpose and compliance 

dates. 

(a) This part 1422, a consumer 

product safety standard, establishes 

requirements for recreational offhighway vehicles (ROVs), as defined in 

§ 1422.2(a). The standard includes 

requirements for dynamic lateral, 

vehicle handling, and occupant 

protection. These requirements are 

intended to reduce an unreasonable risk 

of injury and death associated with 

ROVs. 

(b) This standard does not apply to 

the following vehicles, as defined by the 

relevant voluntary standards: 

(1) Golf carts 

(2) All-terrain vehicles 

(3) Fun karts 

(4) Go karts 

(5) Light utility vehicles 

(c) Any ROV manufactured or 

imported on or after [date that is 180 

days after publication of a final rule] 

shall comply with the lateral stability 

requirements stated in § 1422.3 and the 

vehicle handling requirements stated in 

§ 1422.4. Any ROV manufactured or 

imported on or after [date that is 12 

months after publication of final rule] 

shall comply with the occupant 

protection requirements stated in 

§ 1422.5. 

§ 1422.2 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions in 

section 3 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the 

following definitions apply for purposes 

of this part 1422. 

(a) Recreational off-highway vehicle 

(ROV) means a motorized vehicle 

designed for off-highway use with the 

following features: Four or more wheels 

with pneumatic tires; bench or bucket 

seating for two or more people; 

automotive-type controls for steering, 

throttle, and braking; rollover protective 

structure (ROPS); occupant restraint; 

and maximum speed capability greater 

than 30 mph. 

(b) Two-wheel lift means the point at 

which the inside wheels of a turning 

vehicle lift off the ground, or when the 

uphill wheels of a vehicle on a tilt table 

lift off the table. Two-wheel lift is a 

precursor to a rollover event. We use 

this term interchangeably with the term 

‘‘tip-up.’’ 

(c) Threshold lateral acceleration 

means the minimum lateral acceleration 

of the vehicle at two-wheel lift. 

§ 1422.3 Requirements for dynamic lateral 

stability. 

(a) General. The Recreational OffHighway Vehicle (ROV) requirement for 

lateral stability is based on the average 

threshold lateral acceleration at rollover, 

as determined by a 30 mph dropped 

throttle J-turn test. This threshold lateral 

acceleration is measured parallel to the 

ground plane at the center of gravity 

(CG) of the loaded test vehicle and 

occurs at the minimum steering wheel 

angle required to cause the vehicle to 

roll over in a 30 mph dropped throttle 

J-turn test on a flat and level, highfriction surface. Rollover is achieved 

when all of the wheels of the ROV that 

are on the inside of the turn lift off the 

ground. For convenience, this condition 

is referred to as two-wheel lift, 

regardless of the number of wheels on 

the ROV. Testing shall be conducted on 

a randomly selected representative 

production vehicle. 

(b) Test surface. Tests shall be 

conducted on a smooth, dry, uniform, 

paved surface constructed of asphalt or 

concrete. The surface area used for 

dynamic testing shall be kept free of 

debris and substances that may affect 

test results during vehicle testing. 

(1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic 

testing shall have a peak braking 

coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 

and a sliding skid coefficient greater 

than or equal to 0.80 when measured in 

accordance with ASTM E 1337, 

Standard Test Method for Determining 

Longitudinal Peak Braking Coefficient of 

Paved Surfaces Using Standard 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69023 

Reference Tire, approved December 1, 

2012, and ASTM E274, Standard Test 

Method for Skid Resistance of Paved 

Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire, 

approved January 2011, respectively. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approves these incorporations by 

reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may 

obtain a copy from ASTM International, 

100 Bar Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428; http:// 

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(2) Slope. The test surface shall have 

a slope equal to or less than 1 degree 

(1.7% grade). 

(3) Ambient conditions. The ambient 

temperature shall be between 0 degrees 

Celsius (32 ß Fahrenheit) and 38 ßC (100 

ßF). The maximum wind speed shall be 

no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s). 

(c) Test conditions. (1) Vehicle 

condition. An ROV used for dynamic 

testing shall be configured in the 

following manner: 

(i) The test vehicle shall be a 

representative production vehicle. The 

ROV shall be in standard condition. 

Adjustable seats shall be located in the 

most rearward position. 

(ii) The ROV shall be operated in twowheel drive mode, with selectable 

differential in its most-open setting. The 

tires shall be the manufacturer’s 

original-equipment tires intended for 

normal retail sale to consumers. The 

tires shall be new when starting the 

tests, then broken-in by conducting a 

minimum total of ten J-turns with five 

in the right-turning direction and five in 

the left-turning direction. The J-turns 

conducted for tire break-in shall be 

conducted at 30 mph and steering 

angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. 

(iii) Springs or shocks that have 

adjustable spring or damping rates shall 

be set to the manufacturer’s 

recommended settings for delivery. 

(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV 

manufacturer’s recommended settings 

for normal operation for the load 

condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) 

of this section. If more than one 

pressure is specified, the lowest value 

shall be used. 

(v) All vehicle operating fluids shall 

be at the manufacturer’s recommended 

level, and the fuel tank shall be full to 

its rated capacity. 

(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such 

that the combined weight of the test 

operator, test equipment, and ballast, if 

any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 

kg ± 5 kg). 

(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the 

equipped test vehicle shall be no more 

than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0 

inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) 

the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at 

retail and loaded according to paragraph 

(c)(vi) of this section. 

(2) Vehicle test equipment. (i) Safety 

equipment. Test vehicles shall be 

equipped with outriggers on both sides 

of the vehicle. The outriggers shall be 

designed to minimally affect the loaded 

vehicle’s center of gravity location, shall 

permit the vehicle to experience twowheel lift during dynamic testing, and 

shall be capable of preventing a full 

vehicle rollover. 

