U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 

114TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2016

114–357 

Calendar No. 642 

ROV IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION ACT OF 2015 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1040 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas ED MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
Calendar No. 642 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 114–357 

ROV IN-DEPTH EXAMINATION ACT OF 2015 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. THUNE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1040] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1040) to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Academy of Sciences to 

study the vehicle handling requirements proposed by the Commission for recreational off-highway vehicles and to prohibit the adoption of any such requirements until the completion of the study, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) 

and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 1040, the ROV In-Depth Examination Act of 

2015, is to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 

and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to study the vehicle 

handling requirements proposed by the CPSC for recreational offhighway vehicles (ROVs) and to prohibit the adoption of any such 

requirements until the completion of the study. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

ROVs are motorized vehicles having four or more tires designed 

for off-road use and intended by the manufacturer for recreational 

use by one or more persons. ROVs are distinct from all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) in that they have a steering wheel instead of a handle bar for steering, bench or bucket seats for the driver and passenger(s) instead of straddle seating, and foot controls for throttle 

and breaking instead of handle bar controls. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
2 

1 Consumer Product Safety Commission, ‘‘Safety Standards for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)’’, November 19, 2014, Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 68964, 68965. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 Id. at 68965-66. 

6 Consumer Product Safety Commission, ‘‘Safety Standards for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)’’, proposed October 28, 2009, 74 Fed. Reg. 55495. 7 16 C.F.R. 1031.11d. 

8 15 U.S.C. 2056 et seq. 

According to the CPSC, they have has reviewed 428 reports of 

ROV-related incidents that occurred between January 1, 2003, and 

December 31, 2011, from its Injury and Potential Incident and InDepth Investigation databases.1 These reports document a total of 

826 victims involved in the 428 incidents, with 231 reported fatalities and 388 reported injuries.2

The CPSC found that, of the ‘‘428 reported ROV-related incidents, 291 (68 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, more than 

half of which occurred when the vehicle was in a turn (52 percent).’’ 3 CPSC staff also found that, ‘‘of the 224 fatal incidents, 147 

(66 percent) involved rollover of the vehicle, and 56 of those incidents (38 percent) occurred on flat terrain.’’ 4 Additionally, staff 

also found that: 

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 seatbelt.5

In October 2009, the CPSC issued an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking on ROVs due to CPSC staff concerns regarding specific 

aspects of the voluntary industry draft standard being discussed at 

the time.6 Specifically, CPSC staff were concerned that the lateral 

stability and occupant protection aspects of the draft were not sufficient to prevent rollovers or protect occupants in the event of a 

crash. 

A voluntary industry standard promulgated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) was later issued in 2010. The 

ANSI-ROHVA standard establishes minimum requirements for 

ROVs, including, among other things, lateral and pitch stability, 

occupant protection systems, and safety labeling. This standard 

was subsequently updated, with the benefit of CPSC staff participation, in 2011 and again in 2014. At the time, staff was prohibited 

by regulation from voting on the adoption of voluntary standards, 

but CPSC staff provided input and technical expertise to assist the 

ANSI process.7

Under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2051 

et seq.), the CPSC may promulgate mandatory safety standards 

reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of 

injury associated with a consumer product.8 As in this case, when 

a voluntary standard exists, the CPSC must rely on the voluntary 

standard if it determines both that compliance with the standard 

would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
3 

9 15 U.S.C. 2056(b)(1). 

10Letter from Sen. Klobuchar et al. to Elliot Kaye, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, October 17, 2014, at http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/—cache/files/bab9c722- 

7405-4c13-88ce-350ef5ca7b29/10—17—2014—letter—from—senators—to—CPSC.PDF. 11 Id. at 1. 12 Consumer Product Safety Commission, ‘‘Safety Standards for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROVs)’’, proposed November 19, 2014, 79 Fed. Reg. 68964, (to be codified at 16 C.F.R. 

pt. 1422). 13Public Meeting: Oral Presentations Regarding the Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking Before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at 346, January 

7, 2015, (statement of Larry E. Smith, Exec. Dir., Ams. For Responsible Recreational Access). 

and that there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary 

standard.9

In the initial briefing packet to CPSC Commissioners recommending that the CPSC issue a proposed rule, CPSC staff based 

the recommendation to proceed with a mandatory standard on an 

outdated version of the ANSI-ROHVA standard, which was updated in 2014 to address CPSC concerns. This staff proposal drew 

significant criticism from some stakeholders and from a bipartisan 

group of Senators (Senators Klobuchar, Heller, Johnson, Blunt, 

Pryor, Cruz, Rubio, Fischer, Ayotte, Franken, McCaskill, and 

Manchin), that wrote in support of delaying the rulemaking to review the updated voluntary standard.10 In addition, the Senators 

recommended that ‘‘CPSC staff and the industry reach an agreement on voluntary standards that adequately address the risk of 

injury concerning ROVs.’’ 11

CPSC participated in the voluntary standards process to revise 

the then-existing standard, but did not agree with the proposed 

new ANSI-ROHVA standard. CPSC Commissioners voted along a 

3-2 party line vote to proceed with the publication of a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on grounds that the ANSI-ROHVA 

standard does not adequately address vehicle stability, vehicle handling, and occupant protection and safety labeling.12 The NPRM 

was published on November 19, 2014. 

