43688 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1At the ANPR stage, the Commission noted that 

although at that time the rulemaking involved three 

vehicle types and two different hazard patterns, it 

was possible that the Commission would divide the 

proceeding into separate rulemakings at the NPR 

stage. This proposed rule will address the debris 

penetration hazard associated with ROVs and 

UTVs. The Commission intends to address fire 

hazards associated with ATVs, ROVs, and UTVs in 

a separate rulemaking. 

2The Commission voted 4–0 to approve this 

notice, as amended: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/Comm-Mtg-Min-NPR-Safety-Standard-forRecreational-Off-Highway-Vehicle-and-Utility-TaskTerrain-Vehicle-Debris-Penetration-Hazards.pdf?

VersionId=Jrg4w.CQSRMWfpsnNernXSSJcF5vZtFL. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1421 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2021–0014] 

Safety Standard for Debris Penetration 

Hazards 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

notice of opportunity for oral 

presentation of comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) has determined preliminarily 

that there is an unreasonable risk of 

injury and death associated with debris 

penetration in off-highway vehicles 

(OHVs), including recreational offhighway vehicles (ROVs) and utility 

task/terrain vehicles (UTVs). To address 

these risks, the Commission proposes a 

rule to prevent debris penetration into 

the occupant area of an ROV/UTV. The 

Commission is providing an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

present written and oral comments on 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPR). Like written comments, any oral 

comments will be part of the rulemaking 

record. 

DATES: 

Deadline for Written Comments: 

Written comments must be received by 

September 19, 2022. 

Deadline for Request to Present Oral 

Comments: Any person interested in 

making an oral presentation must send 

an electronic mail (email) indicating 

this intent to the Division of the 

Secretariat at cpsc-os@cpsc.gov by 

August 22, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: 

Written Comments: You may submit 

written comments in response to the 

proposed rule, identified by Docket No. 

CPSC–2021–0014, by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC typically does not accept 

comments submitted by email, except as 

described below. CPSC encourages you 

to submit electronic comments by using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone: (301) 504–7479. If you wish 

to submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public, you may submit such 

comments by mail, hand delivery, or 

courier, or you may email them to: cpscos@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. CPSC may post all comments 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to: 

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

submit through this website: 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information that you do not 

want to be available to the public. If you 

wish to submit such information, please 

submit it according to the instructions 

for mail/hand delivery/courier/ 

confidential written submissions. 

Docket for NPR: For access to the 

docket to read background documents 

or comments received, go to: https:// 

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2021–0014, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Han 

Lim, Directorate for Engineering 

Sciences, Office of Hazard Identification 

and Reduction, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, National Product 

Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 

Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone: 301–987–2327; hlim@

cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Statutory Authority 

On May 11, 2021, the Commission 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to develop 

a rule to address the risk of injury 

associated with fire and debris 

penetration hazards in off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) (86 FR 25817).1 The 

vehicles comprising OHVs in the ANPR 

were all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), 

recreational off-highway vehicles 

(ROVs), and utility terrain or utility task 

vehicles (UTVs). The Commission 

received 10 comments. The Commission 

is issuing this notice of proposed 

rulemaking that focuses solely on debris 

penetration hazards, which are specific 

to ROVs and UTVs.2 Debris penetration 

through the floorboard or wheel well of 

an ROV or UTV can impale the 

occupants of the vehicles, and incidents 

associated with debris penetration have 

caused severe injuries and deaths. The 

information discussed in this preamble 

is derived from CPSC staff’s briefing 

package for the NPR, which is available 

on CPSC’s website at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/NPR-SafetyStandard-for-Recreational-Off-HighwayVehicle-and-Utility-Task-TerrainVehicle-Debris-Penetration-HazardsUpdated-5-24-22.pdf?VersionId=

WsZvCXh1daVDICnj

LnOzyalVPE4uTL4t. 

This rulemaking addressing the debris 

penetration hazards associated with 

ROVs and UTVs falls under the 

authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051– 

2084. Section 7(a) of the CPSA 

authorizes the Commission to 

promulgate a mandatory consumer 

product safety standard that sets forth 

performance or labeling requirements 

for a consumer product, if such 

requirements are reasonably necessary 

to prevent or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2056(a). Section 

9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure 

that the Commission must follow to 

issue a consumer product safety 

standard under section 7 of the CPSA. 

In accordance with section 9, the 

Commission commenced this 

rulemaking by issuing an ANPR. 

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

CPSA, before promulgating a consumer 

product safety rule, the Commission 

must consider, and make appropriate 

findings to be included in the rule, on 

the following issues: 

• The degree and nature of the risk of 

injury that the rule is designed to 

eliminate or reduce; 

• The approximate number of 

consumer products subject to the rule; 

• 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43689 

• The means to achieve the objective 

of the rule while minimizing adverse 

effects on competition, manufacturing, 

and commercial practices. 

Id. 2058(f)(1). 

Under 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). Additionally, if a 

voluntary standard addressing the risk 

of injury has been adopted and 

implemented, the Commission must 

find that: 

• The voluntary standard is not likely 

to eliminate or adequately reduce the 

risk of injury, or 

• 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). 

II. The Products 

A. ROV 

An ROV is a motorized vehicle 

designed for off-highway use, with these 

features: four or more wheels with tires 

designed for off-highway use; nonstraddle seating for one or more 

occupants; a steering wheel for steering 

controls; foot controls for throttle and 

braking; and a maximum vehicle speed 

greater than 30 miles per hour (mph). 

ROVs are typically equipped with 

Rollover Protective Structures (ROPS), 

seat belts, and other restraints, such as 

doors, nets, and shoulder bolsters for 

the protection of occupants. 

There are two distinct ROV varieties: 

utility-type ROVs and recreational-type 

ROVs. Models emphasizing utility have 

larger cargo beds, greater cargo 

capacities, and lower top speeds. 

Models emphasizing recreation have 

smaller cargo beds, lower cargo 

capacities, and higher top speeds. Both 

types of ROVs are included in the scope 

of the proposed rule. 

B. UTVs 

UTVs have physical characteristics 

like ROVs. However, UTVs generally 

have maximum speeds between 25 and 

30 mph. UTVs are included in the scope 

of the proposed rule. Figure 1 shows a 

picture of typical Utility-Type ROV, a 

Recreational-Type ROV, and a UTV. 

III. Risk of Injury 

A. Description of Hazard 

ROVs and UTVs are intended to be 

driven off-highway and have all-terrain 

capabilities; typical uses include farm 

work, hunting, recreation, trail riding, 

and competitive racing. These vehicles 

are often driven in wooded areas or 

trails, where the vehicles can be 

expected regularly to be driven over tree 

branches and sticks. 

Debris penetration involves debris 

(usually a tree branch or stick) cracking 

or penetrating the occupant area of an 

ROV or UTV. Debris penetration 

hazards are a comparatively greater 

concern for ROVs and UTVs because the 

wheel-well areas on these vehicles are 

generally larger and more open, 

compared to those of ATVs. In 

incidents, the debris usually cracks or 

penetrates through the floorboard of the 

underside of the ROV or UTV. When 

such penetration occurs, there is a 

potential for the branch or other debris 

to penetrate far enough into vehicle to 

harm occupants of the vehicle. As 

described in Section III.B of this 

preamble, debris penetration can occur 

even when the vehicle is being driven 

at low speeds. 

B. Incident Data 

1. Debris Penetration Recalls 

There have been three debris 

penetration recalls, all associated with 

ROVs. CPSC recall data include the 

number of affected vehicles, number of 

incidents, and injuries associated with 

the recalls. ROV manufacturers 

generated the recall data; although there 

may be some overlap in the incidents, 

the ROV manufacturer data is separate 

and distinct from the data associated 

with CPSC Epidemiology staff’s injury 

and death analyses in Section III.B of 

this preamble, and the data associated 

with the Engineering Sciences 

assessment, in Section IV.A of this 

preamble. 

Collectively, over the period from 

2014 through 2016, these three recalls 

consisted of approximately 55,000 

recalled vehicles, 630 incidents of 

debris cracking or breaking through the 

floorboards, and 10 injuries. There were 

no deaths associated with ROV debris 

penetration hazards among these recalls. 

2. National Electronic Injury 

Surveillance System (NEISS) and 

CPSC’s Consumer Product Safety Risk 

Management System (CPSRMS) Data 

CPSC Epidemiology staff reviewed 

NEISS injury cases and CPSRMS injury 

cases that occurred in the period from 

2009 to 2021. Staff searched for debris 

penetration incidents involving ATVs, 

ROVs, and UTVs. 

None of the debris penetration 

incidents involved an ATV (other than 

an ROV mischaracterized as an ATV). 

Given that ATVs do not have 

floorboards, the lack of debris 

penetration incidents involving ATVs 

was not unexpected. Because of this, 

ATVs are not included within the scope 

of the proposed rule. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.002</GPH>

Figure 1. Left to Right: Typical Utility-Type ROV, Typical Recreational-Type ROV, and Typical UTV 
43690 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Between 2009 and 2021, there were a 

total of 107 incidents found in CPSC 

databases involving debris penetration 

hazards; 104 of these incidents were 

found in CPSRMS, and 3 injury cases 

were found in NEISS. A previous search 

conducted for the ANPR, completed in 

spring 2021, returned 105 total 

incidents involving debris penetration 

hazards, consisting of 103 CPSRMS 

incidents and 2 NEISS injury cases. 

Due to the small sample size of NEISS 

injury data, staff cannot estimate 

injuries.2 Instead, for the debris 

penetration hazard scenario, staff 

counted the three injuries from NEISS 

with the other reported injuries from 

CPSRMS. Table 1 shows the yearly 

breakout of debris penetration hazards 

by data sources and severity of 

incidents. 

TABLE 1—REPORTED INCIDENTS OF OHV DEBRIS PENETRATION HAZARDS BY YEAR

[CPSRMS: 2009–2021, NEISS: 2009–2020] 

Year Total incidents 

reviewed 

Fatal reported 

incidents 

Injury reported 

incidents 

Non-injury 

incidents 

Total ................................................................................................................. 107 6 22 79 

2009 ................................................................................................................. 1 0 1 0 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 4 1 1 2 

2011 ................................................................................................................. 3 0 1 2 

2012 ................................................................................................................. 7 0 0 7 

2013 ................................................................................................................. 8 0 2 6 

2014 ................................................................................................................. 11 1 1 9 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 8 1 3 4 

2016 ................................................................................................................. 30 0 5 25 

2017 ................................................................................................................. 27 2 2 23 

2018 ................................................................................................................. 5 0 4 1 

2019 * ............................................................................................................... 2 1 1 0 

2020 * ............................................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

2021 * ............................................................................................................... 1 0 1 0 

Sources: CPSRMS and NEISS. 

* Data collection is ongoing. 

Many of the 104 debris penetration 

incidents found in CPSRMS include 

multiple people riding in the OHV. 

However, for reports involving nonfatal 

injuries, only the age and/or gender of 

one or two of the victims is recorded. In 

reports received from manufacturers 

and retailers, which largely consist of 

non-injury incidents, basic victim 

demographic information is frequently 

not included at all. 

Table 2 presents a broad overview of 

the distribution of the 107 debris 

penetration incidents by primary 

victims’ age and gender. Forty-four of 

the 47 incidents with victim age missing 

are non-injury incidents; all 36 

incidents with both victim age and 

gender missing are non-injury incidents 

as well. 

TABLE 2—REPORTED INCIDENTS OF DEBRIS PENETRATION HAZARDS BY AGE AND GENDER

Female Male Gender 

missing Total 

0–17 years ....................................................................................................... 2 6 0 8 

18–34 years ..................................................................................................... 4 11 0 15 

35–54 years ..................................................................................................... 9 17 0 26 

55+ years ......................................................................................................... 0 11 0 11 

Age Missing ..................................................................................................... 1 10 36 47 

Total .......................................................................................................... 16 55 36 107 

Sources: CPSRMS and NEISS. 

CPSC field staff conducted in-depth 

investigations on the six fatal incidents. 

In all six fatal incidents, only one victim 

per incident died, as opposed to 

multiple fatalities per incident. Two 

incidents involved the death of a 

passenger, while the other four involved 

the death of the driver. Four involved a 

tree branch, one a large stick, and one 

a 2- to 3-inch piece of wood. At least 

three involved penetration of an 

occupant’s chest. 

The severity of the 22 nonfatal injury 

incidents due to debris penetration is 

presented in Table 3. The injuries 

ranged from mostly minor cuts, bruises 

and/or abrasions, to more severe 

injuries, like broken bones or debris 

impalement in the body. Most of the 

nonfatal injuries occurred in the lower 

area of the body (e.g., ankles, legs, foot) 

or abdomen. 

TABLE 3—REPORTED INCIDENTS OF

DEBRIS PENETRATION HAZARDS BY

INJURY SEVERITY

[2009–2020 NEISS, 2009–2021 CPSRMS] 

Injury severity Incidents 

Treated and Released, or 

Released without Treatment .................................. 2 

Hospital Admission ............... 4 

Emergency Department 

Treatment Received .......... 3 

First Aid Received by NonMedical Professional ......... 1 

No First Aid or Medical Attention Received ............... 2 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43691 

3Out of the 107 incidents, 53 incidents had 

corresponding in-depth-investigations IDIs. 

4 ‘‘Table 1—Debris Penetration IDI Summaries,’’ 

in section II.B of the memorandum from the 

Division of Mechanical and Combustion 

Engineering, ‘‘Proposed Requirements for 

Mitigating the Debris Penetration Hazards 

Associated with Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles 

(ROVs) and Utility Task/Terrain Vehicles (UTVs),’’ 

summarizes details from the 53 IDIs. 

TABLE 3—REPORTED INCIDENTS OF

DEBRIS PENETRATION HAZARDS BY

INJURY SEVERITY—Continued 

[2009–2020 NEISS, 2009–2021 CPSRMS] 

Injury severity Incidents 

Level of care not known ....... 10 

Total Injury Incidents ..... 22 

Source: CPSRMS and NEISS. 

IV. Relevant Existing Standards 

There are two voluntary standards 

associated with ROVs and UTVs: ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1, American National Standard 

for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles, 

and ANSI/OPEI B71.9, American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. A description 

of each standard follows. 

A. ANSI/ROHVA 1 American National 

Standard for Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicles 

The Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicle Association (ROHVA) 

developed ANSI/ROHVA–1 American 

National Standard for Recreational OffHighway Vehicles, which sets 

mechanical and performance 

requirements for ROVs. The most recent 

version of ANSI/ROHVA–1 was 

published in 2016. The ANSI/ROHVA– 

1–2016 standard defines an ‘‘ROV’’ as a 

motorized off-highway vehicle designed 

to travel on four or more tires, intended 

by the manufacturer for recreational use 

by one or more persons and having the 

following characteristics: 

• A steering wheel for steering 

control; 

• Foot controls for throttle and 

service brake; 

• Non-straddle seating; 

• Maximum speed capability greater 

than 30 MPH; 

• Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

(GVWR) no greater than 1,700 kg (3,750 

lbs); 

• Less than 2,030 mm (80 in) in 

overall width; 

• Engine displacement equal to or 

less than 1,000 cc for gasoline fueled 

engines; 

• Identification by means of a 17- 

character PIN or VIN. 

The standard addresses 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. 

The latest version of the standard adds 

vehicle handling requirements and 

enhanced seat belt reminder 

requirements to address rollover and 

occupant ejection hazards associated 

with ROVs. ANSI/ROHVA 1–2016 does 

not have requirements to address debris 

penetration into the occupant area of the 

vehicle. 

ROHVA member companies include 

Textron (formerly known as Arctic Cat), 

Bombardier Recreational Products 

(BRP), Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, 

Polaris, and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/ 

ROHVA–1 started in 2008; work was 

completed with publication of ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1–2010. The standard was 

immediately opened for revision, and a 

revised standard, ANSI/ROHVA 1–2011, 

published in July 2011. The most recent 

version was published in 2016. 

B. ANSI/OPEI B71.9 American National 

Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway 

Utility Vehicles 

Some ROV manufacturers that 

emphasize the utility applications of 

their vehicles worked with the Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute (OPEI) to 

develop ANSI/OPEI B71.9 American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. The most 

recent edition of the OPEI standard was 

published in 2016. ANSI/OPEI B71.9 

defines a ‘‘multipurpose off-highway 

utility vehicle’’ (MOHUV) as a vehicle 

having features specifically intended for 

utility use and having these 

characteristics: 

• Intended for transport of one or 

more persons and/or cargo, with a top 

speed in excess of more than of 25 mph; 

• Overall width of 2,030 mm (80 in) 

or less; 

• Designed to travel on four or more 

wheels, two or four tracks, or 

combinations of four or more wheels 

and tracks; 

• Use of a steering wheel for steering 

control; 

• Equipped with a non-straddle seat; 

• Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of no 

more than 1,814 kg (4,000 lbs.); and 

• Minimum cargo capacity of 159 kg 

(350 lbs.). 