(ii) Steering controller. The test 

vehicle shall be equipped with a 

programmable steering controller (PSC), 

capable of responding to vehicle speed, 

with a minimum steering angle input 

rate of 500 degrees per second, and 

accurate within + 0.25 degree. The 

steering wheel setting for 0.0 degrees of 

steering angle is defined as the setting 

which controls the properly aligned 

vehicle to travel in a straight path on a 

level surface. The PSC shall be operated 

in absolute steering mode, where the 

amount of steering used for each test 

shall be measured relative to the PSC 

reading when the vehicle steering is at 

zero degrees. 

(iii) Vehicle instrumentation. The 

vehicle shall be instrumented to record 

lateral acceleration, vertical 

acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, 

forward speed, steering wheel angle, 

steering wheel angle rate, vehicle roll 

angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, 

and yaw angle rate. See Table 1 for 

instrumentation specifications. Ground 

plane lateral acceleration shall be 

calculated by correcting the body-fixed 

acceleration for roll angle. A roll motion 

inertia measurement sensor that 

provides direct output of ground plane 

lateral acceleration at the vehicle CG 

may also be used in lieu of manual 

correction to obtain ground plane lateral 

acceleration. Roll angle may be 

calculated from roll rate data. 

TABLE 1—INSTRUMENTATION SPECIFICATION FOR J-TURN AND CONSTANT RADIUS TESTING OF ROVS

Parameter Accuracy 

Vehicle Speed ....................... ± 0.10 mph 

TABLE 1—INSTRUMENTATION SPECIFICATION FOR J-TURN AND CONSTANT RADIUS TESTING OF ROVS— 

Continued 

Parameter Accuracy 

Acceleration (x, y, and z directions ).± 0.003 g 

Steering Wheel Angle ........... ± 0.25 deg. 

Steering Wheel Angle Rate .. ± 0.5 deg./

sec. 

Pitch, Roll, and Yaw Rates ... ± 0.10 deg./

sec. 

Roll Angle* ............................ ± 0.20 deg. 

* For constant radius testing, roll angle must 

be measured directly or roll rate accuracy 

must be ± 0.01 deg./sec. 

(d) Test procedure. (1) 3.3.1. Set the 

vehicle drive train in its most-open 

setting. For example, two-wheel drive 

shall be used instead of four-wheel 

drive, and a lockable differential, if so 

equipped, shall be in its unlocked, or 

‘‘open,’’ setting. 

(2) Drive the vehicle in a straight path 

to define zero degree (0.0) steer angle. 

(3) Program the PSC to input a 90- 

degree turn to the right at a minimum 

of 500 degrees per second as soon as the 

vehicle slows to 30 mph. Program the 

PSC to hold steering angles for a 

minimum of 4 seconds before returning 

to zero steer angle. The steering rate 

when returning to zero may be less than 

500 degrees per second. 

(4) Conduct a 30 mph dropped 

throttle J-turn. 

(i) Accelerate the vehicle in a straight 

line to a speed greater than 30 mph. 

(ii) As the vehicle approaches the 

desired test location, engage the PSC 

and fully release the throttle. 

(iii) The PSC shall input the 

programmed steering angle when the 

vehicle decelerates to 30 mph. Verify 

that the instrumentation recorded all of 

the data during this J-turn event. 

(5) Conduct additional J-turns, 

increasing the steer angle in 10-degree 

increments, as required, until a twowheel lift event is visually observed. 

(6) Conduct additional J-turns, 

decreasing the steering angle in 5-degree 

increments to find the lowest steering 

angle that will produce two-wheel lift. 

Additional adjustments, up or down, in 

1-degree increments may be used. 

(7) Repeat the process of conducting 

J-turns to determine minimum steer 

angle to produce two-wheel lift in left 

turn direction. 

(8) Start the data acquisition system. 

(9) Conduct J-turn test trials in the left 

and right directions using the minimum 

steering angles determined in 

paragraphs (d)(6) and (d)(7) of this 

section to verify that the steering angle 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69024 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

produces two-wheel lift in both 

directions. 

(10) Conduct five J-turn test trials 

with two-wheel lift in the left and right 

turn directions in one direction heading 

on the test surface (10 total trials). On 

the same test track, but in the opposite 

heading on the test surface, conduct five 

more J-turn test trials with two-wheel 

lift in the left and right turn directions 

(10 total trials). A minimum data set 

will consist of 20 total J-turn test trials 

with half of the tests conducted in one 

direction on the test surface and half of 

the tests conducted in the opposite 

direction. Review all data parameters for 

each trial to verify that the tests were 

executed correctly. Any trials that do 

not produce two-wheel lift should be 

diagnosed for cause. If cause is 

identified, discard the data and repeat 

the trial to replace the data. If no cause 

can be identified, repeat actions stated 

in paragraphs (d)(5) through (d)(7) of 

this section to ensure that the correct 

steering angle has been determined. 

Additional J-turn tests may be added to 

the minimum data set in groups of four, 

with one test for each left/right turn 

direction and one test for each direction 

heading on the test surface. 

(11) Determine value of threshold 

lateral acceleration at rollover. 

(i) Data recorded as required in 

paragraph (d)(10) of this section shall be 

digitally low-pass filtered to 2.0 hertz, 

using a phaseless, eighth-order, 

Butterworth filter to eliminate noise 

artifacts on the data. 

(ii) Plot the data for ground plane 

lateral acceleration corrected to the test 

vehicle CG location, steering wheel 

angle, and roll angle recorded for each 

trial conducted under paragraph (d)(10) 

of this section. 

(iii) Find and record the peak ground 

plane lateral acceleration occurring 

between the time of the PSC input and 

the time of two-wheel lift. 