On January 7, 2015, the CPSC held a public meeting during 

which it heard testimony from stakeholders regarding its ROV 

NPRM. During that meeting, consumer groups expressed general 

support for the CPSC’s decision to proceed with its rulemaking 

while industry stakeholders and members of the user community 

questioned the scientific validity of the proposed rule and expressed 

concerns, for instance, that ‘‘the remedies prescribed . . . could well 

have unintended consequences of making these vehicles less safe in 

the off-road environment.’’ 13

On April 2, 2015, the CPSC Commissioners voted unanimously 

to extend the comment period for the NPRM concerning ROVs. The 

comment period remained open until June 19, 2015. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 1040 would suspend the authority of the CPSC to establish 

standards concerning the performance or configuration of ROVs 

pending independent examination of the mandatory design standards proposed in the NPRM. S. 1040 would require that CPSC 

enter into an agreement with the NAS to conduct a study on matters concerning the ROV lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements proposed by the CPSC. In carrying out its study, the 

NAS would be required to consult with the Administrator of the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
4 

Secretary of Defense. S. 1040 would establish a deadline of no later 

than 480 days from the date of enactment for the NAS to complete 

its study and would require that the NAS transmit its report to the 

CPSC, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 

House of Representatives. S. 1040 would require that the CPSC 

consider the results of the study in any subsequent rulemaking regarding the performance or configuration of ROVs, or the provision 

of point-of-sale information regarding ROV performance. S. 1040 

would allow the CPSC to contract with an appropriate organization 

other than the NAS to conduct the study, in the event that the 

CPSC is unable to enter into an agreement with the NAS, and provided that the organization is: (1) not part of the Government; (2) 

operates as a not-for-profit entity; and (3) has expertise and objectivity comparable to that of the NAS. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senators Heller and Manchin introduced S. 1040 on April 22, 

2015. The bill is also co-sponsored by Senators Ayotte, Boozman, 

Cotton, Crapo, Daines, Gardner, Lankford, and Sullivan. On May 

20, 2015, the Committee considered the bill and reported S. 1040, 

as amended. For purposes of consideration and subject to additional amendments, the Committee first adopted an amendment (in 

the nature of a substitute) offered by Senators Heller and Manchin 

that would clarify the elements to be included in the study and 

would adjust the bill’s reporting requirements. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 1040—ROV In-Depth Examination Act of 2015 

S. 1040 would direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) to study standards for recreational off-highway vehicles 

(ROVs) that are specified in a proposed rule issued by the CPSC 

in 2014. The bill would prohibit CPSC from adopting any requirements on the performance or configuration of ROVs—including 

those in the proposed rule related to lateral stability, vehicle handling, occupant protection, and consumer information—until after 

completion of the study. Based on information from the agency, 

CBO estimates that the study would cost about $1 million, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, payas-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1040 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople. The estimate was approved by Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
5 

REGULATORY IMPACT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

The bill, as reported, would modify the CPSC’s authority to establish current standards concerning the performance or configuration of ROVs. In this regard, S. 1040 would prevent the CPSC from 

establishing any such standards until the completion of a study on 

proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. 

S. 1040 includes a prohibition on the CPSC’s exercise of any authority pursuant to section 27(e) of the Consumer Product Safety 

Act (15 U.S.C. 2076(e)) to require ROV manufacturers to provide 

performance and technical data to prospective purchasers and to 

the first purchase of a recreational off-highway vehicle for purposes 

other than resale until the completion of study on proposed lateral 

stability and vehicle handling requirements. 

The Committee agrees with the Congressional Budget Office that 

the bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The bill would 

impose no costs on States or tribal organizations. 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

This bill would direct the CPSC and the NAS or alternate contract organization to study the vehicle handling requirements proposed by the CPSC for ROVs and to prohibit the adoption of any 

such requirements until the completion of the study. It does not authorize any new regulations and therefore will not subject any individuals or businesses to new regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The bill is not expected to have an adverse impact on the Nation’s economy. 