The Commission considers MOHUVs 

with maximum speed capabilities 

between 25 and 30 mph to be ‘‘UTVs.’’ 

The Commission considers MOHUVs 

with maximum speed capabilities 

greater than 30 mph to be ROVs. The 

OPEI standard includes 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. The latest version 

of the OPEI standard added vehicle 

handling requirements and enhanced 

seat belt reminder requirements (that are 

identical to the requirements in ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1–2016) for vehicles with 

maximum speeds greater than 30 mph 

to address rollover and occupant 

ejection hazards associated with ROVs. 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2016 does not have 

requirements to address debris 

penetration into the occupant area of the 

vehicle. 

OPEI member companies include 

Honda, John Deere, Kawasaki, and 

Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 was 

started in 2008, and it was completed 

with the publication of ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2012 in March 2012. The most 

recent version was published in 2016. 

C. CPSC Staff Voluntary Standard 

Activity 

In a September 2018 meeting with 

ROHVA and OPEI, CPSC staff discussed 

the largest of the ROV debris 

penetration recalls involving 628 

manufacturer reports of debris cracking 

or penetrating through the floorboards 

and 8 injuries. Staff recommended that 

OPEI and ROVHA form task groups to 

study the ROV debris penetration issue. 

In subsequent meetings, CPSC staff 

discussed the debris penetration hazard 

recalls and redacted debris penetration 

in-depth investigation (IDI) reports with 

ROHVA and OPEI. At the most recent 

meeting on April 1, 2022, OPEI and 

ROHVA members shared exploratory 

work on test methods to evaluate debris 

penetration hazards and expressed an 

interest in collaborating with CPSC staff 

on the issue. The voluntary standard 

activity is ongoing; however, there are 

currently no ballots that address the 

debris penetration hazard or timetable 

from either organization. 

V. CPSC and SEA Technical Analysis 

A. CPSC Staff Analysis of IDIs 

Engineering Sciences staff examined 

53 IDIs,3 which included the 8 IDIs 

examined in detail in the ANPR and 45 

IDIs examined post ANPR. Many IDIs 

contained information for the estimated 

vehicle speed at the time of the accident 

and the estimated stick diameter.4

Fifty-one IDIs involved tree branches 

penetrating the floorboards, whereas 

two of the IDIs involved rocks breaking 

through the floorboards. All the IDIs 

involved ROVs, except one, which 

involved a UTV. Debris penetrations 

occurred two or more times for a single 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43692 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5SEA used a 2-inch diameter oak dowel between 

39 inches to 65 inches long for the sled testing. Oak 

is a hardwood with a relatively high modulus of 

rupture and modulus of elasticity material 

properties. A 2-inch diameter oak dowel is a massproduced item that is readily available. Use of a 

consistent test component will minimize test-to-test 

variability. 

vehicle for some consumers, as 

described in seven of the IDIs. 

Thirty-three IDIs had information 

regarding stick diameter. For those IDIs 

that had information regarding stick 

diameter, death or injury occurred from 

a stick with a diameter between 1 to 3 

inches. Forty-one IDIs had information 

regarding the estimated vehicle speed at 

time of impact. For those incidents 

involving debris penetration from wood, 

the estimated vehicle speed ranged from 

2 mph to 25 mph. 

IDI interviewees in their responses 

sometimes gave ranges to estimate stick 

diameters and vehicle speeds. For 

example, an interviewee believed a stick 

that penetrated the floorboard was 

approximately 1 to 1.5 inches. The 

average stick diameter for the low range 

was 2.1 inches and 2.5 inches for the 

high range. 

For estimated vehicle speeds, the 

average speed for the low range was 

10.2 mph and 12.1 mph for the high 

range. Most of the interviewees, 66 

percent (27 out of 41 IDIs), reported 

debris penetrations occurring at 10 mph 

or less. 

In two IDIs where the estimated speed 

was 5 mph, two consumers experienced 

injury to their shin and foot. Only one 

incident included estimated vehicle 

speeds greater than 25 mph. 

Given that ROVs/UTVs are used in 

forested trails, it is reasonable to expect 

that the floorboards should protect 

consumers when ROVs/UTVs are 

operating at speeds of 10 mph or less in 

these environments. 

Staff measured the floorboards of 

several model ROVs and determined 

that the average thickness of the plastic 

floorboards was between 0.1 and 0.2 

inches. In addition, staff’s analysis of 

incident photos indicates brittle failure 

(i.e., where the material does not 

stretch) of the plastic floorboard when 

penetration occurred, because the 

floorboard was not able to absorb the 

high kinetic energy of the floorboardstick collision. Edges of the holes or 

cracks are usually clean (i.e., no 

material stretch indications). 

B. Debris Penetration Testing 

The Commission contracted with SEA 

Ltd. (SEA), to conduct debris 

penetration testing with a remotely 

operated robotic ROV and a ROV mockup sled that can move on a linear track. 

The purpose of SEA’s testing was to 

quantify the speed and energy necessary 

for debris, e.g., a stick or a branch, to 

penetrate a ROV floorboard. SEA 

conducted debris penetration testing 

with a remotely operated robotic ROV 

and also conducted controlled 

laboratory tests with mock-up ROVs on 

SEA’s sled facility. Although SEA’s 

study was conducted on ROV models, 

because the floorboard and UTV front 

architectures are similar, and in some 

cases, the same as ROV models, the 

concepts, observations, and discussions 

related to ROVs are equally applicable 

to UTV models. 

As part of SEA’s analysis, SEA 

reviewed debris penetration IDIs 

provided by CPSC staff. SEA 

determined that a common pattern in 

most of the severe injury accidents was 

that a branch or stick, generally, 1 to 2 

inches in diameter, penetrated through 

the vehicle floor, particularly in the foot 

rest/wheel well areas. Typically, the 

stick was longitudinal to the vehicle, 

and positioned at an upward angle. The 

end of the stick closest to the vehicle 

was high enough to get above or 

between the front suspension 

components of the vehicle. The end of 

the stick farther from the vehicle was 

either attached to a larger piece of wood 

or embedded in the ground. SEA 

observed that sticks penetrating the 

vehicle’s occupant space were generally 

straight, and could have diameters as 

high as 5 inches, or as small as 11⁄4

inches. Occupants experienced chest/ 

abdomen impalements or impalements/ 

lacerations to lower extremities. 

SEA’s initial testing consisted of a 

remotely operated robotic ROV that was 

driven into a stationary dowel 5 at 10 

mph, as shown in Figure 3. SEA 

conducted two tests with a remotely 

operated robotic ROV to examine the 

specifics of a debris penetration event. 

SEA determined that a dowel could 

contact the metal frame members that 

can influence the trajectory of the dowel 

and the way the dowel penetrates the 

floorboard. Contact in this manner 

would allow the dowel to experience 

both compressive and bending forces. 

The bending forces caused the dowel to 

snap after impact when the robotic ROV 

was traveling at 10 mph, as shown in 

Figure 2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.003</GPH>

Figure 2 -Multiple Views of the Robotic ROV involving Collision at 10 mph; Left-Alignment 

of the Test Dowel with Test Target on the ROV Floorboard; Middle -Front View of Broken 

Dowel; Right - Side View of Test Dowel that Entered the ROV Passenger Occupant 

Area 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43693 

6On many ROVs/UTVs, there are two plastic 

floor panels. The main floorboard panel covers the 

floor and footwell areas in front of the feet. A 

second, semi-vertical plastic panel that is joined to 

the main floorboard is often known as the firewall, 

which is located higher up, at the knee level and 

above. 

The second series of testing consisted 

of a ROV mock-up sled, fitted with OEM 

floorboards and aftermarket floorboard 

guards, as shown in Figure 3. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

Both test methods allowed the robotic 

ROV or the ROV sled to collide with a 

stationary dowel. The full-scale robotic 

ROV test showed similar penetration 

location and puncture characteristics for 

the sled test (see Figure 4). Both test 

methods resulted in a dowel penetration 

through the seam area between the 

floorboard and firewall 6 sections. By 

performing these engineering tests, SEA 

quantified the speeds and energies 

required to puncture the floorboards 

and floorboard guards. 

Floorboards and aftermarket 

floorboard guards from five ROV 

manufacturers were tested using the 

sled method. SEA conducted a total of 

21 test trials. SEA used sled speeds of 

2.5, 5, and 10 mph. 

The sled tests showed that the stock 

floorboards for two ROV manufacturers 

experienced debris penetrations at 2.5 

mph. The stock floorboards for all five 

ROV brands experienced debris 

penetration at 5 mph. Figure 5 

illustrates a stock floorboard that 

experience debris penetration at 2.5 

mph. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.004</GPH> EP21JY22.005</GPH>

Figure 3 -Multiple Views of the Simulated Vehicle Test Sled; Left -Test Dowel in Relation to 

the Direction of the Test Sled; Middle - Side View of an Example of a Fully Loaded Test Sled; 

Right - Side View of a Sled Test Where the Test Dowel Penetrated the ROV 

Floorboard 

Figure 4 - Comparison of Full-Scale Robotic ROV Test and Sled Test; LeftRobotic ROV Test Where Dowel Penetrated the Seam that Joins the Floorboard and 

Firewall Panels; Right - Sled Test Where the Dowel Penetrated the Seam that Joins the 

Floorboard and Firewall Panels 
43694 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

SEA tested various branded 

aftermarket metal and plastic floorboard 

guards to gauge their material strength 

properties to resist debris penetration. 

Among the 21 test trials, a metal guard 

for one brand of ROV did not have 

debris penetration at 10 mph. Two test 

trials at 5 mph with metal guards and 

one test trial with a plastic guard at 5 

mph did not have debris penetration. 

All other test trials with plastic or metal 

guards failed at 10 or 5 mph. 

For tests that did not experience 

debris penetration, the test dowel was 

redirected, or the dowel slid off to the 

side or upwards. In such cases, the 

bending forces caused the dowel to snap 

off. In some instances, the sled yawed 

and pitched before the sled came to a 

complete stop. These actions 

accomplished the guards’ goal of 

protecting the occupants from the debris 

penetration hazard. Figure 6 illustrates 

an aluminum floorboard guard with a 

black powder coated paint surface that 

prevented debris penetration at 5 mph. 

The test sled pitched and yawed, while 

the tip of the dowel slightly dented, 

then scraped the floorboard guard’s 

surface and slid to the right before the 

test sled came to complete stop. 

SEA staff procured the aftermarket 

guards from multiple online vendors. 

The existence of a market for these 

guard products suggests there is a need 

for enhanced protection against debris 

penetration. CPSC is aware of products 

in the marketplace that can resist debris 

penetration, and these retrofit products 

offer additional protection when 

compared to stock floorboards that can 

experience debris penetration at speeds 

as low as 2.5 mph. 

From its testing, SEA concluded: 

• If better guards are to be designed, 

it is likely that they will not work by 

absorbing energy, but rather, by 

redirecting the dowel, or breaking it off. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.006</GPH> EP21JY22.007</GPH>

Figure 5 - Interior View, Driver's Side Floorboard Where 

Debris Penetration Occurred at 2.5 mph 

Figure 6 - Illustration of an Aluminum Floorboard Guard that 

Redirected the Test Dowel and Prevented Debris Penetration (at 5 mph) 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43695 

• Guards that worked well in the sled 

testing tended to work well because 

they pushed the dowel up and/or to the 

side. Ideally, the guards would push the 

stick all the way to the side of the 

vehicle and outside the zone of the 

occupant compartment. 

• Testing showed that a successful 

design for an aftermarket guard or OEM 

floorboard could involve deflecting the 

dowel, rather than taking on the force 

directly. Several of the aftermarket 

guards were successful at doing this at 

5 mph, and one of the guards tested was 

successful at 10 mph. 

The test dowel did not break in 

testing that involved a metal floorboard 

guard that was sturdy enough to prevent 

debris penetration at 5 mph. The test 

dowel deformed the floorboard guard in 

a scraping manner without puncturing 

the floorboard guard, and the test sled 

pitched and yawed before coming to a 

full rest. However, the test dowel did 

break at 10 mph for this same metal 

floorboard guard, due to the bending 

forces being greater when the test sled 

speed was doubled. If a floorboard or 

floorboard guard is sturdy enough, there 

will be a greater tendency for the 

floorboard or floorboard guard to deflect 

the dowel and increase the dowel’s 

bending forces when the test sled speed 

is at 10 mph or higher. Thus, a 

floorboard or floorboard guard that can 

prevent debris penetration at 10 mph 

will likely prevent debris penetration at 

speeds above 10 mph. 

The requirements and test procedure 

of the proposed rule are in Section VI 

of this preamble. 

VI. Proposed Requirement, Test 

Procedure, and Prohibited Stockpiling 

A. Proposed Requirement 

ROVs and UTVs equipped with 

current ROV/UTV floorboards offer 

minimal to no protection to the 

occupants in debris penetration events. 

Stick/branch penetration of floorboards 

poses impalement and/or laceration 

hazards and the risk of serious injury or 

death. SEA’s sled testing showed that 

dowel penetration can occur at speeds 

as low as 2.5 mph on ROVs equipped 

with standard OEM floorboards. 

Multiple full-scale tests re-created stick/ 

branch penetration in the occupant area, 

a hazard reported in at least 107 

incidents, 6 resulting in fatalities. 

To reduce deaths and injuries 

associated with the debris penetration 

hazards, the Commission is proposing a 

performance requirement and a test 

procedure that propels a test vehicle or 

simulated vehicle sled at a minimum 

speed of 10 mph towards a stationary 2- 

inch diameter oak dowel, positioned at 

an angle between 12° and 25°, to strike 

the front wheel suspension area of the 

vehicle. The performance requirement 

specifies that the dowel cannot 

penetrate the occupant area when tested 

to the proposed impact test procedure. 

For the majority of the IDIs that had 

vehicle speed information, 66 percent 

(27 out of 41 IDIs), of the debris 

penetration events occurred at 10 mph 

or less. A test vehicle or simulated 

vehicle sled colliding with a stationary 

2-inch diameter oak dowel at 10 mph 

represents a realistic debris penetration 

scenario. The requirement will reduce 

the likelihood of impalement and/or 

lacerations from debris penetration, by 

preventing penetration into the 

occupant area of these vehicles. The 

SEA testing showed that an aftermarket 

floorboard guard can prevent debris 

penetration at 10 mph. Instead of energy 

absorption, the aftermarket guard 

redirected the dowel, allowing the 

bending forces to snap the dowel. It is 

likely that floorboards or the wheel-well 

area of ROVs/UTVs can be designed to 

resist debris penetration by redirecting 

the dowel to the side or upwards to 

avoid injuring the occupants. This type 

of mitigation design would also be 

effective at higher vehicle speeds. 

B. Test Procedure 

1. Load Condition 

The test protocol requires a load 

condition of 430 lbs for a two-seat ROV 

or UTV model. The 430 lbs represents 

a driver and a front seat passenger, each 

equivalent to a 95th percentile male 

(215 pounds). For a four-seat model, the 

load condition requirement is 860 

pounds, representing the driver and 

three passengers. For a six-seat model, 

the load condition is 1290 lbs, 

representing the driver and five 

passengers. Models containing these 

minimum load weights are described 

below as ‘‘fully loaded.’’ 

2. Test Vehicle or Simulated Vehicle 

Sled Conditions 

The fully loaded test vehicle is to be 

fitted with the test floorboard and/or 

floorboard guard(s), as offered for sale. 

If a simulated vehicle sled is used, such 

that a ROV/UTV front metal frame is 

fitted with the test floorboard and/or 

floorboard guard(s), the simulated 

vehicle sled must be able to translate on 

a linear track that can propel the 

simulated vehicle sled to at least 10 

mph. 

3. Test Speed 

The test vehicle or simulated vehicle 

sled speed, in miles per hour (mph), 

must be at least 10 mph at the moment 

of impact. 

4. Test Location 

The test dowel is to be positioned at 

an angle between 12° and 25° such that 

it will strike the upper wheel well area 

of the vehicle. The target of the test 

dowel must be either the floorboard or 

floorboard guard surface of the vehicle, 

and it must be the point on the 

floorboard or floorboard guard most 

likely to produce the most adverse 

results, such as a seam, crease, catch 

point, or bend. 

5. Test Equipment 

The test procedures prescribe the 

diameter (2-inches) and length of the 

dowel (between 39 to 65 inches) and the 

angle in which the dowel is to be 

installed in the dowel holder (between 

12° to 25°). A range of angles and a 

range of dowel lengths are necessary, 

due to the various shapes, depths, 

contours, suspension component 

arrangements, and control arm 

dimensions of all the ROV/UTV wheelwell configurations. See Figure 7. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43696 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The test procedure also requires that 

the tip of the dowel be tapered, such 

that the tip surface diameter is 1 inch, 

and the tip cone length is 1 inch. See 

Figure 8. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

The dowel holder must be 

constructed of a rigid material, such that 

the dowel holder will not fracture 

during the course of the impact test. 