(iv) If a body-fixed acceleration sensor 

is used, correct the lateral acceleration 

data for roll angle, using the equation: 

Ay ground = Ay cos F¥Az sin F 

(F = vehicle body roll angle) 

(v) Calculate the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover value, which is 

the average of the peak values for 

ground plane lateral acceleration for all 

of the trials conducted under paragraph 

(d)(10) of this section that produced 

two-wheel lift. 

(e) Performance requirements. The 

minimum value for the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover shall be 0.70 g 

or greater. 

(f) Consumer information 

requirements. The manufacturer shall 

provide a hang tag with every ROV that 

is visible to the driver and provides the 

value of the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover of that model 

vehicle. The label must conform in 

content, form, and sequence to the hang 

tag shown in Figure 1. 

(1) Size. Every hang tag shall be at 

least 6 inches (152 mm) wide x 4 inches 

(102 mm) tall. 

(2) Content. Every hang tag shall 

contain the following: 

(i) Value of the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover of that model 

vehicle displayed on a progressive scale. 

(ii) The statement—‘‘Compare with 

other vehicles before you buy.’’ 

(iii) The statement—‘‘The value above 

is a measure of this vehicle’s resistance 

to rolling over on a flat surface. Vehicles 

with higher numbers are more stable.’’ 

(iv) The statement—‘‘Other vehicles 

may have a higher rollover resistance; 

compare before you buy.’’ 

(v) The statement—‘‘Rollover cannot 

be completely eliminated for any 

vehicle.’’ 

(vi) The statement—‘‘Lateral 

acceleration is measured during a J-turn 

test; minimally accepted value is 0.7 g.’’ 

(vii) The manufacturer’s name and 

vehicle model, e.g., XYZ corporation, 

Model x, ####. 

(3) Format. The hang tag shall be 

formatted as shown in Figure 1. 

(4) Attachment. Every hang tag shall 

be attached to the ROV and conspicuous 

to the seated driver. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69025 

§ 1422.4 Requirements for vehicle 

handling. 

(a) General. The ROV requirement for 

vehicle handling shall be based on the 

vehicle’s steering gradient, as measured 

by the constant radius test method 

described in SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J266, published 

January 1996. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(b) Test surface. Tests shall be 

conducted on a smooth, dry, uniform, 

paved surface constructed of asphalt or 

concrete. The surface area used for 

dynamic testing shall be kept free of 

debris and substances that may affect 

test results during vehicle testing. 

(1) Friction. Surface used for dynamic 

testing shall have a peak braking 

coefficient greater than or equal to 0.90 

and a sliding skid coefficient greater 

than or equal to 0.80 when measured in 

accordance with ASTM E 1337 and 

ASTM E274, respectively. 

(2) Slope. The test surface shall have 

a slope equal to or less than 1 degree 

(1.7% grade). 

(3) Ambient conditions. The ambient 

temperature shall be between 0 degrees 

Celsius (32 ß Fahrenheit) and 38 ßC (100 

ßF). The maximum wind speed shall be 

no greater than 16 mph (7 m/s). 

(c) Test conditions.—(1) Vehicle 

condition. A vehicle used for dynamic 

testing shall be configured in the 

following manner. (i) The test vehicle 

shall be a representative production 

vehicle. The ROV shall be in standard 

condition. Adjustable seats shall be 

located in the most rearward position. 

(ii) The ROV shall be operated in twowheel drive mode with selectable 

differential in its most-open setting. The 

tires shall be the manufacturer’s 

original-equipment tires intended for 

normal retail sale to consumers. The 

tires shall be new when starting the 

tests, then broken-in by conducting a 

minimum total of ten J-turns with five 

in the right-turning direction and five in 

the left-turning direction. The J-turns 

conducted for tire break-in shall be 

conducted at 30 mph and steering 

angles sufficient to cause two-wheel lift. 

Tires used for the full test protocol to 

establish the threshold lateral 

acceleration at rollover value for the test 

vehicle are acceptable for use in the 

handling performance test protocol. 

(iii) Springs or shocks that have 

adjustable spring or damping rates shall 

be set to the manufacturer’s 

recommended settings for delivery. 

(iv) Tires shall be inflated to the ROV 

manufacturer’s recommended settings 

for normal operation for the load 

condition specified in paragraph (c)(vi) 

of this section. If more than one 

pressure is specified, the lowest value 

shall be used. 

(v) All vehicle operational fluids shall 

be at the manufacturer’s recommended 

level and the fuel tank shall be full to 

its rated capacity. 

(vi) The ROV shall be loaded, such 

that the combined weight of the test 

operator, test equipment, and ballast, if 

any, shall equal 430 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (195 

kg ± 5 kg). 

(vii) The center of gravity (CG) of the 

equipped test vehicle shall be no more 

than 0.5 inch below (and within 1.0 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.017</GPH>
69026 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

inch in the x-axis and y-axis directions) 

the CG of the vehicle as it is sold at 

retail and loaded according to paragraph 

(c)(vi) of this section. 

(2) Vehicle test equipment. Test 

vehicles shall be equipped with 

outriggers on both sides of the vehicle. 

The outriggers shall be designed to 

minimally affect the loaded vehicle’s 

center of gravity location, shall permit 

the vehicle to experience two-wheel lift 

during dynamic testing, and shall be 

capable of preventing a full vehicle 

rollover. 

(ii) Vehicle instrumentation. The 

vehicle shall be instrumented to record 

lateral acceleration, vertical 

acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, 

forward speed, steering wheel angle, 

steering wheel angle rate, vehicle roll 

angle, roll angle rate, pitch angle rate, 

and yaw angle rate. See Table 1 in 

§ 1422.3(c) for instrumentation 

specifications. Ground plane lateral 

acceleration shall be calculated by 

correcting the body-fixed acceleration 

for roll angle. A roll motion inertia 

measurement sensor that provides direct 

output of ground plane lateral 

acceleration at the vehicle CG may also 

be used in lieu of manual correction to 

obtain ground plane lateral acceleration. 