PRIVACY

The bill would not have any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

PAPERWORK

S. 1040 would create a new reporting requirement for the NAS 

or alternate contract organization. The NAS or alternate contract 

organization would be directed to complete and transmit to the 

CPSC and Congress a report of its study on proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
6 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section would designate the bill’s short title as the ‘‘ROV InDepth Examination Act of 2015.’’ 

Section 2. Recreational off-highway vehicle standards study 

Section 2 of the bill would define various terms used within the 

section. It would establish that the CPSC shall have no authority 

to establish any standards concerning the performance or configuration of ROVs until after the completion of a study on the proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. It contains a savings clause which states that nothing in this section 

would be construed as suggesting that ROVs shall not be manufactured in compliance with applicable voluntary standards. Section 2 

would require that the CPSC enter into an agreement with the 

NAS to determine the technical validity of the lateral stability and 

vehicle handling requirements for purposes of reducing the risk of 

ROV rollovers in the off-road environment, including the repeatability and reproducibility of testing for compliance with such requirements. The study also would determine whether there is a 

technical basis to provide information on a point-of-sale hangtag 

about a vehicle’s rollover resistance on a progressive scale. 

Section 2 would further require the NAS, in carrying out its 

study, to consult with the Administrator of NHTSA and the Secretary of Defense. Section 2 would establish a deadline of no later 

than 480 days from the date of enactment for the NAS to complete 

its study and would require that the NAS transmit its report to the 

CPSC, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 

House of Representatives. Section 2 would require that the CPSC 

consider the results of the study in any subsequent rulemaking regarding the performance or configuration of ROVs, or the provision 

of point-of-sale information regarding ROV performance. Section 2 

would further allow the CPSC to contract with an appropriate organization other than the NAS to conduct the study, in the event 

that the CPSC is unable to enter into an agreement with the NAS, 

and provided that the organization is: (1) not part of the Government; (2) operates as a not-for-profit entity; and (3) has expertise 

and objectivity comparable to that of the NAS. Subsection (c)(4)(B) 

of this section would incorporate by reference the other appropriate 

organization to the requirements of the Act, in the event that the 

CPSC exercises this option. 

VOTES IN COMMITTEE

Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment, to the amendment 

(in the nature of a substitute) offered by Senators Heller and 

Manchin, to authorize the CPSC to accept amounts from manufacturers of ROVs to carry out the study on proposed lateral stability 

and vehicle handling requirements. By a rollcall vote of 8 yeas and 

16 nays as follows, the amendment was defeated: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
7 

YEAS—8 NAYS—16 

Mr. Nelson Mr. Wicker 

Ms. Cantwell1 Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Blumenthal Mr. Rubio1

Mr. Schatz Ms. Ayotte 

Mr. Markey1 Mr. Cruz 

Mr. Booker Ms. Fischer 

Mr. Udall1 Mr. Moran1

Mr. Peters Mr. Sullivan 

Mr. Johnson1

Mr. Heller 

Mr. Gardner 

Mr. Daines 

Ms. McCaskill 

Ms. Klobuchar 

Mr. Manchin1

Mr. Thune 1By proxy 

Senator Blumenthal offered an amendment, to the amendment 

(in the nature of a substitute) offered by Senators Heller and 

Manchin, to authorize NHTSA to regulate ROVs. By a rollcall vote 

of 7 yeas and 17 nays as follows, the amendment was defeated: 

YEAS—7 NAYS—17 

Ms. Cantwell1 Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Blumenthal Mr. Blunt 

Mr. Schatz Mr. Rubio1

Mr. Markey1 Ms. Ayotte 

Mr. Booker Mr. Cruz 

Mr. Udall1 Ms. Fischer 

Mr. Peters Mr. Moran1

Mr. Sullivan1

Mr. Johnson1

Mr. Heller 

Mr. Gardner1

Mr. Daines 

Mr. Nelson 

Ms. McCaskill 

Ms. Klobuchar 

Mr. Manchin 

Mr. Thune 1By proxy 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING
8 

By a rollcall vote of 15 yeas and 9 nays as follows, the bill was 

ordered reported with amendments: 

YEAS—15 NAYS—9 

Mr. Wicker Ms. Cantwell1

Mr. Blunt Ms. McCaskill 

Mr. Rubio1 Ms. Klobuchar 

Ms. Ayotte Mr. Blumenthal 

Mr. Cruz Mr. Schatz 

Ms. Fischer Mr. Markey1

Mr. Moran1 Mr. Booker 

Mr. Sullivan1 Mr. Udall1

Mr. Johnson1 Mr. Peters 

Mr. Heller 

Mr. Gardner1

Mr. Daines 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Manchin 

Mr. Thune 

1By proxy 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the bill as reported 

would make no change to existing law. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HEARING