A vehicle or simulated vehicle sled 

braking system and/or energy 

absorption foam blocks located two feet 

past the debris penetration dowel holder 

are recommended to minimize damage 

to test equipment. If a braking system is 

used, it is only permitted to activate 

after the vehicle or simulated vehicle 

sled collides completely with the debris 

penetrator dowel. 

6. Test Conditions 

If a test vehicle is used, the test 

surface must be dry asphalt or dry 

concrete that is free of contaminants. 

There must be sufficient track length 

available to allow the test vehicle or 

simulated vehicle sled to reach 10 mph. 

The test surface must be flat and have 

a grade slope of 1.7 percent (1°) or less. 

The ambient temperature shall be 

greater than 0 °C (32 °F). 

7. Test Procedure 

In the test procedure, a fully loaded, 

fully instrumented test vehicle or 

simulated vehicle sled is propelled in a 

straight-line path to collide with the test 

dowel, where the test vehicle or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.008</GPH> EP21JY22.009</GPH>

Figure?-- Illustration of Debris Penetrator Test Dowel 

Orientation 

I 

2inches 1inch 

l 

Figure 8 - Illustration of Debris Penetrator Test Dowel Tip 

Taper 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43697 

7The manufacturer-reported data is separate and 

distinct from the data from CPSC databases; there 

may be some overlap between the two. 

simulated vehicle sled speed is at least 

10 mph at the moment of impact. A 

minimum of two test trials of one 

chosen test method must be conducted 

for each vehicle model. 

8. Rationale—Test Conditions 

The required ambient temperature of 

0 °C (32 °F) or greater, maximum 

allowable flat course slope grade of 

1.7% (1°) or less, the maximum 

allowable wind speed of 11.2 mph (18 

km/h), flat dry asphalt or dry concrete 

conditions, and the 95th percentile male 

weight are consistent with the lateral 

stability requirements of ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2016 and ANSI/ROHVA–1–2016, 

simulate real use, and allow for 

repeatable test results. 

C. Prohibited Stockpiling 

The proposed rule includes an antistockpiling provision that would 

prohibit manufacturers and importers 

from stockpiling products that will be 

subject to the mandatory rule. The 

Commission’s authority to issue an antistockpiling provision is in section 

9(g)(2) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 

2058(g)(2). The anti-stockpiling 

provision would prohibit ROV and UTV 

manufacturers and importers from 

manufacturing or importing ROVs or 

UTVs that do not comply with the 

requirements of the proposed rule 

between the date of the final rule 

publishing in the Federal Register and 

the effective date of the rule, at a rate 

greater than 105 percent of the rate at 

which they manufactured or imported 

ROVs or UTVs during the base period 

for the manufacturer. 

The base period is described in the 

proposed rule as the calendar month 

with the median manufacturing or 

import volume within the last 13 

months immediately preceding the 

month of promulgation of the final rule. 

‘‘Promulgation’’ means the date the rule 

is published in the Federal Register. 

VII. Response to Comments 

The Commission published the OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) Fire and Debris 

Penetration Hazards Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in the 

Federal Register on May 11, 2021. The 

public comment period ended on July 

12, 2021. CPSC received 10 comments 

from the public, which can be found 

under docket number CPSC–2021–0014, 

at: www.regulations.gov. Four of the 

comments support the rulemaking; six 

of the comments do not support the 

rulemaking. We respond to the 

comments pertaining to debris 

penetration hazards here. 

Comment: Four comments express 

support for the rulemaking. Three of 

these comments (American Academy of 

Pediatrics, Kids in Danger, and Public 

Citizen) state that voluntary standards 

for ROVs and UTVs fail to adequately 

protect consumers, given the injuries, 

deaths and incidents that have occurred 

related to debris penetration. In 

addition, these three comments note 

that the voluntary standards do not 

include any requirements to protect 

against debris penetration. Kids in 

Danger further asserts that research 

shows a correlation between mandatory 

standards on products and a reduction 

of regulated product-specific deaths. 

Response: Staff concurs with these 

comments, because the current 

voluntary standards, ANSI/ROHVA–1– 

2016 and ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2016, do 

not have resistance to debris penetration 

performance requirements that 

adequately protect consumers, given the 

injuries, deaths, and incidents that have 

occurred related to debris penetration. 

Comment: The American Academy of 

Pediatrics suggests that the rulemaking 

should account for the unique hazards 

of OHVs used by children, especially for 

‘‘youth model’’ products marketed 

toward younger drivers. 

Response: At least one ROV 

manufacturer offers youth-oriented 

ROVs that are smaller versions of the 

full-size ROVs. These vehicles will be 

treated in the same manner as other 

OHVs. If they meet the definition of 

ROV or UTV, then they are within the 

scope of the proposed rule. 

Comment: ROHVA and two 

individuals, Mark Strauch, and Steve 

Tavara, state that it is not clear whether 

the debris penetration hazard incidents 

identified in the ANPR were caused by 

lack of clear sight, user error, or whether 

the driver and/or passenger were 

impaired in some fashion. Mark Strauch 

also states it is unclear whether ROVs 

are becoming dangerous due to 

‘‘improper installation, inspection, 

operation, and/or maintenance.’’ 

Response: Staff examined incident 

data that showed that debris 

penetrations occur at speeds as low as 

2 mph. For 44 percent of the IDIs that 

had information regarding vehicle speed 

at the time of debris penetration, the 

vehicle speeds during collisions with 

tree branches were 5 mph or less. These 

data suggest that consumers were 

generally not reckless, and the ROV/ 

UTV floorboard debris penetrations are 

occurring under non-severe conditions. 

Consequently, staff concluded that there 

was an issue with the vehicle itself 

rather than the operator’s behavior or 

maintenance of the vehicle. By their 

nature, ROVs and UTVs are intended to 

be driven on off-highway environments. 

It is foreseeable that in an off-highway 

environment, a vehicle might encounter 

sticks or branches. Penetration of a 

stick/branch into the vehicle’s cabin 

area, even at such low speeds, is 

indicative of insufficient debris 

resistance of the vehicle. Staff assesses 

that a vehicle intended to be driven in 

off-highway environments should not be 

susceptible to debris penetration at such 

low-speeds, regardless of maintenance 

or inspection of the vehicle. 

Comment: Commenters ROHVA, 

OPEI, SVIA, and Polaris, Inc. 

(‘‘Polaris’’), advocate addressing debris 

penetration hazards through the 

voluntary standards process instead of 

through rulemaking. 

Response: Although CPSC staff has 

engaged with the standards 

development organizations (‘‘SDOs’’) on 

this topic for years, no substantial 

progress has been made regarding debris 

penetration hazards. Since 2018, the 

three SDOs and CPSC staff met multiple 

times to discuss debris penetration 

hazards, but no substantial progress has 

been made, and discussions remain in 

the preliminary idea phase. CPSC staff 

will continue to engage with these 

SDOs, to review any proposals they may 

present, and consider those proposals as 

CPSC continues with its rulemaking 

activities. 

Comment: ROHVA, Polaris, and Mark 

Strauch assert that the Commission 

should withdraw its ANPR because it 

lacks sufficient information to 

determine that there is an 

‘‘unreasonable risk of injury’’ associated 

with debris penetration hazards. 

ROHVA asserts that debris penetration 

incidents are rare and involve ‘‘highly 

dissimilar factors,’’ making them 

unsuitable for consideration for 

mandatory rulemaking. 

Response: Staff disagrees that debris 

penetration incidents are rare. CPSC 

staff has determined that 6 deaths and 

22 injuries resulted from ROV debris 

penetration. There were 107 debris 

penetration incidents involving ROVs or 

UTVs in CPSC databases. Manufacturers 

reported 632 debris penetration 

incidents related to three different 

recalls.7

Staff also disagrees with the notion 

that debris penetration incidents 

involve ‘‘highly dissimilar factors,’’ 

such that a mandatory rule would be 

ineffective. The incidents show that a 

consistent factor in debris penetration 

incidents is the penetration of debris 

into the floorboard of the vehicles when 

they are being driven, as marketed and 

intended, in off-road environments, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43698 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8Unless otherwise noted, the ROV/UTV product 

and market information is based on CPSC staff 

analysis of 1998–2019 sales data provided by Power 

Products Marketing, Eden Prairie, MN (2020). 

even at low-speeds. The proposed test 

requirement would address the 

inadequacy of the floorboards to protect 

occupants in the vehicle. CPSC 

contractor SEA procured aftermarket 

floorboard guards from seven different 

vendors for their test program. The fact 

that there is already a robust market for 

aftermarket floorguards suggests that, 

contrary to being rare, debris 

penetrations are occurring often enough 

that there is substantial consumer 

interest in products to potentially 

remedy the risk of debris penetrations. 

Comment: ROHVA comments that it 

is inaccurate to characterize the 630 

manufacturer reports associated with 

the three debris penetration recalls as 

‘‘debris penetration incidents,’’ because 

not all of the incidents involved debris 

penetration through the floorboard. 

ROHVA notes that the press release for 

the largest of the three recalls states that 

there were ‘‘628 incident reports of 

debris cracking or breaking through the 

floor boards.’’ 

Response: The manufacturer reports 

consisted of floorboards either cracking 

or breaking during normal operation 

due to impact with, or penetration by, 

debris from outside the vehicle. 

Whether or not the debris penetrated 

through the floorboard, staff considers 

the cracking or breaking of the 

floorboards by objects during normal 

operation of the vehicle to be indicative 

of a penetration hazard. 

VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

A. Introduction 

Pursuant to section 9(c) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act, 

publication of a proposed rule must 

include a preliminary regulatory 

analysis containing: 

• A preliminary description of the 

potential benefits and potential costs of 

the proposed rule, including any 

benefits or costs that cannot be 

quantified in monetary terms, and an 

identification of those likely to receive 

the benefits and bear the costs. 

• A discussion of the reasons why a 

standard submitted to the Commission 

in response to the ANPR was not 

published as the proposed rule. 

• A discussion of why a relevant 

voluntary safety standard would not 

eliminate or adequately reduce the risk 

of injury addressed by the proposed 

rule. 

• A description of any reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed rule, 

together with a summary description of 

their potential costs and benefits and 

why such alternatives should not be 

published as a proposed rule. 

The primary focus of this preliminary 

regulatory analysis is the Commission’s 

preliminary assessment of potential 

benefits and costs from the proposed 

rule. CPSC staff estimates benefits by 

subtracting the expected societal costs 

(i.e., deaths and injuries from floorboard 

debris penetration), assuming the rule 

has been implemented, from the 

expected societal costs in the absence of 

the rule (or baseline scenario). 

Estimated costs include costs to 

industry from implementing a ROV/ 

UTV fix that addresses the debris 

penetration hazard, the costs associated 

with government oversight and 

compliance monitoring, and the 

deadweight losses that are the measured 

impacts to consumers and producers 

displaced from the ROV/UTV market 

because of a potential price increase. 

CPSC staff estimated benefits and costs 

over a 30-year period starting in 2024, 

which is the year that the rule would go 

into effect. A 30-year period allows for 

several cycles of useful life for ROVs 

and UTVs and ensures the assessment 

accounts for the long-term effects of the 

proposed rule. Staff presents all 

estimates in 2021 dollars. To account for 

the time value of money, staff applied 

an annual 3 percent discount rate to 

forecasted benefits and costs. The 

preliminary regulatory analysis also 

explains why voluntary safety standards 

would not eliminate or adequately 

reduce the risk of injury addressed by 

the proposed rule. It describes 

alternatives to the proposed rule and 

their potential costs and benefits, and it 

explains why these alternatives should 

not be published as a proposed rule. In 

addition, although the ANPR invited 

commenters to submit standards for 

publication as the proposed rule, or part 

of the proposed rule, no standard was 

submitted during the ANPR comment 

period, and thus, no standard was 

available for the Commission to 

consider. 

B. Market Information 

1. Retail Prices 

In 2019, ROV and UTV 

manufacturers’ suggested retail prices 

(MSRP) ranged from a minimum of 

$4,599 to a maximum of $53,700. When 

weighted by sales volume, the mean 

MSRP is $13,182 for ROVs and UTVs,8

which, in 2021 dollars, equates to 

$14,302. As shown in Figure 8, before 

2013, the average ROV and UTV MSRP 

showed a downward trend. However, 

beginning in 2013, the average ROV and 

UTV MSRPs have increased steadily. 

This trend appears to be driven by 

increasing sales of more expensive 

models with higher maximum MSRPs. 

Figure 9 displays MSRPs for ROVs and 

UTVs from 2004 through 2019, in 

constant 2021 dollars. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43699 

1. Annual Sales and Shipments 

Except for 2009, annual sales of ROVs 

and UTVs in the United States have 

increased steadily, from an estimated 

35,041 units in 1998, to an estimated 

429,135 units in 2019. Figure 10 

illustrates combined ROV and UTV unit 

sales from 1998 through 2018. 

Staff identified 35 manufacturers 

known to have supplied ROVs and 

UTVs to the U.S. market in 2019: 17 

from the United States, 14 from China 

(including Taiwan), and one each from 

Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and 

Spain. Additionally, there are 48 

distributers/brands. Staff estimated U.S. 

manufacturers accounted for 

approximately 83 percent of U.S. ROV 

and UTV sales in 2019, and that current 

members of ROHVA and/or OPEI 

accounted for approximately 95 percent 

of U.S. ROV and UTV sales in 2019. 

Staff identified 461 different ROV and 

UTV model variants and configurations 

sold in the United States in 2019. 

Excluding variants and configurations 

that appear to be based on a common 

base model, staff estimated that there 

may be as few as 107 unique models 

introduced in 2019, and they estimated 

a total of 672 models in use by 

consumers. 

2. Estimated ROV and UTV Units in Use 

Staff estimates there were 2.34 million 

ROVs and UTVs in use in the United 

States in 2019. The Commission 

developed this estimate based on the 

number of sales of ROV and UTV in 

prior years, and then designated a 

product life (in years) to each unit sold. 

The distribution of product life years for 

ROVs and UTVs informs the analysis of 

what proportion of units will last above 

or below its average product life. For 

example, the average product life for an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.010</GPH> EP21JY22.011</GPH>

Figure 9: ROV & UTV Average MSRP 

ROV/UTV Average MSRP 

US Market (2004 .. 2019) 

Constant 2021 Oc,llars 

$16,000 ----------------

$14,000 ------;;;:';;;;~~-----=~;-;;.;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;.--•·------

:: ~,_:: --·~-~-_: -=-~-----· ... _z~ .. -·E_,..___· :::_: _-·- .. _ -_ 

V 

$8,000 -------------------------

$6,000 -----------------------

Figure 10: Unit Sales of ROV/UTVs from 1998 to 2018 

ROV/UTV Sales 

US Market (1998 - 2019) 

500,000 '··-··~"·"""""'"" .. " ........... ,.. .. , ................................. ,, .... , .... ,, ....... , .... ,, ........ ,., ...... ,, .... , .............. , .... - ... ---""""" .. """'" .. , ........ , ................ , .. , .... , .. ,,, ................... , ............ , .......... ,., .... ..," 

450,000 

400,000 .................... , ..... ,, ......... ,,, .. , .... , ........ , .... , .............. , .... , .......... , .. , .... ,, .. , ..... ,,, .... , .................. , ... ,,,, .. ,, ............. ,,,..., .... ,,,,,,,., ............... , .... ,, ..-, .... _, ____ .. _,.,,, .................. ,::;..-,,,,,,c ........... ,,,. .. 

350,000. ,, ............ , .. ,,_ .. __ , __ , __ ,, ......... , .. ,,.., ............. .., ... ,,,,,,., ............ ,,,,, ............... , ......... , .. ,.., .... , ...... , ...... , .... ,., ....... , ............................... , ...... , ............................. , .... ::Jlllll'O:-C::'.,'. ....... ,, .... " ..................................................... , 

300,{IQQ '""""" .. ""~"-" .. '"~ .. .," .. •"""'"•""""""""""""'"'~""""'"""'"""'~= .... ,... .. ,, .. .,.,..,.,_,., .. ,., .. ,.., .. .,.,.,.,., .. """"~~"""""'"'""~~,-.. ~•""" .. ""~" .. """" 

:l:S0,000 ., .. , .................... , ......................................................................... , ...... _.,.. ................................................................................ ., ............................ , ............................... ,,.. ...... , ............. , ........................................................... , .................. , .......... ,,. ............... .. 

150.000 .................................................... , ........ , ..................................................... ,..,,,,,,.. ....................... , .... , ........... , ........................................ , ................................................................ , .... , ............ , ................................ , ...... .. 