(d) Test Procedure. (1) Handling 

performance testing shall be conducted 

using the constant radius test method 

described in SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J266. The 

minimum radius for constant-radius 

testing shall be 100 feet. In this test 

method, the instrumented and loaded 

vehicle is driven while centered on a 

100-ft. radius circle marked on the test 

surface, with the driver making every 

effort to maintain the vehicle path 

relative to the circle. The vehicle is 

operated at a variety of increasing 

speeds, and data are recorded for those 

various speed conditions to obtain data 

to describe the vehicle handling 

behavior across the prescribed range of 

ground plane lateral accelerations. Data 

shall be recorded for the lateral 

acceleration range from 0.0 g to 0.5 g. 

(2) Start the data acquisition system. 

(3) Drive the vehicle on the circular 

path at the lowest possible speed. Data 

shall be recorded with the steering 

wheel position and throttle position 

fixed to record the approximate 

Ackermann angle. 

(4) Continue driving the vehicle to the 

next speed at which data will be taken. 

The vehicle speed shall be increased 

and data shall be taken until it is no 

longer possible for the driver to 

maintain directional control of the 

vehicle. Test shall be repeated at least 

three times so that results can be 

examined for repeatability and then 

averaged. 

(5) Data collection, method 1— 

discrete data points. In this data 

acquisition method, the driver 

maintains a constant speed while 

maintaining compliance with the 

circular path, and data points are 

recorded when a stable condition of 

speed and steering angle is achieved. 

After the desired data points are 

recorded for a given speed, the driver 

accelerates to the next desired speed 

setting, maintains constant speed and 

compliance with the path, and data 

points are recorded for the new speed 

setting. This process is repeated to cover 

the speed range from 0.0 mph to 28 

mph, which will map the lateral 

acceleration range from near 0.0 g to 

0.50 g. Increments of speed shall be 1 

to 2 miles per hour, to allow for a 

complete definition of the understeer 

gradient. Data shall be taken at the 

lowest speed practicable to obtain an 

approximation of the vehicle’s 

Ackermann steering angle. 

(6) Data collection, method 2— 

continuous data points In this data 

acquisition method, the driver 

maintains compliance with the circular 

path while slowly increasing vehicle 

speed; and data from the vehicle 

instrumentation is recorded 

continuously, so long as the vehicle 

remains centered on the intended 

radius. The rate of speed increase shall 

not exceed 0.93 mph per second. Initial 

speed shall be as low as is practicable, 

in order to obtain an approximation of 

the vehicle’s Ackermann steering angle. 

The speed range shall be 0.0 mph to 

28.0 mph, which will be sufficient to 

produce corrected lateral accelerations 

from near 0.0 g to 0.50 g. 

(7) Vehicle dimension coordinate 

system. The coordinate system 

described in SAE Surface Vehicle 

Recommended Practice J670, published 

in January 2008, shall be used. The 

Director of the Federal Register 

approves this incorporation by reference 

in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

(8) Data analysis. The lateral 

acceleration data shall be corrected for 

roll angle using the method described in 

§ 1422.3(11)(iv). To provide uniform 

and comparable data, the ground plane 

lateral acceleration shall also be 

corrected to reflect the value at the test 

vehicle’s center of gravity. The data 

shall be digitally low-pass filtered to 1.0 

Hz, using a phase-less, eighth-order, 

Butterworth filter, and plotted with 

ground plane lateral acceleration on the 

abscissa versus hand-wheel steering 

angle on the ordinate. A second-order 

polynomial curve fit of the data shall be 

constructed in the range from 0.01 g to 

0.5 g. The slope of the constructed plot 

determines the understeer gradient 

value in the units of degrees of handwheel steering angle per g of ground 

plane lateral acceleration (degrees/g). 

Using the coordinate system specified in 

paragraph (d)(7) of this section, positive 

values for understeer gradient are 

required for values of ground plane 

lateral acceleration values from 0.10 g to 

0.50 g. 

(e) Performance requirements. Using 

the coordinate system specified in 

section 1422.4(d)(7), values for the 

understeer gradient shall be positive for 

values of ground plane lateral 

acceleration values from 0.10 g to 0.50 

g. The ROV shall not exhibit negative 

understeer gradients (oversteer) in the 

lateral acceleration range specified. 

§ 1422.5 Requirements for occupant 

protection performance. 

(a) General. The ROV requirement for 

occupant protection shall be based on 

the maximum vehicle speed limitation 

when the seat belt of any occupied front 

seat is not buckled, and on passive 

coverage of the occupant shoulder area 

as measured by a probe test. 

(b) Vehicle speed limitation. (1) Test 

surface. Tests shall be conducted on a 

smooth, dry, uniform, paved surface 

constructed of asphalt or concrete. The 

surface area used for dynamic testing 

shall be kept free of debris and 

substances that may affect test results 

during vehicle testing. 

(i) Friction. Surface shall have a peak 

braking coefficient greater than or equal 

to 0.90, and a sliding skid coefficient 

greater than or equal to 0.80, when 

measured in accordance with ASTM E 

1337 and ASTM E274, respectively. 

(ii) Slope. The test surface shall have 

a slope equal to or less than 1 degree 

(1.7% grade). 

(2) Test condition 1. Test conditions 

shall be as follows: 

(i) The test vehicle shall be a 

representative production vehicle. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69027 

ROV shall have a redundant restraint 

system in the driver’s seat. 

(ii) ROV test weight shall be the 

vehicle curb weight plus the test 

operator, only. If the test operator 

weighs less than 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 

kg ± 5 kg), then the difference in weight 

shall be added to the vehicle to reflect 

an operator weight of 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. 