100,000 .......... ,, .................. , ..... , ............. , .... :#"' ............... , ........ ,_ ..... ~, ......... , ............. , ........ , ............................... ,,._, ...... ___ .,.,.. ..... .. 

50,000 

0 

1993 2000 2002 2004 20(1(1 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 
43700 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

9The Commission based its estimated injury rates 

on the incident data from the window 2010–2019. 

This window represents a typical 10-year time 

frame for data analysis, and was the most robust, 

most recent data that was continuous. Because of 

ongoing reporting, data from the latest years, 2020 

and 2021, are incomplete, and were thus not used 

in the analysis. 

ROV/UTV is 6 years. Therefore, a 

plurality of ROVs/UTVs will be in use 

for 6 years, but some ROVs/UTVs will 

be in use less than the expected 6 years, 

while others will be in use longer than 

6 years. The distribution of product life 

informs this analysis of what proportion 

of sold units will fall into each amount 

(in years) of product life. This process 

helps assess how many ROVs/UTVs are 

still in use, given any number of years 

after they are sold. 

C. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: 

Benefits Assessment 

This section presents the potential 

benefits associated with implementing 

the performance requirement from the 

proposed rule for mitigating debris 

penetration hazards associated with 

ROVs and UTVs. 

1. Benefits Assessment Methodology 

The Commission conducted the 

preliminary regulatory analysis from a 

societal perspective that considers 

significant costs and health outcomes. 

The Commission captured expected 

reduction in societal costs by estimating 

the number of deaths and injuries from 

debris penetration that would be 

prevented by the proposed rule. The 

Directorate for Epidemiology (EP) 

retrieved casualties reported through 

NEISS, a national probability sample of 

U.S. hospital emergency departments 

(ED), and the CPSRMS database of 

consumer incident reports. Staff then 

forecasted the number of expected 

reported deaths and injuries for a 30- 

year study period and converted the 

value of prevented deaths and injuries 

into monetary terms using the Value of 

Statistical Life (VSL) for deaths and 

CPSC’s Injury Cost Model (ICM) for 

injuries. 

Staff used a 30-year study period to 

assess the benefits of the proposed rule. 

Staff assumed, for the purpose of this 

analysis, that the rule will go into effect 

at the beginning of 2024; this results in 

a study period of 2024 through 2053. A 

30-year period allows for several cycles 

of useful life for ROVs and UTVs and 

ensures the benefits assessment 

accounts for all long-term effects from 

the proposed rule. Staff then converted 

the aggregate benefits over the 30-year 

study period into annualized and ‘‘perproduct’’ outputs. An annualized output 

converts the aggregate benefits over 30 

years into a consistent annual amount 

while considering the time value of 

money. This metric is helpful when 

comparing the benefits among different 

rules or policy alternatives that may 

have different timelines; or those that 

have similar timelines, but benefits for 

one are front-loaded, while the other’s 

benefits have a latent effect. A perproduct metric expresses the benefits 

from the rule in one unit of product. 

This metric is helpful when assessing 

the impact in marginal terms; for 

example, comparing benefits to an 

increase in retail price or marginal 

increase in cost of production per-unit. 

2. Deaths and Injuries Over the 30-Year 

Study Period 

CPSC staff identified six deaths and 

22 nonfatal injuries that occurred from 

2009 through 2021, related to debris 

penetration incidents involving 

occupants. Of the 22 nonfatal injuries, 

four required hospital admission, three 

resulted in ED treatment, two were 

treated and released, or released without 

treatment, one received first aid by a 

non-medical professional, and two 

received no treatment. The level of care 

provided for the remaining 10 incidents 

is not known. CPSC staff gathered these 

casualties from NEISS (three nonfatal 

incidents) and CPSRMS (the remaining 

incidents) and confirmed there was no 

overlap. 

Next, staff used the incident data on 

debris penetration from NEISS and 

CPSRMS to forecast the number of 

injuries from debris penetration treated 

in EDs and other settings throughout the 

30-year study period. Typically, the 

Commission would use reported 

injuries from NEISS, which only records 

injuries from a sample of U.S. hospitals, 

and then the Commission would 

extrapolate the data into a national 

estimate. However, the number of 

recorded incidents of debris penetration 

from the sample hospitals was lower 

than the publication criteria established 

in NEISS. Therefore, staff could not 

develop a national estimate and had to 

estimate the benefits using a forecast of 

reported injuries from the sample 

hospitals only. There are likely many 

more unreported incidents outside of 

the sample hospitals not accounted for 

in this analysis, and thus, staff’s 

estimated benefits are likely an 

underestimate. 

To forecast future deaths and injuries 

from debris penetration, staff used death 

and injury rates per million ROVs/UTVs 

with its forecast of ‘‘ROVs/UTVs in use’’ 

throughout the 30-year study period. 

Staff assumed deaths and injuries would 

stay the same as the average rates 

observed between 2010 to 2019 9 in the 

NEISS and CPSRMS databases: 0.36 

deaths, 0.24 hospital admissions, 0.24 

ED admissions, and 0.72 doctor/clinic 

visits per million ROVs/UTVs in use. 

Staff forecasted ROVs/UTVs in use 

using exponential smoothing. Staff then 

multiplied the number of ROVs/UTVs 

in use in each year of the study period 

by the rates of deaths and injuries, to 

estimate the total number of deaths and 

injuries for each year of the 30-year 

study period. Figure 11 displays the 

estimated number of incidents for each 

death and injury category from 2010 

through 2053 in the baseline scenario, 

which assumes the proposed rule does 

not go into effect. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43701 

10 In 2008, the EPA estimated the value of a 

statistical life at $7.9 million. CPSC adjusted this 

estimate for inflation to the end of 2021, using the 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

(CPI–U), estimated the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

and rounded it to the nearest hundred thousand. 

The adjustment is as follows: $7.9M × (278.802/ 

210.228) = $10.477M, which is then rounded to 

$10.5M. 

Figure 11 illustrates that most injuries 

are treated in a doctor’s office/clinic. In 

the year 2053, estimated injuries treated 

at a doctor’s office/clinic reach 5 per 

year; injuries treated at the ED and those 

admitted to the hospital largely overlap 

over the analysis period and reach 1.7 

in both cases in 2053; and the estimated 

number of deaths reaches 2.5 in 2053. 

In the same year, staff estimated the 

number of ROVs and UTVs in use to 

reach 6.98 million, or about three times 

the number in use in 2019. 

3. Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries 

Over the 30-Year Study Period 

This section presents the 

methodology to monetize the costs from 

deaths and injuries from debris 

penetration in the absence of the rule 

and determines how much those 

societal costs would be avoided if CPSC 

promulgated the proposed rule. 

(a) Societal Cost From Deaths 

To estimate the societal costs of debris 

penetration-related deaths, staff applied 

the VSL. VSL is an estimate used in 

benefit-cost analysis to place a value on 

reductions in the likelihood of 

premature deaths. The VSL does not 

place a value on individual lives, but 

rather, it represents an extrapolated 

estimate based on the rate at which 

individuals trade money for small 

changes in mortality risk. This is a 

‘‘willingness to pay’’ methodology that 

attempts to measure how much 

individuals are willing to pay for a 

small reduction in their own mortality 

risks, or how much additional 

compensation they would require to 

accept slightly higher mortality risks. 

For this analysis, staff applied a VSL 

developed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA VSL, 

when adjusted for inflation, is $10.5 

million 10 in 2021 dollars. Staff 

multiplied the VSL by the number of 

forecasted deaths throughout the study 

period to calculate societal cost of 

deaths from debris penetration in the 

absence of the proposed rule. Figure 12 

displays these costs throughout the 

study period. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.012</GPH>

Figure 11 Number of Injuries and Deaths from ROV/UTV Debris Penetration 

0 . 

2010 

Injuries and Deaths 

2()15 2()2() 2()25 2030 

- Doctor/ Clinic 

2()35 2.040 2045 

... "~ * "-~ Emergem:y Department 

- -Death 

2()50 
43702 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

According to Figure 12, in the first 

year of the study period (2024), costs 

from deaths are $11.47 million and grow 

to $26.42 million in 2053. Over 30 

years, estimated societal costs from 

deaths due to debris penetration 

aggregate to $568.3 million, according to 

CPSC staff estimates. 

(b) Societal Cost From Injuries 

CPSC staff estimated the societal costs 

of nonfatal injuries from debris 

penetration using the ICM. The ICM 

provides estimates of the societal costs 

of medically treated injuries. The 

societal cost components provided by 

the ICM include medical costs, work 

losses, and the intangible costs 

associated with pain and suffering. 

Medical costs include three categories 

of expenditures: (1) medical and 

hospital costs associated with treating 

the injured victim during the initial 

recovery period and in the long run, 

including 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. The ICM derives cost 

estimates for these expenditure 

categories from several national and 

state databases, including the Medical 

Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the 

Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the 

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 

(HCUP–NIS), the Nationwide 

Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), 

the National Nursing Home Survey 

(NNHS), MarketScan® claims data, and 

a variety of other federal, state, and 

private databases. 

Work loss estimates include: (1) the 

forgone earnings of the victim, 

including lost wage work and 

household work; (2) the forgone 

earnings of parents and visitors, 

including lost wage work and 

household work; (3) imputed long-term 

work losses of the victim that would be 

associated with permanent impairment; 

and (4) employer productivity losses, 

such as the costs incurred when 

employers spend time rearranging 

schedules or training replacement 

workers. The ICM bases these estimates 

on information from the MEPS, the 

Detailed Claim Information (a workers’ 

compensation database) maintained by 

the National Council on Compensation 

Insurance, the National Health 

Interview Survey, the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, and other sources. 

The intangible 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. The 

ICM develops monetary estimates of 

these intangible costs from jury awards 

for pain and suffering. Although these 

awards can vary widely on a case-bycase basis, studies have shown that 

these awards are systematically related 

to several factors, including economic 

losses, the type and severity of injury, 

and the age of the victim. The ICM 

derives these estimates from a 

regression analysis of jury awards 

compiled by Jury Verdicts Research, 

Inc., in nonfatal product liability cases 

involving consumer products. 

The ICM estimated that the costs (in 

2021 dollars) associated with nonfatal 

debris penetration injuries are: $17,013 

for injuries treated at the doctor’s office/ 

clinic, $24,694 for injuries treated at the 

emergency department, and $101,433 

for injuries that result in hospital 

admission. The Commission multiplied 

these estimates by the number of 

forecasted incidents in Figure 11 to 

estimate societal costs from injuries 

through 2053. Figure 13 shows the 

forecasted societal costs from injuries in 

the absence of the rule through 2053. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.013</GPH>

(/) 

z 

0 

$30 

:3 $25 

~ 

$20 

$15 

$10 

$5 

$0 

Figure 12: Annual Cost from Fatalities 

Cost from Fatalities in the Absence of the Rule 

~ ill 00 0 N ~ ill 00 0 N ~ ill 00 N N N m m m m m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

N N N N N N N N N N N N N 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43703 

11Staff supplements its assessment of a 95 

percent effective efficacy rate with a sensitivity 

analysis that reduces the effective efficacy rate to 

60 percent in section VIII.E.1 of this preamble, 

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis. Sixty percent 

represents an approximation of the share of debris 

penetration incidents that occurred when vehicles 

were traveling 10 mph or below. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

As reflected in the chart, society 

would incur a cost in the first year of 

the study period (2024) of $0.04 million 

for injuries treated at a doctor’s office/ 

clinics, $0.02 million for those treated at 

EDs, and $0.07 million for injuries 

resulting in hospital admissions. These 

costs grow to $0.09 million for doctor’s 

office/clinic, $0.04 million for ED, and 

$0.17 million for hospital admissions in 

2053. Over 30 years, staff estimated the 

societal costs from injuries due to debris 

penetration aggregate to $1.85 million 

for doctor’s office/clinic, $0.89 million 

for ED, and $3.66 million for hospital 

admissions. The total cost for all 

injuries reaches $6.39 million over the 

30-year study period. 

(c) Benefits From the Proposed Rule 

The total estimated societal cost of 

deaths and injuries in the absence of the 

proposed rule would be $574.69 million 

over the study period (2024–2053). 

However, the proposed requirements in 

the proposed rule are not expected to 

mitigate all the deaths and injuries from 

debris penetration. Based on laboratory 

tests, CPSC staff estimates that 

approximately 95 percent of all 

incidents would be avoided because of 

the implementation of the proposed 

rule.11 The Commission assesses that 

implementing the performance 

requirement would prevent all debris 

penetration incidents that occur when 

the vehicle is travelling 10 mph or 

below, and most incidents travelling 

above 10 mph. 

Additionally, in the initial years after 

the implementation of the proposed 

rule, some noncompliant ROVs and 

UTVs will still be in use. To account for 

this, staff estimated the percentage of 

noncompliant ROVs/UTVs in each year 

during the 30-year study period. For 

instance, in the first year of the study 

period (2024), staff estimated that only 

17.6 percent of ROVs/UTVs in use 

would be compliant, and only 16.7 

percent (17.6 percent product compliant 

rate × 95 percent rule effective rate) of 

the $11.6 million in societal costs would 

be avoided because of the proposed 

rule, which equates to $1.94 million 

($11.6 million × 16.7 percent). Staff 

estimates the compliance rate of ROVs/ 

UTVs in use increases to 84.4 percent by 

2029 (i.e., 6 years from the 

implementation of the rule), and it 

approaches 100 percent by 2035. After 

this adjustment, staff estimated that 

from 2024 through 2053, an aggregate 

$537.29 million in societal costs would 

be avoided if the CPSC promulgated the 

proposed rule. 

4. Annualized and Per-Vehicle, In-Use 

Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

Staff converted the aggregate benefits 

over the 30-year period of study into 

annualized and ‘‘per-product’’ metrics. 

The undiscounted average annual 

benefits are $17.02 million. To calculate 

present value, staff discounted the 

annual benefits in each year of the 30- 

year period using a compounding three 

3 percent discount rate. The annualized 

benefits, at a 3 percent discount rate, are 

$15.47 million. To estimate the benefit 

per product, staff divided the 

annualized benefits (undiscounted and 

discounted) by the average number of 

compliant vehicles. Using this 

methodology, staff estimated the 

benefits from the proposed rule per ROV 

or UTV in use to be $20.32 per vehicle 

undiscounted and $12.07 per vehicle 

discounted at three 3 percent. 

Table 4 presents the findings from 

this benefits assessment from both the 

annualized and per-product 

perspectives. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL AND PER-PRODUCT BENEFITS, UNDISCOUNTED AND DISCOUNTED AT 3% 

Benefits Undiscounted Present value 

(discounted at 3%) 

Annualized ($M) ....................................................................................................................................... $17.02 $15.47 

Per Vehicle ($) ......................................................................................................................................... 20.32 12.07 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.014</GPH>

Figure 13: Cost oflnjuries 

Cost from Injuries in the Absence of the Rule 

·~ 0.2' ---·"'"""""""'""~""""'""'"'-"'"'"'"'"ii-.-·~·--·-·'"'"""'""",,.;-. ___ ,.. ,.,,,,,,,""""'"'""""'""'"'"'"~""'------"'f"""'''"""'""'""''"'""'!'-'1'"""'-""'''--

c: 

.2 0.2 

~ 0.1 ----

0.1 

O.l 

0.1 ~~~~;:;;, •~•---•-SSW•-••••--»••»••-~-- N . •• ,__,.. ........-

0.l .r=,v "" >.-=• •••• •••••••-.,•~~ .. --"". ---

-- ------•· 

0.0 ......... ,....-G--

--

:, .w 

--vw.···"""·· •=0v C-- -~C 

o.o ·~---··--~'·•=e - - . - -----------· --- -- -- - 0.0 

2024 2029 20'4 20$$ 2044 2049 

- Doctor {Clinic - - Emergency Department -Hospital Admission 
43704 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12 Discounting future estimates to the present 

allows staff not only to consider the time value of 

money, but also the opportunity cost of the 

investment, that is, the value of the best alternative 

use of funds. 

13CPSC staff conducted a virtual meeting on 

February 7, 2022, with a large manufacturer’s 

representative to discuss the cost of implementing 

an ROV/UTV fix to the debris penetration hazard. 

14The floorboard solution can be fabricated inhouse by the manufacturer or by a third party 

contractor hired by the manufacturer. 

D. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis: 

Cost Analysis 

This section discusses the costs this 

proposed rule would impose on society. 

There are three sets of societal costs 

discussed under this cost section: the 

cost of implementing an ROV/UTV fix 

that addresses the debris penetration 

hazard; the costs associated with 

government oversight and compliance 

monitoring (considered negligible); and 

the deadweight losses or market impacts 

derived from the implementation of an 

ROV/UTV fix. 