(98 kg ± 5 kg). 

(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the 

pressures recommended by the ROV 

manufacturer for the vehicle test weight. 

(iv) The driver’s seat belt shall not be 

buckled; however, the driver shall be 

restrained by the redundant restraint 

system for test safety purposes. 

(3) Test condition 2. Test conditions 

shall be as follows: 

(i) The test vehicle shall be a 

representative production vehicle. in 

standard condition. 

(ii) ROV test weight shall be the 

vehicle curb weight, plus the test 

operator and a passenger surrogate that 

will activate the seat occupancy sensor. 

If the test operator weighs less than 215 

lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg), then the 

difference in weight shall be added to 

the vehicle to reflect an operator weight 

of 215 lbs. ± 11 lbs. (98 kg ± 5 kg). 

(iii) Tires shall be inflated to the 

pressures recommended by the ROV 

manufacturer for the vehicle test weight. 

(iv) The driver’s seat belt shall be 

buckled. The front passenger’s seat 

belt(s) shall not be buckled. 

(4) Test procedure. Measure the 

maximum speed capability of the ROV 

under Test Condition 1, specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, and Test 

Condition 2, specified in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section using a radar gun 

or equivalent method. The test operator 

shall accelerate the ROV until maximum 

speed is reached, and shall maintain 

maximum speed for at least 15 m (50 

ft.). Speed measurement shall be made 

when the ROV has reached a stabilized 

maximum speed. A maximum speed 

capability test shall consist of a 

minimum of two measurement test runs 

conducted over the same track, one each 

in opposite direction. If more than two 

measurement runs are made, there shall 

be an equal number of runs in each 

direction. The maximum speed 

capability of the ROV shall be the 

arithmetic average of the measurements 

made. 

(5) Performance requirement. The 

maximum speed capability of a vehicle 

with an unbuckled seat belt of the driver 

or any occupied front passenger seat 

shall be 15 mph or less. 

(c) Passive coverage of shoulder area. 

(1) General test conditions. 

(i) Probes shall be allowed to rotate 

through a universal joint. 

(ii) Forces shall be quasi-statically 

applied and held for 10 seconds. 

(2) Shoulder/Hip performance 

requirement. The vehicle structure or 

restraint system must absorb the force 

specified in § 1422.5(c)(5) with less than 

25 mm (1 inch) of permanent deflection 

along the horizontal lateral axis. 

(3) Location of applied force. Locate 

point R on the vehicle, as shown in 

Figure X of ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011, 

American National Standard for 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, 

approved July 11, 2011. The Director of 

the Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy 

from ASTM International, 100 Bar 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box 0700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428; http://

www.astm.org/cpsc.htm. You may 

inspect a copy at the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814, telephone 301–504–7923, or at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

All measurements for the point shall be 

taken with respect to the base of the 

seatback. The base of the seatback lies 

on the surface of the seat cushion along 

the centerline of the seating position 

and is measured without a simulated 

occupant weight on the seat. Point R is 

located 432 mm (17 inches) along the 

seat back above the base of the seatback. 

The point is 152 mm (6 inches) forward 

of and perpendicular to the seatback 

surface as shown in the figure. For an 

adjustable seat, Point R is determined 

with the seat adjusted to the rear-most 

position. Point R2 applies to an 

adjustable seat and is located in the 

same manner as Point R except that the 

seat is located in the forward-most 

position. 

(4) Barriers. Remove all occupant 

protection barriers that require action on 

the part of the consumer to be effective 

(i.e. remove nets). Passive barriers that 

do not require any consumer action are 

allowed to remain. 

(5) Shoulder/Hip test method. Apply 

a horizontal, outward force of 725 N 

(163 lbf.). Apply the force through the 

upper arm probe shown in Figure 2. The 

upper arm probe shall be oriented so 

that Point Q on the probe is coincident 

with Point R for a vehicle with a fixed 

seat, or Point Q shall be coincident with 

any point between R and R2 for a 

vehicle with an adjustable seat. The 

probe’s major axis shall be parallel to 

the seatback angle at a point 17 inches 

along the seat back above the base of the 

seatback. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69028 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1422.6 Prohibited stockpiling. 

(a) Stockpiling. Stockpiling means 

manufacturing or importing a product 

which is the subject of a consumer 

product safety rule between the date of 

issuance of the rule and its effective 

date at a rate that is significantly greater 

than the rate at which such product was 

produced or imported during a base 

period prescribed by the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission. 

(b) Base period. The base period for 

ROVs is, at the option of each 

manufacturer or importer, any period of 

365 consecutive days beginning on or 

after October 1, 2009, and ending on or 

before [the date of promulgation of the 

rule]. 

(c) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and 

importers of ROVs shall not 

manufacture or import ROVs that do not 

comply with the requirements of this 

part between [the date of promulgation 

of the rule] and [the effective date of the 

rule] at a rate that exceeds 10 percent of 

the rate at which this product was 

produced or imported during the base 

period described in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

§ 1422.7 Findings. 

(a) General. In order to issue a 

consumer product safety standard under 

the Consumer Product Safety Act, the 

Commission must make certain findings 

and include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 

2058(f)(3). These findings are discussed 

in this section. 

(b) Degree and nature of the risk of 

injury. (1) CPSC received 428 reports of 

ROV-related incidents from the Injury 

and Potential Injury Incident (IPII) and 

In-Depth Investigation (INDP) databases 

that occurred between January 1, 2003 

and December 31, 2011, and were 

received by December 31, 2011. There 

were a total of 826 victims involved in 

the 428 incidents. Within the 428 ROVrelated incidents, there were a total of 

231 reported fatalities and 388 reported 

injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries 

(19 percent) could be classified as 

severe, that is, the victim has lasting 

repercussions from the injuries received 

in the incident, based on the 

information available. The remaining 

207 victims were either not injured or 

their injury information was not known. 