Like the benefits estimation, the time 

span of the cost analysis covers a 30- 

year period that starts in 2024, which is 

the expected year of implementation of 

the rule. This cost analysis presents all 

cost estimates in 2021 dollars, including 

cost estimates before 2021, using price 

index adjustments. This cost analysis 

also discounts costs in the future, using 

a 3 percent discount rate to estimate 

their present value.12

In this regulatory assessment, staff 

considers two solutions to the debris 

penetration hazards under the proposed 

rule, each with a separate set of costs. 

Both scenarios are effective in 

preventing debris penetration at 10 mph 

and below, and mitigating debris 

penetration above 10 mph. Both 

scenarios require manufacturers to 

redesign existing models to allow 

proper installation of the floorboard 

solution of choice. 

1. Redesigned Floorboards: 

Manufacturers fully redesign 

floorboards where most of the material 

in the original floorboard is 

redistributed into a new shape and 

thickness that is required to address the 

debris penetration hazard. 

Manufacturers then redesign ROV/UTV 

models to enable the installation of the 

redesigned floorboards and meet the 

requirements of the new ROV/UTV 

proposed mandatory standards. 

2. Floorboard Guards: Manufacturers 

redesign existing floorboards to add a 2′ 

× 2′ × 0.19′′ aluminum piece that acts as 

a floorboard guard and prevents debris 

penetration. This new aluminum piece’s 

design blocks debris from hitting 

hazardous sections of the floorboard. 

Manufacturers then redesign ROV/UTV 

models to enable the installation of 

floorboards with floorboard guards that 

meet the requirements of the new ROV/ 

UTV proposed mandatory standards. 

This analysis assessed these two 

solutions as separate scenarios to 

produce a range of potential costs of 

compliance with the proposed rule. 

Some of the unit cost estimates in this 

analysis are based on SEA Ltd.’s testing 

and analysis. Under each scenario, staff 

assumed that 100 percent of 

manufacturers decide to adopt the 

solution being assessed. Therefore, staff 

estimated in each scenario the full cost 

of deploying that solution for all firms. 

In practice, however, manufacturers 

may choose a combination of the two 

solutions, or a different solution that 

proves more cost effective. Staff 

welcomes public comments on the 

likelihood of manufacturers adopting 

either solution or a solution not 

considered in this analysis. 

• Cost of Implementing an ROV/UTV 

Fix to Debris Penetration 

Manufacturers directly incur costs to 

redesign existing models and produce 

new designs that solve the debris 

penetration hazard, as well as the cost 

of producing and installing either a 

redesigned floorboard or floorboard 

guard on each new ROV/UTV 

manufactured after the implementation 

of this proposed rule is implemented. 

The increased cost is then passed 

indirectly on to wholesalers. 

The subcategories of costs for 

implementing an ROV/UTV fix to debris 

penetration are: 

D Cost of Redesigning Existing ROV/ 

UTV Models and of New Designs 

Manufacturers incur design costs that 

include redesigning existing ROV/UTV 

models, as well as designing future 

ROV/UTV models, which enable the 

installation of a floorboard solution to 

the debris penetration hazard. 

Manufacturers would have to redesign 

existing ROV/UTV models with a 

floorboard solution if they wish to 

continue selling these models to 

consumers. Manufacturers, therefore, 

would have to allocate funds to produce 

a floorboard solution design and adapt 

existing ROV/UTV models to enable the 

installation of a floorboard solution. 

Manufacturers would likely incur 

expenditures in design labor, design 

production, design validation, and 

compliance testing. Each of these 

subcategories of costs are discussed 

below. 

Æ Cost of Design Labor 

The cost to compensate model 

designers employed by the 

manufacturer (or a third-party design 

shop) for the time it takes to produce a 

blueprint of the redesigned ROV/UTV 

model. 

Æ Cost of Design Production 

The cost of materials and labor 

required to fabricate prototypes of the 

ROV/UTV model. 

Æ Cost of Design Validation 

The cost of conducting validation 

testing of prototypes to ensure proper 

functioning of the redesigned ROV/UTV 

model and conformance with preset 

requirements established by the 

manufacturer. This is customarily 

conducted through in-house, indoor 

sled testing. 

Æ Cost of Compliance Testing 

The cost of conducting formal third 

party compliance testing to verify 

compliance with the requirements of the 

new ROV/UTV mandatory standards. 

Compliance testing is customarily 

conducted through third party testing. 

Manufacturers would also be required 

to upgrade all new designs with the 

floorboard solution. A large-scale ROV/ 

UTV manufacturer 13 conveyed to staff 

that once existing models have been 

redesigned with a working floorboard 

solution, new models can adapt such a 

solution at a minimal cost. Therefore, 

the additional cost of implementing a 

debris penetration solution onto future 

designs is considered negligible, and it 

is not addressed further in this analysis. 

D Cost of Manufacturing and Installing a 

Floorboard Solution 

Manufacturers directly incur costs to 

produce the floorboard solution of their 

choice 14 and install it in every new 

vehicle manufactured after the 

implementation of the proposed rule. 

Manufacturers would likely incur 

expenditures to purchase the required 

materials to fabricate the floorboard and 

produce and install the selected 

floorboard solution. These subcategories 

of costs are discussed below. 

Æ Cost of Materials and Production of 

the Floorboard Solution 

Staff assumed that the production cost 

of the floorboard solution closely 

matches the production cost of the 

original floorboard. Therefore, the 

incremental production cost is 

negligible, and the estimates in this 

subcategory focus exclusively on the 

incremental cost of the materials 

required to produce the floorboard 

solution. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43705 

15An increase in the marginal cost of production 

in a competitive market normally is followed by an 

increase in the prices at which products are traded. 

The portion of the increased production costs that 

are paid for by consumers through higher market 

prices depends on the price responsiveness of 

demand and supply of the product. The price 

responsiveness of demand and supply are measured 

by the price elasticity of demand and supply, 

respectively. Price elasticity is a measure of how 

responsive the volume of product demanded or 

supplied in the market is to a change in the price 

of such product. See footnote 15 in the staff briefing 

package for formula to estimate price elasticity. For 

most products, the elasticity of demand is a 

negative number that indicates price increases lead 

consumers to demand less of the product; while the 

elasticity of supply is a positive number that 

indicates an increased willingness to offer products 

in the market as the price of the product increases. 

16See footnote 16 in the staff briefing package for 

the formula to estimate the change in the market 

price of equilibrium that follows an increase in 

production costs in a competitive market. In a 

market with a completely inelastic demand, 

producers can transfer the entire change in the cost 

of production to consumers through price increases. 

The highest the elasticity of demand, the lowest the 

portion of the increased production costs that can 

be transferred to consumers through price increases. 

17See footnote 17 in Tab B of the staff briefing 

package for the calculation used to estimate 

deadweight loss. 18The design costs per ROV/UTV model are 

expected to decrease as the number of redesigned 

ROV/UTV models increases (i.e., fixed costs spread 

over additional models, increased level of 

experience redesigning ROV/UTV models). 

19CPSC Study of Debris Penetration of 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Floorboards 

conducted under contract by SEA Ltd., in 2020/ 

2021. 20CPSC staff estimated it would take up to twoperson months to modify an existing ROV/UTV 

model that does not comply with the requirements 

of the proposed rule, with a maximum of 4 months 

and a minimum of 1 month. Source: Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to Establish a Safety Standard 

for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. September 

2014. This is 346.67 hours, the average number of 

hours per month of 173.33 (40 hours a week × 52 

weeks a year/12 months) times 2 (two-person 

months). 

21As of September 2021, the average total hourly 

compensation for management, professional, and 

related workers was estimated at $63.96 (Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Table 2—Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation for Civilian Workers by 

Occupational and Industry Group, https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm). The total 

cost for two-person months as of September 2021 

is $22,172.8 (346.67 hours times $63.96). Adjusted 

by the CPI price index, this estimate increases to 

$22,535.89 ($22,172.8 × 278.802/274.31) as of 

December 2021 (Bureau of Labor Statistics— 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, 

Series ID CUUR0000SA0, 1982–84 base period, 

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu). 

22As part of the CPSC study on debris 

penetration, SEA Ltd., conducted a total of 5 days 

of validation testing for a total cost of $138,570, or 

$27,714 per day as of September 2020. The cost of 

2 days of testing brought forward to the end of 2021, 

using the CPI price index for all urban consumers, 

is $59,732.36 ($27,714 per day × 2 days × 278.802/ 

260.28). 

Æ Cost of Installation of the Floorboard 

Solution 

Staff assumed that the installation 

cost of the floorboard solution closely 

matches the installation cost of the 

original floorboard. Therefore, the 

incremental installation cost is 

negligible. 

• Cost of Government Oversight and 

Compliance Monitoring 

Staff does not expect the 

implementation of the proposed rule to 

require significant resources or 

additional oversight and compliance 

monitoring by CPSC. CPSC can 

reasonably provide oversight and 

monitoring of the new ROV/UTV 

floorboard requirements with existing 

resources. Therefore, staff assumed the 

additional cost incurred by the 

government to provide additional 

oversight and compliance monitoring to 

be of an insignificant magnitude, and 

thus, it is not addressed further in this 

analysis. 

• Deadweight Loss 

The requirements for ROVs/UTVs in 

the proposed rule increase the marginal 

cost of production for manufacturers. 

Manufacturers can transfer some, or all, 

of the increased production cost to 

consumers through price increases.15 16

At the margins, some producers of a 

product may exit the market as a result 

of production cost increases where their 

increased marginal costs come to exceed 

the market price. At the same time, a 

fraction of consumers of that product 

are excluded from the market because 

the increased market price now exceeds 

their personal price threshold for 

purchasing. Deadweight loss 17 is the 

measure of the losses faced by these 

marginal producers and consumers, 

who are forced out of the market due to 

the new requirements of the proposed 

rule. For this analysis, staff estimated 

deadweight loss for each year the 

proposed rule is expected to have an 

impact on marginal cost and market 

price. The estimate assumes that 

producers based their production 

decisions on the long-term impacts of 

the rule on their cost of production. 

The following two subsections 

present the cost estimates for each of the 

two scenarios for compliance with the 

proposed rule. 

1. First Compliance Scenario: The Cost 

of Redesigned Floorboards 

This subsection presents cost 

estimates for the scenario that assumes 

all manufacturers install a fully 

redesigned floorboard on each new 

ROV/UTV to comply with the proposed 

rule. Manufacturers would also redesign 

all existing and future ROV/UTV 

models to allow proper installation of 

the redesigned floorboards. 

(a) Cost of Redesigning ROV/UTV 

Models 

Staff estimated the cost of redesigning 

all existing ROV/UTV models by 

multiplying the unit cost of redesigning 

each existing model by the number of 

ROV/UTV models to be redesigned. 

These factors are discussed in more 

detail below. As discussed earlier, the 

additional design cost to enable the 

installation of the redesigned 

floorboards on new ROV/UTV model 

designs is considered negligible; 

therefore, this section only presents cost 

estimates for the redesign of existing 

ROV/UTV models. 

i. Unit Cost of Redesigning ROV/UTV 

Models 

Staff estimated the unit cost of 

redesigning existing ROV/UTV models 

in two steps. First, staff estimated the 

unit cost of redesigning a single or 

‘‘first’’ model, before achieving any cost 

improvements.18 Second, staff 

developed a cost improvement curve to 

account for economies of scale in the 

redesign of a large number of models, 

and the efficiency gains from 

specialization and learning. 

Staff estimated the unit cost of the 

‘‘first’’ model using information from 

multiple sources, including laboratory 

tests performed to measure speeds and 

energy levels at which debris penetrate 

ROV/UTV floorboards.19 CPSC staff 

produced estimates of the cost of 

redesigning a ROV/UTV at each stage of 

the design process: 

Æ Cost of Design Labor 

Staff estimated it would require a 

team of two designers 1 month to 

produce a final blueprint of an ROV/ 

UTV model design that complies with 

the requirements of the proposed rule, 

or approximately a total of 347 hours.20

The average compensation rate of a 

designer is $63.96 per hour 21 for a total 

cost of $22,536 per redesigned model in 

2021 dollars. 

Æ Cost of Design Production 

Staff estimated the cost of fabrication 

of each floorboard at $2,000 per 

floorboard prototype. Staff estimated an 

average of three floorboard prototypes 

would be required per model redesign 

for a total production cost of $6,000 per 

model. 

Æ Cost of Design Validation 

Staff estimated 2 days of validation 

testing would be required per each 

redesigned ROV/UTV model for a total 

of $59,372 per model.22

Æ Cost of Compliance Testing 

Staff estimated that, on average, two 

ROV/UTV models would be tested per 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43706 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

23The cost of validation testing from the CPSC 

contract with SEA Ltd., is $27,714 per day as of 

September 2020. CPSC staff estimates a total of 

three validation tests can be performed per day of 

third-party validation testing; however, the logistics 

involved in validation testing may reduce it to an 

average of two tests per day. The cost per model in 

dollars as of the end of 2021 is then $14,843 

($27,714 per day/2 models per day × 278.802/ 

260.28). 

24 $102,751.34 = $22,535.89 (labor cost) + $6,000 

(floorboard fabrication) + $59,372.36 (validation 

testing) + $14,843.09 (compliance testing). 

25The traditional definition of ‘‘learning curves’’ 

—or more properly in this case, ‘‘cost improvement 

curves’’—is centered on the observation that the 

cost per unit is reduced by a certain percentage 

every time the number of units produced doubles. 

The most cited models are derived from T.P. Wright 

(1936—cumulative average unit cost) and J.R. 

Crawford (1944—specific unit cost). See footnote 26 

in Tab B of the staff briefing package for the 

functional form in both of these models. 

26For simplicity, staff assumed each of the 

redesign cost categories discussed here follows the 

same cost improvement trend. See footnote 27 in 

Tab B of the staff briefing package for the functional 

form of the cost improvement curve—or learning 

curve—used by staff. 

Cost improvement curves are usually estimated 

econometrically using available cost/manufacturing 

data; however, in the absence of such information, 

CPSC selected the cost improvement percentage 

based on cost improvement curves from similar 

activities and derived the parameters. 

27The number of models sold in each year of this 

period was estimated using the North American 

Utility Vehicle Sales from 1991 to 2019. It excludes 

ROV/UTV models designed for the use of children 

(i.e., ‘‘Minis’’). 

day of sled testing or $14,843 per 

redesigned model.23

Based on the unit costs, the total 

‘‘first’’ model cost per redesigned ROV/ 

UTV model is $102,751.24 This estimate 

is before the consideration of cost 

improvements from economies of scale 

and learning in model design.25 To 

account for cost improvements, as the 

number of ROV/UTV models that are 

redesigned increases, staff used a cost 

improvement curve. The improvement 

curve assumes that every time the 

number of units produced doubles, 

there is a 5.4 percent reduction in the 

average redesign cost per ROV/UTV 

model.26

Figure 14 shows the cost 

improvement trends for each of the 

design cost components discussed 

earlier: 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

The trends in the chart show that 

when manufacturers redesign 3,000 

ROV/UTV models in a particular year, 

the average redesign cost per model in 

that year would reach almost half the 

redesign cost of the ‘‘first’’ model 

(overall a cost of around $52,000 per 

model). 

Since the redesign cost of models 

varies with the number of models 

redesigned each year, it is pertinent to 

discuss—before the discussion of unit 

cost per model—the forecasted the 

number of models. 

ii. Number of Redesigned ROV/UTV 

Models 

Figure 15 shows the number of new 

models sold during the period 1991 

through 2019, as well as an estimate of 

the total number of ROV/UTV models in 

use by consumers during the same 

period.27 For instance, in 2019, a total 

of 107 new models were introduced; the 

same year, an estimated 672 models 

were in use by ROV/UTV owners/users. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.015</GPH>

Figure 14: Redesign Cost Improvement Curve- Scenario I (Redesign Floorboards) 

! 

I 

I I $10,000 I $60,000 

! $50,000 

$40,000 

$30,000 

$20;000 

$10,000 

$0 

. 

0 

Cost Improvement Curve .. ROV/UTV 

--s-,--="'"'·"Mfdel--Re,-lesign-,-r--~---~r"--~,~~,~-··~ 

500 1,000 1;500 2;000 2;500 3,000 

i • • • • • Design Materials. - Design Labor Nt.onl>er of Units 

I - Design Validation - ·• Compliance Testing 

-~~-~---· ~--~--~----------' 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43707 

28Exponential smoothing is a time series 

forecasting technique that produces projections that 

are weighted averages of past observations, with 

weights that decay exponentially as the 

observations get older. More recent observations 

are, therefore, assigned heavier weights and carry 

more importance in the forecast. 

29CPSC staff developed two sets of forecasts, the 

first set (or baseline forecast) assumes no impacts 

from the proposed rule, while the second set 

considers a small reduction in the number of 

models as a result of the market impacts of 

introducing the proposed rule. Because the cost 

impacts of the proposed rule are relatively small, 

the difference between the two sets of forecasts are 

small and not noticeable in the chart below. 