Of the 428 ROV-related incidents, 76 

involved drivers under 16 years of age 

(18 percent); 227 involved drivers 16 

years of age or older (53 percent); and 

125 involved drivers of unknown age 

(29 percent). 

(2) Using data reported through the 

National Electronic Injury Surveillance 

System (NEISS) from January 1, 2010 to 

August 31, 2010, the Commission 

conducted a special study to identify 

cases that involved ROVs that were 

reported through NEISS. (NEISS is a 

stratified national probability sample of 

hospital emergency departments that 

allows the Commission to make national 

estimates of product-related injuries.) 

Based on information obtained through 

the special study, the estimated number 

of emergency department-treated ROVrelated injuries occurring in the United 

States between January 1, 2010 and 

August 31, 2010, is 2,200 injuries. 

Extrapolating for the year 2010, the 

estimated number of emergency 

department-treated ROV-related injuries 

is 3,000, with a corresponding 95 

percent confidence interval of 1,100 to 

4,900. 

(c) Number of consumer products 

subject to the rule. (1) Sales of ROVs 

have increased substantially since their 

introduction. In 1998, only one firm 

manufactured ROVs, and fewer than 

2,000 units were sold. By 2003, when a 

second major manufacturer entered the 

market, almost 20,000 ROVs were sold. 

The only dip in sales occurred around 

2008, which coincided with the worst of 

the credit crisis and recession that also 

started about the same time. In 2013, an 

estimated 234,000 ROVs were sold by 

about 20 different manufacturers. (This 

information is based upon a 

Commission analysis of sales data 

provided by Power Products Marketing, 

Eden Prairie, MN.) 

(2) The number of ROVs available for 

use has also increased substantially. 

Because ROVs are a relatively new 

product, we do not have any specific 

information on the expected useful life 

of ROVs. However, using the same 

operability rates that CPSC uses for 

ATVs, we estimate that there were about 

570,000 ROVs available for use in 2010. 

By the end of 2013, there were an 

estimated 1.2 million ROVs in use. 

(d) The need of the public for ROVs 

and the effects of the rule on their 

utility, cost, and availability. (1) 

Currently there are two varieties of 

ROVs: Utility and recreational. Early 

ROV models emphasized the utility 

aspects of the vehicles, but the 

recreational aspects of the vehicles have 

become very popular. 

(2) In terms of the effects of the rule 

on ROVs utility, according to several 

ROV manufacturers, some ROV users 

‘‘might prefer limit oversteer in the offhighway environment.’’ (This assertion 

was contained in a public comment on 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP19NO14.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69029 

the ANPR for ROVs (Docket No. CPSC– 

2009–0087) submitted jointly on behalf 

of Arctic Cat, Inc., Bombardier 

Recreational Products, Inc., Polaris 

Industries, Inc., and Yamaha Motor 

Corporation, USA.) To the extent that 

the requirements in the proposed rule 

would reduce the ability of these users 

to intentionally reach limit oversteer, 

the proposed rule could have some 

adverse impact on the utility or 

enjoyment that these users receive from 

ROVs. These impacts would probably be 

limited to a small number of 

recreational users who enjoy activities 

or stunts that involve power 

oversteering or limit oversteer. 

(3) Although the impact on consumers 

who prefer limit oversteer cannot be 

quantified, the Commission expects that 

it will be low. Any impact would be 

limited to those consumers who wish to 

intentionally engage in activities 

involving the loss of traction or power 

oversteer. The practice of power 

oversteer is the result of driver choices, 

such as the speed at which a user takes 

a turn. The proposed rule would not 

prevent ROVs from reaching limit 

oversteer under all conditions; nor 

would the rule prevent consumers from 

engaging in these activities. At most, the 

proposed rule might make it somewhat 

more difficult for users to reach limit 

oversteer in an ROV. Moreover, 

consumers who have a high preference 

for vehicles that oversteer would be able 

to make aftermarket modifications, such 

as adjustments to the suspension of the 

vehicle, or using different wheels or 

tires to increase the potential for 

oversteering. 

(4) The seat belt speed limiter 

requirement could have a negative effect 

on utility and impose some 

unquantifiable costs on some users who 

would prefer not to use seat belts. The 

cost to these users would be the time 

required to buckle and unbuckle their 

seat belts and any disutility cost, such 

as discomfort caused by wearing the 

seat belt. We cannot quantify these costs 

because we do not know how many 

ROV users choose not to wear their seat 

belts, nor do we have the ability to 

quantify any discomfort or disutility 

that they would experience from 

wearing seat belts. However, the 

proposed rule does not require that the 

seat belts be fastened unless the vehicle 

is traveling 15 mph or faster. This 

should serve to mitigate these costs 

because many people who would be 

inconvenienced or discomforted by the 

requirement, such as people using the 

vehicle for work or utility purposes or 

who must frequently get on and off the 

vehicle are likely to be traveling at 

lower speeds. 

(5) The effect of the rule on cost and 

availability of ROVs is expected to be 

minimal. The average manufacturer’s 

suggested retail prices (MSRP) of ROVs, 

weighted by units sold, was about 

$13,100 in 2013, with a range of about 

$3,600 to $20,100. The preliminary 

regulatory analysis estimates the perunit cost to ROVs of the rule to be $61 

to $94. Because this per-unit cost 

resulting from the rule is a very small 

percentage of the overall retail price of 

a ROV, it is unlikely that the rule would 

have more than a minimal effect on the 

cost or availability of ROVs. 

(e) Other means to achieve the 

objective of the rule, while minimizing 

the impact on competition and 

manufacturing. (1) The Commission 

does not believe the rule will have 

adverse impact on competition. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis 

estimates the per-unit cost to ROVs of 

the rule to be $61 to $94. The average 

manufacturer’s suggested retail prices 

(MSRP) of ROVs, weighted by units 

sold, was about $13,100 in 2013, with 

a range of about $3,600 to $20,100. The 

per-unit cost resulting from the rule is 

a very small percentage of the overall 

retail price of a ROV and is unlikely to 

have any impact on competition. 

(2) The Commission believes that 

some but not all ROV models already 

meet the rule’s requirement that the 

speed of the vehicle be limited if the 

driver’s seat belt is not fastened. Before 

implementing any changes to their 

vehicles to meet the requirement, 

manufacturers whose ROVs do not meet 

the seatbelt speed limiter requirement 

would have to analyze their options for 

meeting the requirement. This process 

would include developing prototypes of 

system designs, testing the prototypes 

and refining the design of the systems 

based on this testing. Once the 

manufacturer has settled upon a system 

for meeting the requirement, the system 

will have to be incorporated into the 

manufacturing process of the vehicle. 

This will involve producing the 

engineering specifications and drawings 

of the system, parts, assemblies, and 

subassemblies that are required. 

Manufacturers will need to obtain the 

needed parts from their suppliers and 

incorporate the steps needed to install 

the system on the vehicles in the 

assembly line. The Commission believes 

that manufacturers should be able to 

complete all of these activities and be 

ready to produce vehicles that meet the 

requirement within 12 calendar months. 

The Commission is proposing a 12- 

month effective date for the occupant 

protection requirements to minimize the 

burden on manufacturing. 

(f) Unreasonable risk. (1) CPSC 

received 428 reports of ROV-related 

incidents from the Injury and Potential 

Injury Incident (IPII) and In-Depth 

Investigation (INDP) databases that 

occurred between January 1, 2003 and 

December 31, 2011, and were received 

by December 31, 2011. There were a 

total of 826 victims involved in the 428 

incidents. Within the 428 ROV-related 

incidents, there were a total of 231 

reported fatalities and 388 reported 

injuries. Seventy-five of the 388 injuries 

(19 percent) could be classified as 

severe, that is, the victim has lasting 

repercussions from the injuries received 

in the incident, based on the 

information available. 

(2) The estimated cost and benefits of 

the rule on an annual basis can be 

calculated by multiplying the estimated 

benefits and costs per unit by the 

number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 

2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the 

proposed rule had been in effect that 

year, the total quantifiable cost would 

have been between $14.3 million and 

$22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied 

by 234,000 units, respectively). The 

total quantifiable benefits would have 

been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 

234,000). Of the benefits, about $453 

million (or about 88 percent) would 

have resulted from the reduction in fatal 

injuries, and about $62 million (or about 

12 percent) of the benefits would have 

resulted from a reduction in the societal 

cost of nonfatal injuries. About $47 

million of the reduction in the societal 

cost of nonfatal injuries would have 

been due to a reduction in pain and 

suffering. We conclude preliminarily 

that ROVs pose an unreasonable risk of 

injury and that the proposed rule is 

reasonably necessary to reduce that risk. 

(g) Public interest. (1) This proposed 

rule is in the public interest because it 

may reduce ROV-related deaths and 

injuries in the future. The Commission 

believes that improving lateral stability 

(by increasing rollover resistance) and 

improving vehicle handling (by 

correcting oversteer to sub) are the most 

effective approaches to reduce the 

occurrence of ROV rollover incidents. 

ROVs with higher lateral stability are 

less likely to roll over because more 

lateral force is necessary to cause 

rollover. ROVs exhibiting understeer 

during a turn are also less likely to 

rollover because lateral acceleration 

decreases as the path of the ROV makes 

a wider turn, and the vehicle is more 

stable if a sudden change in direction 

occurs. 

(2) The Commission believes that, 

when rollovers do occur, improving 

occupant protection performance (by 

increasing seat belt use) will mitigate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

69030 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

injury severity. CPSC analysis of ROV 

incidents indicates that 91 percent of 

fatally ejected victims were not wearing 

a seat belt at the time of the incident. 

Increasing seat belt use, in conjunction 

with better shoulder retention 

performance, will significantly reduce 

injuries and deaths associated with an 

ROV rollover event. 

(h) Voluntary standards. (1) The 

Commission is aware of two voluntary 

standards that are applicable to ROVs, 

ANSI/ROHVA 1, American National 

Standard for Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicles and ANSI/B71.9, American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. As described 

in detail in the preamble, the 

Commission believes that the current 

voluntary standard requirements not 

adequately reduce the risk of injury or 

death associated with ROVs. Neither 

voluntary standard requires that ROVs 

understeer, as required by the proposed 

rule. According to the ES staff, drivers 

are more likely to lose control of 

vehicles that oversteer, which can lead 

to the vehicle rolling over or to other 

types of accidents. 

(2) Both voluntary standards have 

requirements that are intended to set 

standards for dynamic lateral stability. 

ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011 uses a turn-circle 

test for dynamic lateral stability that is 

more similar to the test in the proposed 

rule for whether the vehicle understeers 

than it is to the test for dynamic lateral 

stability. The dynamic stability 

requirement in ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012 

uses a J-turn test, like the proposed rule, 

but measures different variables during 

the test and uses a different acceptance 

criterion. However, ES staff does not 

believe that the tests procedures in 

either standard have been properly 

validated as being capable of providing 

useful information about the dynamic 

stability of the vehicle. Moreover, the 

voluntary standards would find some 

vehicles acceptable even though their 

lateral acceleration at rollover is less 

than 0.70 g, which is the acceptance 

criterion in the proposed rule. 