30A two-parameter gamma distribution was used 

to forecast model survival rates with a shape 

parameter of 5 and scale parameter of 1. These 

distribution parameters are consistent with a mean 

model duration of 5 years, which was estimated 

subtracting the year of model introduction from the 

year the model was discontinued from the North 

American Utility Vehicle Sales database. The 

distribution of model life rates mentioned above is 

the converse of the distribution of model survival 

rates. 

31Starting on the year of implementation of the 

rule (expected in 2024), all existing and new 

models will have to include a floorboard solution 

that complies with the requirements of the new 

standard to be sold to new/prospective ROV/UTV 

customers. Given the incremental cost of designing 

new models is negligible, the redesign cost is only 

estimated for existing models requiring new 

blueprints that enable the installation of the 

redesigned floorboards. 

Staff forecasted the number of new 

models every year in the 30-year study 

period by applying exponential 

smoothing forecasting techniques 28 to 

the number of new models produced.29

Then, staff used the forecast of the 

number of models to estimate how 

many models would be in use in every 

year in the 30-year study period by 

applying a statistical distribution of 

model life rates 30 based on the average 

number of years a model is offered for 

sale in the market for new ROVs/UTVs. 

Figure 16 shows the number of new 

models sold and the number of models 

in use during each year within the 30- 

year study period. In 2023, a year before 

the assumed implementation of the 

proposed rule, the number of ROV/UTV 

models in use is 762. This is the number 

of existing models that manufacturers 

would be required to redesign.31 Staff 

assumed for purposes of this analysis 

that redesign of all existing models 

would occur over 2 years, from 2024 to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.016</GPH> EP21JY22.017</GPH>

Figure 15: Number of Models for Sale and Total Models in Use __ 

New Models Sold Each Year and Total Existing 

Models 

800 

700 --- · ••<>- -····· -

600 

500 - --- ,_, - ..... , 

400 ----- "" - - ,_ -----

300 ---•-· _, --• .,. 

200 ........ -'" 

100 

0 

-New ROV/UTV Models -Existing ROV/UTV Models 

Fig11re 16: Fore~ast of 1\1:odelsfor Sale_ and Total 1\1:odels in Use __ _ 

Forecast of Models Sold Each Year and Total 

Models in Use 

2,000 

l.,500 

1,000 

New nowurv Mod11,l, 1i1111e-11ne - ..,. New ROV/tl"IV M!ld.itl$ f1rt>P01!1l!d Rule l 

-- .... • • ••··· .... E.-1•_~!1! .. ~_CI_V!':J"'Y. ~~-~- !!"!_._.,_!. ~ £)tl•,~.~'~'~'C?Y!~~~-,~-~,,~---~~f:l~!~,,,'~~-~ '_! 
43708 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

32As discussed, the additional cost of installing 

redesigned floorboards on new ROVs/UTVs is 

considered negligible; therefore, this section only 

presents cost estimates for the additional 

production costs (more specifically the additional 

materials) of the redesigned floorboards. 

33The traditional definition of ‘‘learning 

curves’’—or more properly in this case ‘‘cost 

improvement curves’’—is centered on the 

observation that the cost per unit is reduced by a 

certain percentage every time the number of units 

produced doubles. The most cited models are 

derived from T.P. Wright (1936—cumulative 

average unit cost) and J.R. Crawford (1944—specific 

unit cost). See footnote 34 in Tab B of the staff 

briefing package for the functional form in both of 

these models. 

34CPSC Study of Debris Penetration of 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Floorboards 

conducted under contract by SEA Ltd., in 2020/ 

2021. SEA tested multiple floorboards, a floorboard 

that successfully resisted debris penetration at 10 

mph was purchased for $259 in August 2021. This 

estimate was brought forward to the end of 2021, 

using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban 

Consumers ($263.96 = $259 × 278.802/273.567). 

35See footnote 36 in Tab B of the staff briefing 

package for an explanation of the calculation. 

2025, at 381 models per year. Although 

the proposed effective date for the draft 

rule is 180 days after promulgation, staff 

assumed manufacturers would prioritize 

redesigning the most popular models 

before the effective date. Staff welcomes 

public comment on the redesign process 

of ROV and UTV models and the 

rapidity with which this is able to 

occur. 

Due to cost improvements associated 

with redesigning a relatively large 

number of ROV/UTV models, (381) in 

each of the first 2 years, staff estimated 

the initial cost per model redesign to 

drop from $102,751 to an average of 

$53,877 each year. Therefore, the 

industry incurs a redesign cost of $20.51 

million in 2024 and 2025, respectively. 

The total redesign costs over the 30-year 

study period are $41.02 million. The 

total redesign costs are equivalent to a 

present value of $39.24 million at a 3 

percent discount rate. Table 5 

summarizes the ROV/UTV redesign cost 

under the redesigned floorboard 

scenario: 

TABLE 5—REDESIGN COSTS IN SCENARIO I 

[Redesign floorboards] 

Redesigned floorboard scenario 

Cost per 

redesign 

model 

($M) 

Number of 

ROV/UTV 

models 

ROV/UTV 

redesign 

cost 

($M) 

2024 ............................................................................................................................................. $0.054 381 $20.51 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.054 381 20.51 

Overall .......................................................................................................................................... 0.054 762 41.02 

Present Value .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 39.24 

(b) Cost of Manufacturing a ROV/UTV 

Floorboard Solution 

Staff estimated the cost of producing 

and installing 32 redesigned ROV/UTV 

floorboards on all new ROVs/UTVs 

manufactured after the implementation 

of the proposed rule, by multiplying the 

unit cost of each floorboard by the 

number of floorboards to be installed. 

These components are discussed in 

more detail below. 

i. Unit Cost of Redesigning Floorboards 

Staff estimated the unit cost of the 

redesigned ROV/UTV floorboard in two 

steps. First, staff used unit costs 

informed by laboratory tests performed 

to measure floorboard resistance at 

different speeds, for the additional cost 

of production and materials as the cost 

of the ‘‘first’’ redesigned floorboard in 

the cost improvement curve.33 Second, 

staff produced an estimate of the 

average additional cost per floorboard 

once manufacturers started producing 

compliant floorboards in large 

quantities; the cost-improvement curve 

to render estimates in line with the 

subject matter experts in CPSC’s 

Directorate for Engineering assessed 

would be the cost after economies of 

scale take effect. 

Staff estimated the incremental cost of 

the ‘‘first’’ ROV/UTV floorboard using 

information from laboratory tests 

performed to measure debris 

penetration resistance of ROV/UTV 

floorboards. Staff estimated the cost of 

a floorboard resistant to debris 

penetration at 10 mph to be $264.34 Staff 

then produced an estimate of the cost of 

the redesigned floorboard considering 

cost improvements from economies of 

scale, as well as other considerations, 

like the reuse of most of the material 

contained in existing floorboards. The 

average incremental cost per floorboard 

under these conditions is not expected 

to exceed $10 per floorboard. 

Staff calibrated a cost improvement 

curve that assumes each time the 

number of floorboards produced 

doubles, there is a 15.9 percent 

reduction in the average floorboard 

cost.35 Figure 17 shows the cost 

improvement curve at different scales of 

floorboard production: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43709 

36Staff estimated the number of ROVs/UTVs sold 

each year during the period 1998 to 2019, using the 

North American Utility Vehicle Sales database. For 

the purpose of the analysis, the number of vehicles 

excludes ROVs/UTVs sold for the use of children 

(e.g., ROV/UTV ‘‘Minis’’). 

Figure 17 shows that with 100,000 

floorboards produced, the average cost 

drops to less than $15 per redesigned 

floorboard. In most years, sales of new 

ROV/UTVs are above 500,000 units, 

which the cost improvement curve 

correlates to an average additional cost 

of less than $10 per redesigned 

floorboard. The average floorboard cost 

is, as shown in the chart, dependent on 

the number of sales per year, which is 

discussed below. 

ii. Number of ROVs/UTVs Sold 

Figure 18 shows the number of new 

ROVs/UTVs sold during the period 1998 

through 2019, as well as an estimate of 

the total number of ROVs/UTVs in use 

during the same period.36 During 2019, 

firms sold 429,135 new ROVs/UTVs to 

consumers, and the number of ROVs/ 

UTVs in use during the same year 

averaged 2.34 million. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.018</GPH>

$300.0 

$250.0 

· $200.0 

$150.0 

$300.0 

$50.0 

$0.0 

Figure 17: Prod/Materials Cost Improvement Curve - Scenario I (Redesigned 

Floorboards) 

Cost Improvement Curve - ROV/UTV Prod / Materials 

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 
43710 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

37CPSC staff developed two sets of ROV/UTV 

forecasts, the first set (or baseline forecast) assumes 

no impacts from the proposed rule, while the 

second set considers a small reduction in the 

number of ROVs/UTVs from the market impacts of 

the proposed rule. Because the cost impacts of the 

proposed rule are relatively small, the difference 

between the two sets of forecasts is small and not 

noticeable. 

38A two-parameter gamma distribution was used 

to forecast ROV/UTV survival rates with shape 

parameter of 6 and scale parameter of 1 

corresponding to a mean ROV/UTV duration of 6 

years. The distribution of product life rates 

mentioned in the paragraph above is the reciprocal 

of the distribution of survival rates. 

Staff used exponential smoothing 

techniques to forecast the number of 

new ROV/UTV sales within the 30-year 

study period.37 Staff also forecasted the 

number of ROVs/UTVs in use by 

applying a statistical distribution of 

product life rates 38 to the fleet. 

Figure 19 shows ROVs/UTVs sales 

and the number of ROVs/UTVs in use 

during the 30-year study period. Since 

each new ROV/UTV sold requires a 

redesigned floorboard, the number of 

floorboards to be fabricated is 

equivalent to the number of units sold 

during the period 2024 to 2053. Figure 

20 shows the number of floorboards 

produced over time and the 

corresponding (undiscounted) cost per 

unit. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.019</GPH> EP21JY22.020</GPH>

Figure 18: ROV/UTVs Sold and in Use Each Year.~ Sce11ario I (Redesigned Floorboards) 

New ROV/UTVs Sold & In-Use Each Vear 

2,500,000 

2,000,000 

l .. ,500,000 

l.,000,000 

500,000 

0 

_, New ROV/UTVs -ROV/UTVs in Use 

Figure 19: Forecast ofROV/UTVs Sales and ROV/UTVs in Use- Scenario I (Redesigned 

Floo~~o_a_rd_s=)--~-~---~-~ 

!s,000,000 

Forecast of ROV/UTVs Sales & ROV/UTVs In Use 

~-~ .... ~ .... ~ 

~-~,.,_~ .... ~,....~,-..·~·~~-

0 "" v~~•·« -~-•.-•~•-•·"""-~ = -•-• «.•-~• ., __ , "*""- .. ,, .. ,_,m-" .•••• yy 

2020 2025 2030 

"'-'~~~~-- ROV/UTV Sales Baseline 

--••*"" ROV/UTVs lnUse Baseline 

2035 2040 2045 2050 

- ROV/UTV Sales Proposed Rufe 

-ROV/UTVs In Use Praposed Rule 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43711 

The total cost of producing and 

installing redesigned floorboards in 

every new ROV/UTV is $227.09 million 

over the 30-year study period. The 

equivalent present value at a 3 percent 

discount rate is $142.15 million. Table 

6 summarizes these costs: 

TABLE 6—ADDITIONAL COST OF FLOORBOARDS ON ROV/UTVS—SCENARIO I 

[Redesigned floorboards] 

Redesigned floorboard scenario 

Average cost 

per redesigned 

floorboard 

($) 

Millions of new 

ROVs/UTVs 

with 

redesigned 

floorboards 

Cost 

of redesigned 

floorboards on 

ROVs/UTVs 

($M) 

2024–2053 ................................................................................................................................... $9.04 25.12 $227.09 

Present Value .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 142.15 

The total cost of implementing the 

redesigned floorboard fix for debris 

penetration is summarized in Table 7: 

TABLE 7—REDESIGN AND PRODUCTION COST—SCENARIO I 

[Redesigned floorboards] 

Cost of redesigned floorboard fix 

Average cost 

per ROV/UTV 

($) 

Millions of new 

ROVs/UTVs 

Cost of 

redesigned 

floorboards 

($M) 

Present value 

($M) 

Cost of Redesigning Existing Models .............................................................. $1.63 25.12 $41.02 $39.24 

Cost of Producing Redesigned Floorboards ................................................... 9.04 25.12 227.09 142.15 

Cost of Redesigning Floorboard Fix ................................................................ 10.67 25.12 268.11 181.39 

(c) Deadweight Loss 

To produce an estimate of the marketrelated losses to producers and 

consumers, staff estimated the annual 

average increased cost of production, 

the resulting increase in average prices, 

and reduction in volumes traded in the 

ROV/UTV market. Staff then used those 

estimates to calculate the deadweight 

loss for each year in the 30-year study 

period. 

Staff assumed that manufacturers 

would increase prices in response to 

changes in the average long-term 

variable costs of producing ROVs/UTVs. 

Staff calculated the expected changes in 

long-term variable costs by spreading 

the spikes in short-term costs from 

complying with the proposed rule, as 

shown in Figure 21: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.021</GPH>

Figure 20: Redesigned Floorboard Unit Cost by Production Volume - Scenario I 

. ··-·- ··--- __ ........ .. .....(Rede~igned. Floorboards) ····-·········· ··-·--

Redesigned Floorboard Unit Cost vs Number of 

Units Produced 

$11.0 ~-·-•-~···-······~-.--.,, ••..• ,.~---··-·····•····-······--·· ...... , ... ,,,., .. ~•·········-·······-·····-······•····•·-······· 

$10.5 r·-·-•·•··•····-~·••·>···~·····•-·•-•-•-•··+-----·•·•···~····-·-··•·l--·-··-•--·•··••~~---•··----··~••··• 

• $10.0 •••····•--·-•·••·---· ·-·"ZQi!t!J-••« ... ·•-+··-·::-c::•:c•c°•'•··--··..h-•w,.·•··-·~·•···--·+·······•·•··-··-·~·····l 

2039 

$95 ~--·--~---~--------~--~-1~-~--~--~-~--··-·-·~---...--~.~~ 

$9~ r----··•~-~~------·•-F~---·•~·•·+--·•~•-•---•---•-••·=-=; ••••• 

~5 j.-.--~-----~-~------··--•-·---···-··~----·------~-·~ 

$8.0 1·-··•··•·--·······•~······•···· ....... ,-•,·····•··••···•··~+--·····-···--···••·•···+·····••·•··--·-•"•'''·, ...... -·~·-········----·~' 

~5 ~~~-------~~·~-·~·~·~---•~"··--~-·~-~-----~·····-~··-·--~-·-

~.o tc·~····-······••«~~·r·--·····-"'""-··-··, .. --•--"'·'''"'"'"""•···-··•.--«•··•·•"""'·"-·•""'·-·······•-·-«<·"'-••, 

$65 J,., ...... ~~-~-...c.~-•~-•-~·•-~---~··--~~•--·~--~~-~~----~·----•4 

$6.0 "'-----"---------~---~-----' 

500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 
43712 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

39The effective market impact is likely to include 

a markup to cover the wholesalers’ distribution 

costs. The 38 percent markup comes from Goldberg 

1995. 

40Average annual prices were estimated using the 

North American Utility Vehicle Sales database. 

Prices of ROV/UTV designed for the use of children 

were excluded from the weighted price average. 

41Prices were brought forward using the 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

42See footnote 43 in Tab B of the staff briefing 

package for formula used to estimate the price 

impact. 

Staff augmented the average long-term 

cost per ROV/UTV redesigned 

floorboard shown in Figure 19 by a 38 

percent 39 wholesaler distribution 

markup. This simulates the market 

impact that the proposed rule has on the 

ROV/UTV supply curve. 

Staff adjusted the average annual 

prices from the period 2004 to 2019,40

to constant 2021 dollars,41 and then 

forecasted prices for the 30-year study 

period using exponential smoothing. 

The charts in Figure 22 show the prices 

in baseline conditions (assuming no 

proposed rule in effect) forecasted 

through 2053, as well as the price 

impacts of the proposed implementation 

of the rule. 