(3) Both voluntary standards require 

that manufacturers include a lighted 

seat-belt reminder that is visible to the 

driver and remains on for at least 8 

seconds after the vehicle is started, 

unless the driver’s seatbelt is fastened. 

However, virtually all ROVs on the 

market already include this feature and, 

therefore, relying only on the voluntary 

standards would not be expected to 

raise seatbelt use over its current level. 

(4) The voluntary standards include 

requirements for retaining the occupant 

within the protective zone of the vehicle 

in the event of a rollover including two 

options for restraining the occupants in 

the shoulder/hip area. However, testing 

performed by CPSC identified 

weaknesses in the performance-based 

tilt table test option that allows 

unacceptable occupant head ejection 

beyond the protective zone of the 

vehicle Rollover Protective Structure 

(ROPS). CPSC testing indicated that a 

passive shoulder barrier could reduce 

the head excursion of a belted occupant 

during quarter-turn rollover events. The 

Commission believes that this can be 

accomplished by a requirement for a 

passive barrier based on the dimensions 

of the upper arm of a 5th percentile 

adult female, at a defined area near the 

ROV occupants’ shoulder as contained 

in the proposed rule. 

(i) Relationship of benefits to costs. (1) 

The estimated cost and benefits of the 

rule on an annual basis can be 

calculated by multiplying the estimated 

benefits and costs per unit by the 

number of ROVs sold in a given year. In 

2013, 234,000 ROVs were sold. If the 

proposed rule had been in effect that 

year, the total quantifiable cost would 

have been between $14.3 million and 

$22.0 million ($61 and $94 multiplied 

by 234,000 units, respectively). The 

total quantifiable benefits would have 

been at least $515 million ($2,199 × 

234,000). 

(2) On a per unit basis, we estimate 

the total cost of the proposed rule to be 

$61 to $94 per vehicle. We estimate the 

total quantifiable benefits of the 

proposed rule to be $2199 per unit. This 

results in net quantifiable benefits of 

$2105 to $2138 per unit. Quantifiable 

benefits of the proposed rule could 

exceed the estimated $2199 per unit 

because the benefit associated with the 

vehicle handling and lateral stability 

requirement could not be quantified. 

(j) Least burdensome requirement. 

The Commission considered less 

burdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule regarding ROVs, but 

concluded that none of these 

alternatives would adequately reduce 

the risk of injury. 

(1) Not issuing a mandatory rule, but 

instead relying upon voluntary 

standards. If CPSC did not issue a 

mandatory standard, most 

manufacturers would comply with one 

of the two voluntary standards that 

apply to ROVs. The Commission does 

not believe either voluntary standard 

adequately addresses the risk of injury 

and death associated with ROVs. 

(2) Including the dynamic lateral 

stability requirement or the understeer 

requirement, but not both. The 

Commission believes that both of these 

characteristics need to be addressed. 

According to CPSC’s Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, a vehicle that 

meets both the dynamic stability 

requirement and the understeer 

requirement should be safer than a 

vehicle that meets only one of the 

requirements. Moreover, the cost of 

meeting just one requirement is not 

substantially lower than the cost of 

meeting both requirements. The cost of 

testing a vehicle for compliance with 

both the dynamic lateral stability and 

vehicle handling/understeer 

requirement was estimated to be about 

$24,000. However, the cost of testing for 

compliance with just the dynamic 

stability requirement itself would be 

about $20,000, or only about 17 percent 

less than the cost of testing for 

compliance with both requirements 

together. This is because the cost of 

renting and transporting the vehicle to 

the test site, instrumenting the vehicle 

for the tests, and making some initial 

static measurements are virtually the 

same for both requirements and would 

only have to be done once if the tests 

for both requirements were conducted 

on the same day. Moreover, changes in 

the vehicle design that affect the lateral 

stability of the vehicle could also impact 

the handling of the vehicle. For these 

reasons, the proposed rule includes both 

a dynamic stability and vehicle 

handling requirement. 

(3) Loud or intrusive seatbelt 

reminders instead of seatbelt/speed 

limitation requirements. (i) Currently, 

most ROVs meet the voluntary 

standards that require an 8-second 

visual seatbelt reminder. Some more 

intrusive systems have been used on 

passenger cars. For example, one system 

resumes warning the driver after about 

65 seconds if his or her seatbelt is not 

fastened and the car is traveling at more 

than 3 mph. The system flashes a 

warning light and sounds a chime for 6 

seconds every 30 seconds for up to 5 

minutes so long as the car is operating 

and the driver’s seatbelt is not fastened. 

A similar system is used in which the 

warning could last for longer than 9 

minutes if the driver’s seatbelt is not 

fastened. Although studies of both 

systems found an increase in the use 

seatbelts, the systems’ effectiveness was 

limited. Moreover, audible warnings are 

not likely to be effective in ROVs. ROVs 

are open vehicles and the ambient noise 

is higher than in the enclosed passenger 

compartment of a car. ROV drivers 

would not hear the warning and be 

motivated to fasten their seatbelts unless 

the warning was substantially louder 

than the systems used in passenger cars. 

(ii) In contrast, these more intrusive 

seatbelt warning systems are unlikely to 

be as effective as the seatbelt speed 

limitation requirement in the proposed 

rule. The Commission believes that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69031 

requirement in the proposed rule will 

cause most drivers and passengers that 

desire to exceed 15 mph to fasten their 

seatbelts. Research supports this 

position. One experiment used a haptic 

feedback system to increase the force 

the driver needed to exert to depress the 

gas pedal when the vehicle exceeded 25 

mph if the seatbelt was not fastened. 

The system did not prevent the driver 

from exceeding 25 mph, but it increased 

the amount of force required to depress 

the gas pedal to maintain a speed greater 

than 25 mph. In this experiment all 7 

participants chose to fasten their 

seatbelts. 

Dated: October 31, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26500 Filed 11–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2