The impact of the rule on the ROV/ 

UTV price is very small, accounting for 

less than 0.03 percent of the average 

market price.42 Consequently, the 

change in market volume is also very 

small. The small price and quantity 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.022</GPH> EP21JY22.023</GPH>

Figure 21: Long-Term Impact of Short-Term Cost Spikes - Scenario I (Redesigned 

Floorboards) 

Impact of Short-Term Cost Spikes on long-l"erm 

$60 ____ , ____________________ Variable Costs , 

$50• ,-~,,,...sc..-_, ,•-~" ~ .A~:,JDcre:asttln:Sh$~Jt~TermCqst$ lli!r: ROVA,ITV" ··" "' 

...., -Avg. lncre~e in ROV/UTV Long-Term Variable Costs 

$20, + ¥' Y ' "' -~~"' ,_.s,~0 h ', , , , ,, , f0~ •n-~0/0 C ''• •> 

$11.5 I $9.8 Ao·· ,-,~:L~,,~,.,._.J;w:~~:~~-.~"tTMa1m~kw21a•w ·TM ,,,,~ - - ~ $8.2: 

2024 2029 2034 2,{B9 2044 2049 

l 

l 

I 

I 

Figure 22: Price Im acts from the Rule Under Scenario I Redesigned Floorboards) 

ROV + UTV - Price Impacts from Proposed Rule VI $10 -"••··--·-------------~-------- 1 

.s:: ~ ~ ----------------------- u 

~ ~ ------------------------ -~ 

Q. ,$7 

$6 

$5 ·•-,-•-·-•-'-, ---

$4 ------••' ' ,._._ __ -·-$3:liT"--···, '' ,,,. 

✓-- - , .. -, ,- - - $3.12 __________ L_ _________ -=" ... "'IL, 

$3 

$2 _________ , 

$1 

$0 , ________ ,-------------~--~ 

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43713 

43The additional design cost to enable the 

installation of the floorboard guards on new ROV/ 

UTV model designs is considered negligible. This 

section focuses only in the costs of redesigning 

existing ROV/UTV models. 44Costs improvements are expected as fixed costs 

spread over additional model redesigns, and the 

level of experience and specialization redesigning 

ROV/UTV models for floorboard debris penetration 

increases. 45CPSC Study of Debris Penetration of 

Recreational Off-Highway Vehicle Floorboards 

conducted under contract by SEA Limited in 2020/ 

2021. 46CPSC staff estimated each redesign would take 

up to two-person months, with a maximum of four 

months and a minimum of one month (Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking to Establish a Safety Standard 

for Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles. September 

2014). Two-person months are equivalent to 346.67 

hours: the average number of hours per month of 

173.33 (40 hours a week × 52 weeks a year/12 

months) times 2. 47The average total hourly compensation for 

management, professional, and related workers was 

estimated as of September 2021 at $63.96 (BLS, 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm). 

The total cost for two-person months as of 

September 2021 is then $22,172.8 (346.67 hours 

times $63.96). Adjusted by the CPI price index, this 

estimate increases to $22,535.89 ($22,172.8 x 

278.802/274.31) as of December 2021 (CPI–U, ID: 

CUUR0000SA0, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/ 

surveymost?cu). 

48Conducted by SEA Limited under contract with 

CPSC (Debris Penetration of ROVs Floorboards). 

49 Ibid. SEA Ltd., conducted 5 days of validation 

testing for a total cost of $138,570, or $27,714 per 

day as of September 2020. The cost of 2 days of 

testing brought forward to the end of 2021, using 

the CPI price index for all urban consumers, is 

$59,732.36 ($27,714 per day × 2 days × 278.802/ 

260.28). 

50The cost per day of sled testing, as provided by 

SEA Ltd., was $27,714 as of September 2020. CPSC 

staff estimates that, on average, two models would 

be tested per day. The cost per model as of the end 

of 2021 is then $14,843 ($27,714 per day/2 models 

per day × 278.802/260.28). 

51 $98,251.34 = $22,535.89 (labor cost) + $1,500 

(floorboard fabrication) + $59,372.36 (validation 

testing) + $14,843.09 (compliance testing). 

52CPSC staff assume the same cost trends for each 

design cost category. See footnote 53 in Tab B of 

the staff briefing package for the formula used to 

estimate the slope of the cost improvement curve. 

impacts result in deadweight losses 

under $6,000 per year, and aggregate to 

approximately $160,000 over the 30- 

year study period. In the context of this 

proposed rule, deadweight loss is not a 

significant cost and is likely to be 

masked by other economic factors. 

(d) Total Cost Under First Compliance 

Scenario: Redesigned Floorboard 

Table 8 summarizes the cost of the 

first compliance scenario: the design 

and production of redesigned 

floorboards. 

TABLE 8—TOTAL COST OF ROV/UTV FIX—SCENARIO I 

[Redesigned floorboards] 

Cost of redesigned floorboard fix ($M) Total cost Present value 

Cost of Redesigning Existing Models ...................................................................................................................... $41.02 $39.24 

Cost of Production of Redesigned Floorboards ...................................................................................................... 227.09 142.15 

Deadweight Loss ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.16 0.10 

Cost of First Compliance Scenario .......................................................................................................................... 268.26 181.49 

2. Second Compliance Scenario: The 

Cost of a Floorboard Guard 

This subsection presents cost 

estimates for the scenario that all 

manufacturers produce and install a 

floorboard guard under the floorboard to 

comply with the proposed rule. 

Manufacturers would redesign 

floorboards to add a 2′ x 2′ x 0.19′′ 

aluminum piece that can prevent debris 

penetration. Manufacturers would also 

have to redesign all existing and future 

ROV/UTV models to allow proper 

installation of the floorboard guard. 

(a) Cost of Redesigning ROV/UTV 

Models 

Staff estimated the cost of redesigning 

all existing ROV/UTV models to allow 

for the installation of floorboard guards 

by multiplying the unit cost of 

redesigning each existing model 43 by 

the number of ROV/UTV models to be 

redesigned. These two cost elements are 

discussed in more detail below. 

i. Unit Cost of Redesigning ROV/UTV 

Models 

Like the estimation method used with 

the first compliance scenario, staff 

estimated the unit cost of redesigning 

existing ROV/UTV models in two steps. 

First, staff estimated the unit cost of 

redesigning a single or ‘‘first’’ model 

before cost improvements. Second, staff 

developed a cost improvement curve to 

account for the diminishing cost of 

redesigning through economies of 

scale.44

Staff developed the unit cost of the 

‘‘first’’ ROV/UTV model redesign from 

related studies and reports, including a 

set of laboratory tests performed to 

measure floorboard resistance at 

different speeds.45 Staff produced unit 

cost estimates for four stages in the 

design process: 

Æ Cost of Design Labor 

Staff estimated it would take two 

designers 1 month to produce final 

blueprints, or approximately 347 

hours.46 The average compensation rate 

for a designer is $63.96 per hour for a 

total cost of $22,536 per redesigned 

ROV/UTV model in 2021 dollars.47

Æ Cost of Design Production 

Staff used information from its study 

on debris penetration 48 to produce an 

estimate of the cost per floorboard 

prototype at $500. Assuming an average 

of three floorboard prototypes per ROV/ 

UTV model redesign, staff estimated a 

total production cost of $1,500 per 

redesigned model. 

Æ Cost of Design Validation 

Staff estimated 2 days of validation 

testing per each redesigned ROV/UTV 

model for a total of $59,372.49

Æ Cost of Compliance Testing 

Staff estimated that, on average, two 

ROV/UTV models would be tested using 

the test sled method at $14,843 per 

model.50

Based on these inputs, staff estimated 

the total cost per ‘‘first’’ redesigned 

model is $98,251.51 This is before 

considering the cost improvement from 

scale, specialization, and learning. Staff 

then used a cost improvement curve 

that calculates a 5.4 percent reduction 

in per-unit cost every time the number 

of units redesigned doubles.52

Figure 23 shows the cost 

improvement trends for each of the 

design cost components discussed 

earlier: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43714 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

53The same baseline number of models is used 

for both compliance scenarios (see baseline data 

and forecast in the corresponding section of the first 

compliance scenario -‘‘redesign floorboards’’- for 

additional context). The number of models sold in 

each year of this period was estimated using the 

North American Utility Vehicle Sales from 1991 to 

2019, excluding models design for children. 

54CPSC staff developed a second set of forecasts 

from the baseline forecast by considering the market 

impacts of the proposed rule. Due to the relatively 

small cost impacts of the proposed rule, the 

difference between the two sets of forecasts is not 

noticeable in the chart. 

55As discussed, a two-parameter gamma 

distribution was used to forecast model survival 

rates with shape parameter of 5 and scale parameter 

of 1, consistent with an estimated mean model 

duration of 5 years. The model life rates 

distribution is the converse of the model survival 

rates distribution. 

56All existing and new models will have to 

include a floorboard solution—a floorboard guard 

in this case that complies with the requirements of 

the new standard—in order to be sold to new/ 

prospective ROV/UTV customers. However, the 

additional cost of redesigning new models is 

considered negligible based on discussions with 

manufacturers, so the focus of the estimate is on 

redesigned existing models only. 

57Like the first compliance scenario, the 

additional cost of installing floorboard guards in 

new ROVs/UTVs is considered negligible. The 

focus of the section is on the additional production 

costs of floorboard guards (more specifically the 

additional materials). 

The average redesign cost per model 

is dependent on the number of models 

redesigned each year, which is 

discussed in the following section. 

ii. Number of Redesigned ROV/UTV 

Models 

Staff used the same forecast of the 

number of new models introduced each 

year and number of models in use by 

consumers for this compliance scenario 

as in the redesigned floorboard 

scenario.53 The baseline data in 2019 

reveals 107 new ROV/UTV models 

introduced and 672 existing ROV/UTV 

models used by consumers. 

Staff used the baseline forecast of the 

number of new models to produce an 

estimate of new models that would need 

to be redesigned under the proposed 

rule.54 Then, staff used the forecasted 

number of new models to estimate the 

number of redesigned models in use 

every year throughout the 30-year study 

period by applying a statistical 

distribution of model life rates.55

The forecast matches almost exactly 

the chart shown in Figure 16 with 762 

ROV/UTV models in use in 2023. This 

value is the number of existing models 

that manufacturers would be required to 

redesign.56 Staff assumed that 

manufacturers would spread the 

redesign activities over a period of 2 

years, at 381 ROV/UTV models per year. 

The improvement over the cost of the 

‘‘first’’ redesigned model would bring 

down the average cost per model from 

$98,251 to an average of $51,042 each 

year. Consequently, the ROV/UTV 

industry would incur redesign costs of 

$19.43 million in 2024 and 2025, 

respectively, as shown in Table 9: 

TABLE 9—REDESIGN COSTS IN SCENARIO II 

[Floorboard guards] 

Floorboard guard scenario 

Cost per 

redesigned 

model ($M) 

Number of 

ROV/UTV 

models 

ROV/UTV 

industry cost 

($M) 

2024 ............................................................................................................................................. $0.051 381 $19.43 

2025 ............................................................................................................................................. 0.051 381 19.43 

Overall .......................................................................................................................................... 0.051 762 38.87 

Present Value .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 37.19 

(b) Cost of Manufacturing ROV/UTV 

Floorboard Guards 

Staff estimated the cost of producing 

and installing 57 floorboards with 

floorboard guards on all new ROVs/ 

UTVs by multiplying the additional cost 

per floorboard guards by the number of 

new ROVs/UTVs that would have a 

floorboard guard installed. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.024</GPH>

Figure 23:_ Redesign_Cost Improvement Curve- Scenario H (Floorboard Guards) 

Cost Improvement Curve .. ROV/UTV 

I s10,ooo 

I $60,000 

! $50,000 f 

j $40,000 

! 

! $230,000 

i i $20,000 i I s10,ooo ! 

' $0 

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 

• • • • • Design Materials - Design labor Number of Units 

i - Design Validation '""""" • Compliance Testing , 

Lv··· ·····~····a··~.'~_··• --,,~.......,,..,. _ _,,_~.= _.,· ,,,,,____,_~......_.....,..,,. .. ~~--,,._~·~- ··-"""°"'....,..._....,,_·,,_.~..,."''""-,.,..,,.,..---.""',,.,__...~"'---"""'···-._.,· -~~--•-:·_ ····-'=<>-,1 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43715 

58Cost improvements are expected due to process 

improvements and reuse of designs, additional 

learning and experience in the production process, 

and economies of scale in the acquisition of 

materials. 

59CPSC staff estimate this cost applying a 50% 

manufacturer discount to the Grainger retail price 

for an aluminum sheet of these characteristics, price 

at $102.17 as of the end of 2021. 

60See footnote 61 in Tab B of the staff briefing 

package for the formula used to estimate the cost 

improvement curve. 61The number of ROVs/UTVs sold each year from 

1998 to 2019, was estimated using the North 

American Utility Vehicle Sales database; it excludes 

ROVs/UTVs sold for the use of children (e.g., the 

‘‘Mini’’). The baseline data and forecasts applied to 

both compliance scenarios. 

62CPSC staff developed a second set of forecasts 

subtracting from the baseline forecast of sales the 

volume impacts of the proposed rule. Due to the 

relatively small price, and hence, volume impacts 

of the proposed rule, the difference between the two 

sets of forecasts is barely noticeable. 

63A two-parameter gamma distribution was used 

to forecast ROV/UTV survival rates with a shape 

parameter of 6 and a scale parameter of 1, 

corresponding to a mean ROV/UTV duration of 6 

years. The distribution of product life rates is the 

converse of the distribution of survival rates. 

i. Unit Cost of Adding a Floorboard 

Guard 

Staff estimated the unit cost of adding 

floorboard guards to floorboards in two 

steps. First, staff estimated the 

additional cost of the ‘‘first’’ floorboard 

with a floorboard guard in it, before any 

cost improvements.58 Second, staff 

developed an estimate of the average 

cost of a floorboard using a floorboard 

guard considering the efficiencies from 

economies of scale, by calibrating and 

applying a cost improvement curve. 

Staff estimated the incremental cost of 

the ‘‘first’’ floorboard with a floorboard 

guard to be $51.09, based on the cost of 

the materials considering a 2′ x 2′ x 0.19′ 

aluminum sheet.59 Staff then applied 

the cost curve, which calculates a 5.5 

percent reduction in average cost every 

time the number of ROVs/UTVs with a 

floorboard guard doubles.60

Figure 24 shows the cost 

improvement curve at different scales of 

production: 

This chart shows that with 100,000 

floorboards produced, the cost drops to 

an average of about $20. In most years, 

the sales of new ROV/UTVs are greater 

than 500,000 units, which reduces the 

average cost to slightly above $17 per 

new ROV/UTV. 

ii. Number of ROVs/UTVs Sold 

The baseline forecasts of sale volumes 

of new ROVs/UTVs and the number of 

ROVs/UTVs in use by consumers in 

section VIII.D.1.(a)(ii), Number of 

Redesigned ROV/UTV Models, are also 

applicable to this compliance 

scenario.61 The baseline data in 2019 

show 429,135 new ROVs/UTVs sold and 

2.3 million ROVs/UTVs in use by 

consumers. 

Staff used the baseline forecast of the 

number of new ROVs/UTVs to produce 

an estimate of new ROVs/UTVs under 

the proposed rule.62 Staff also forecasted 

the number of ROVs/UTVs in use by 

applying a statistical distribution of 

product life rates 63 to the total fleet. The 

forecasted volumes match, almost 

exactly, the volumes shown in Figure 

16. Additionally, Figure 25 shows the 

number of floorboards produced over 

time and the corresponding cost per 

unit. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.025</GPH>

Figure 24: Prod/Materials Cost Improvement Curve - Scenario II (Floorboard Guards) 

Cost Improvement Curve - ROV/UTV Prod/ Materials 

$60.0 

• $40.0 

, $30.0 

: $20.0 

$10.0 

$0.0 

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 
43716 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

64Note that the number of ROVs/UTVs equipped 

with floorboards containing deflectors shields is 

slightly below the number of ROVs/UTVs under the 

first alternative with ‘‘redesigned floorboards.’’ The 

reason for this slight difference is that the 

implementation of the floorboard guard solution is 

slightly more expensive, causing a slimly steeper 

increase in prices, and hence, a slightly reduced 

sales volume. 

To calculate the total incremental cost 

of producing and installing floorboard 

guards in every new ROV/UTV over the 

30-year study period, staff multiplied 

the average cost of a floorboard guard by 

the number of ROVs/UTVs produced. 

Staff calculated this cost to be $430.33 

million. The equivalent present value at 

a 3 percent discount rate is $266.94 

million. Table 10 summarizes the cost of 

producing ROV/UTV floorboards with 

floorboard guards: 64

TABLE 10—ADDITIONAL COST OF FLOORBOARDS ON ROV/UTVS—SCENARIO II 

[Floorboard guards] 

Floorboard guard scenario 

Average cost 

per 

floorboard 

guard 

Millions of new 

ROVs/UTVs 

with 

floorboard 

guard 

Cost of 

floorboard 

guard ($M) 

2024–2053 ................................................................................................................................... $17.14 25.10 $430.33 

Present Value .............................................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 266.94 

Table 11 summarizes the total cost of 

implementing the floorboard guards fix 

to debris penetration over the 30-year 

study period: 

TABLE 11—REDESIGN AND PRODUCTION COST—SCENARIO II 

[Floorboard guards] 

Cost of floorboard guard scenario Average cost 

per ROV/UTV 

Millions of 

new ROVs/ 

UTVs 

Cost of 

floorboard 

guard 

($M) 

Present value 

($M) 

Cost of Redesigning Existing Models .............................................................. $1.55 25.10 $38.87 $37.19 

Cost of Producing Redesigned Floorboards ................................................... 17.14 25.10 430.33 266.94 

Cost of Redesigning Floorboard Fix ................................................................ 18.69 25.10 469.20 304.13 

(c) Deadweight Loss 

Like the first compliance scenario, 

staff estimated the annual average 

increased cost of production associated 

with the new standard, the resulting 

increase in average prices, and 

reduction in volumes traded in the 

ROV/UTV market. Then, staff used 

those estimates to calculate the 

deadweight loss for each year of the 

analysis. 

Staff calculated the expected changes 

in long-term variable costs by spreading 

out the spikes in short-term costs, as 

shown in Figure 26: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.026</GPH>

Figure 25: Additional Floorboard Unit Cost by Production Volume- Scenario II 

~~~~ ____ _ __ _ (Floorboard Guards) _ .. ----- _________ _ 

Floorboard Guards Unit Cost vs Number of Units 

Produced 

2024 

I $17.5 i...·•·---····-···~----, •• .. •-·•-··--···O"'···-·-------·--··~+-----.•-·-·· .. ..,., .. ~----- --------···---·----·---·····•--0 

$16.5 

j $16.0 _____________ ....._ ________ ....., 

500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43717 

65 Goldberg 1995. 66See footnote 67 in Tab B of the staff briefing 

package for the formula used to estimate the price 

impact. 

Then, staff augmented the estimated 

long-term cost presented in Figure 22 by 

a 38 percent 65 wholesaler distribution 

markup to simulate the market impact 

of the proposed rule on the ROV/UTV 

supply curve. 

Staff used the same forecasted 

baseline prices used in the first 

scenario–along with price sensitivities 

of demand and supply–to estimate price 

impacts of the proposed rule in this 

scenario. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

As Figure 27 shows, the impact of the 

proposed rule on the ROV/UTV price is 

slightly higher than in the first 

compliance scenario, but it is still very 

small, accounting for less than 0.045 

percent of the average market price.66

Consequently, the change in market 

volume would also be very small. The 

small price and quantity impacts result 

in deadweight losses per year under 

$20,000, and aggregates to 

approximately $470,000 over the 30- 

year study period. In the context of this 

proposed rule, the impact of deadweight 

loss is not significant. 

(d) Total Cost Under Second 

Compliance Scenario: Floorboard 

Guards 

Table 12 summarizes the total cost of 

the second compliance scenario over the 

30-year study period. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.027</GPH> EP21JY22.028</GPH>

Figure 26: Long-Term Impact of Short-Term Cost Spikes - Scenario II (Floorboard 

Guards) 

Impact of Short-Term Cost. Spikes on Long-Term 

Variable Costs 

·$60·· "$54.1 -00·0 0c----•;.,..;, ... ,~.-----........ -· 

SW -~---------·.,,.._A,1(&,_ll'.ltm..<tSe i_tt~m:.t:Iit.tl'!l.hQ~.R~CftQYlfil)L_ .. __ ~ 

$40 ., ........ } -Avg. Increase in ROV/UlV long-Term Variable Costs 

iii.:.l\. 

$18,2 ) .. , 

--\ $.10 ________________________ _.$=--16.6 

2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 

Figure 27: Price Impacts from the Rule Under Scenario II (Floorboard Guards) 

ROV + UTV - Price Impacts from Proposed Rule v, $10 ~ 

~ $9 ..t:: 

~ $8 

'-' 

~ $7 

$6 

$5 

$4 

$3 

$2 

$1 

$0 

I 

I 

I 

. I 

I 

I 

$5.76 

... -- -- -- ..... -· -

2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044 2049 
43718 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

67CPSC staff converted the aggregate 30-year 

costs into present values—an amount in today’s 

dollars that is equivalent to the 30-year stream of 

costs-by discounting all future amounts at a 3 

percent discount rate (a rate that accounts for the 

time value of money and the opportunity costs). 

Then, CPSC staff converted these present values 

into constant annual equivalents, or fixed amounts 

of cost per year over the 30-year period that 

represent the constant cost in today’s dollars of 

implementing of the proposed rule. 

68This is the undiscounted total costs of each 

compliance alternative divided by 30, the number 

of years in the period of analysis. 

69The total number of ROVs & UTVs is slightly 

different due to a small difference in the market 

price impacts of each scenario. 

TABLE 12—TOTAL COST OF ROV/UTV FIX—SCENARIO II 

[Floorboard Guards] 

Cost of floorboard guard fix ($M) Total cost Present value 

at 3% 

Cost of Redesigning Existing Models ...................................................................................................................... $38.87 $37.19 

Cost of Production of Floorboard Guards ............................................................................................................... 430.33 266.94 

Deadweight Loss ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.47 0.30 

Cost of Second Compliance Scenario .................................................................................................................... 469.67 304.43 

3. Annualized and Per Vehicle, in Use 

Cost of the Proposed Rule 

In this regulatory assessment, staff 

considered two types of solutions to the 

debris penetration hazard under the 

proposed rule: (i) fully redesigned 

floorboards that utilize most of the 

material in original floorboards, and (ii) 

floorboards with floorboard guards. 

Both scenarios require manufacturers to 

redesign existing models to allow for 

proper installation of the floorboard 

solution of choice. Staff estimated in 

each scenario the cost of all firms fully 

deploying that solution solely. Table 13 

below summarizes the aggregate costs of 

each scenario over the 30-year study 

period, and their respective present 

value using a 3 percent discount rate. 

TABLE 13—TOTAL 30-YEAR COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE DRAFT PROPOSED RULE

Cost of debris penetration fix ($M) 

Cost of 

redesigned 

floorboard 

scenario 

Present value 

of redesigned 

floorboards 

scenario 

Cost of 

floorboard 

guards 

scenario 

Present value 

of floorboard 

guards 

scenario 

Cost of Redesigning Existing Models .............................................................. $41.02 $39.24 $38.87 $37.19 

Cost of Production of Redesigned Floorboards .............................................. 227.09 142.15 430.33 266.94 

Deadweight Loss ............................................................................................. 0.16 0.10 0.47 0.30

Cost of Compliance ......................................................................................... 268.26 181.49 469.67 304.43 

The total 30-year cost estimates of the 

ROV/UTV debris penetration 

compliance are $268.3 million and 

$469.7 million, for redesigned 

floorboards or the floorboard guards, 

respectively. In practice, manufacturers 

may choose to implement either 

solution, or a different solution that 

proves more cost-effective. The 

corresponding present values for the 30- 

year cost range is between $181.5 to 

$304.4 million. 

Using the cost estimates from each 

scenario, staff calculated the annualized 

cost 67 and the cost per-product. The 

average annual cost 68 is $8.94 million 

for the redesigned floorboards scenario 

and $15.66 million for the floorboard 

guard scenario. The annualized costs 

(annual costs using a discount rate for 

the time value of money) is $9.26 

million at a 3 percent discount rate for 

the redesigned floorboards scenario and 

$15.53 million for the floorboard guard 

scenario. 

Staff estimated per-unit cost by 

dividing the total cost of the scenario 

(undiscounted and discounted) by the 

number of ROVs and UTVs in each 

compliance scenario over the 30-year 

period. The total number of ROVs & 

UTVs with the debris penetration fix is 

25.12 million in the redesigned 

floorboard scenario and 25.10 in the 

floorboard guard 69 scenario. In the 

redesigned floorboard scenario, the cost 

per unit is $10.68 undiscounted and 

$7.23 discounted at 3 percent. In the 

floorboard guard scenario, the cost per 

unit is $18.71 undiscounted and $12.13 

discounted at 3 percent. 

Table 14 presents the findings from 

the cost assessment of this proposed 

rule for both the annualized and perproduct perspectives. 

TABLE 14—AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF DRAFT PROPOSED RULE UNDER EACH SCENARIO

Cost of compliance with proposed rule 

Average 

annual cost— 

undiscounted 

($M) 

Annualized 

cost 

at 3%($M) 

Cost per 

ROV/UTV— 

undiscounted 

($) 

Cost per 

ROV/UTV— 

discounted at 

3% ($) 

Scenario 1: Redesigning Floorboards ............................................................. $8.94 $9.26 $10.68 $7.23 

Scenario 2: Floorboard Guard ......................................................................... 15.66 15.53 18.71 12.13 

E. Benefits and Costs Analysis 

Staff compared estimated benefits and 

costs to assess the relation between 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule. 

Table 15 below displays metrics for both 

the benefits and costs of the proposed 

rule. It takes the difference and ratio of 

benefits and costs to assess the costbenefit relationship. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43719 

70The small difference in benefits between the 

redesigned-floorboards and floorboard-guards 

scenarios is the result of a small but different 

market price impact in each case. The floorboardguard scenario is costlier and, therefore, produces 

a larger price increase that leads to a smaller 

number of vehicles under the proposed rule, and 

larger benefits with respect to the baseline situation 

without the rule. 

TABLE 15—NET BENEFITS OF DRAFT PROPOSED RULE UNDER EACH SCENARIO

Net benefits of proposed rule—($M) 

Annualized 

cost— 

redesigned 

floorboards 

Present 

value— 

redesigned 

floorboards 

Annualized 

cost— 

floorboard 

guards 

Present 

value— 

floorboard 

guards 

Benefits ............................................................................................................ $15.47 $303.13 $15.47 $303.15 

Costs ................................................................................................................ 9.26 181.49 15.53 304.43 

Net Benefits (Benefits¥Cost) .......................................................................... 6.21 121.64 ¥0.06 ¥1.28 

B/C Ratio (Benefits ÷ Cost) ............................................................................. 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 

Finally, Table 16 compares the 

benefits and costs of each compliance 

scenario on a per-vehicle basis to add a 

marginal value perspective. 

TABLE 16—PER-VEHICLE NET BENEFITS OF DRAFT PROPOSED RULE UNDER EACH SCENARIO

Net benefits of proposed rule—$ per vehicle 

Average 

undiscounted— 

redesigned 

floorboards 

Annualized 

costs at 3%— 

redesigned 

floorboards 

Average 

undiscounted— 

floorboard 

guards 

Annualized 

costs at 3%— 

floorboard 

guards 

Benefits ........................................................................................................ $20.32 $12.07 $20.34 $12.08 

Costs ........................................................................................................... 10.68 7.23 18.71 12.13 

Net Benefits (Benefits¥Cost) ..................................................................... 9.64 4.84 1.63 ¥0.05 

B/C Ratio (Benefits ÷ Cost) ......................................................................... 1.90 1.67 1.09 1.0 

1. Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis 

Uncertainty is inherent in any 

estimate or forecast of future events. 

This preliminary regulatory analysis 

estimated future benefits and costs 

associated with promulgating the 

proposed rule using the best readily 

available information and data. 

However, multiple sources of 

uncertainty may have an impact on the 

accuracy of the estimates developed for 

this regulatory assessment: 

• A first source of uncertainty is the 

use of historical data to extrapolate 

future trends, since it is clearly not 

certain that the future will follow 

historical patterns; the farther into the 

future, the more uncertain is the 

estimate. Staff applied statistical 

methods to mitigate this uncertainty to 

the extent possible. 

• A second source of uncertainty is 

the use of assumptions to overcome the 

issue of data availability. Staff carefully 

developed these assumptions based on 

subject matter expert inputs and 

literature review; however, they may not 

perfectly reflect the central trends, nor 

the full spectrum of possible 

occurrences in the real world. Staff 

developed a sensitivity analysis on a 

few key inputs to mitigate this 

uncertainty. 

• A third source of estimate 

uncertainty is the omission of certain 

benefits and costs. For instance, CPSC 

did not extrapolate the number of 

incidents to the national level due to the 

number of recorded incidents of debris 

penetration being lower than the 

publication criteria established in 

NEISS. This may result in a significant 

underestimation of the benefits of the 

rule. Likewise, CPSC may have 

overlooked certain costs of 

implementing the proposed rule. The 

Commission requests comment 

regarding benefits and costs not 

addressed in this analysis. 

The rest of this section describes the 

results of a sensitivity analysis on two 

assumptions used in this preliminary 

regulatory analysis: (1) the efficacy of 

the proposed rule as a percent of 

reduction in the number of debris 

penetration incidents, and (2) the time 

horizon of the study period. In the 

preliminary regulatory analysis, staff 

assumed the proposed rule assumed 100 

percent efficacy in preventing debris 

penetration from compliant vehicles 

and used a 30-year time horizon for its 

study period. 

Table 17 presents estimates of benefits 

and costs at two different levels of 

efficacy of the proposed rule in reducing 

the number of incidents. Table 17 shows 

that for the redesign floorboard scenario, 

the benefits exceed the costs, even at a 

60 percent efficacy. In the case of the 

floorboard guard scenario, the benefits 

essentially match the cost at a 95 

percent efficacy but are lower than the 

costs when the efficacy of the proposed 

rule is at 60 percent. 

TABLE 17—NET BENEFIT SENSITIVITY TO THE EFFICACY OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER EACH SCENARIO 70

Net benefits ($M) 

Redesigned floorboards Floorboard guards 

95% 60% 95% 60% 

Benefits ............................................................................................................ $303.13 $191.64 $303.15 $191.64 

Costs ................................................................................................................ ($181.49) ($181.49) ($304.43) ($304.43) 

Net Benefits ..................................................................................................... $121.64 $10.14 ($1.28) ($112.79) 

B/C Ratio ......................................................................................................... 1.67 1.06 1.00 0.63 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43720 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

71The small difference in benefits between the 

redesigned-floorboards and floorboard-guards 

scenarios is the result of a small but different 

market price impact in each case. The floorboardguard scenario is costlier, and therefore, produces 

a larger price increase that leads to a smaller 

number of vehicles under the proposed rule, and 

larger benefits regarding the baseline situation 

without the rule. 

Table 18 presents estimates of benefits 

and costs, and sensitivity of the net 

benefits to the length of the study 

period. It compares the 30-year study 

period used in this regulatory 

assessment with a 20-year sensitivity 

test (2024–2043). Table 18 shows that 

under the redesigned floorboard 

scenario, the benefits exceed the cost at 

both lengths of time. In the case of the 

floorboard guard scenario, the costs 

exceed the benefits if the period of 

analysis is reduced to 20 years. 

TABLE 18—NET BENEFIT SENSITIVITY TO THE PERIOD OF ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED RULE UNDER EACH SCENARIO 71

Net benefits ($M) 

Redesigned floorboards Floorboard guards 

30-Year period 20-Year period 30-Year period 20-Year period 

Benefits .............................. $303.13 ............................. $194.37 ............................. $303.15 ............................. $194.37 

Costs ................................. ($181.49) ........................... ($139.49) ........................... ($304.43) ........................... ($221.58) 

Net Benefits ....................... $121.64 ............................. $54.88 ............................... ($1.28) ............................... ($27.21) 

B/C Ratio ........................... 1.67 ................................... 1.39 ................................... 1.00 ................................... 0.88 

F. Staff Evaluation of the Voluntary 

Standards 

In developing the proposed rule, staff 

considered whether the Commission 

could rely on the current voluntary 

standards. The current voluntary 

standards for ROVs/UTVs are: 

• ANSI/ROHVA 1–2016 Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicles; and 

• ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2016—American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. 

1. ANSI/ROHVA–1 

In 2016, ROHVA published the latest 

version of the standard—ANSI/ 

ROHVA–1—2016, American National 

Standard for Recreational Off-Highway 

Vehicles. The first version of the 

standard was published in 2010. 

ROHVA member companies include 

Can-AM/BRP, Honda, Deere and Co., 

Kawasaki, Mahindra, Polaris, Textron 

Specialized Vehicles (formerly Artic 

Cat) and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/ 

ROHVA 1 started in 2008, and work 

completed with 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. 

The ANSI/ROHVA–1–2016 standard 

defines an ‘‘ROV’’ as an off-highway 

vehicle with a minimum top speed of 30 

mph, no limit on maximum speed, a 

maximum engine displacement of 1000 

cc, and a maximum Gross Vehicle 

Weight Rating (GVWR) of 3,750 lbs. The 

standard specifies requirements for 

service brakes, parking brakes, and 

controls specifications for engine, drive 

train, and steering. Lighting equipment, 

spark arresters, and warning labels are 

also covered by the standard. 

The ANSI/ROHVA–1–2016 standard 

has requirements for rollover protective 

structures (ROPS), lateral stability, 

vehicle handling, and occupant 

retention systems that include seat belts 

and passive restraints. 

The ANSI/ROHVA–1–2016 standard 

does not have requirements for 

resistance to debris penetration. The 

vehicles defined by the ANSI/ROHVA 

1–2016 standard are included in the 

definition of ‘‘ROVs’’ in the proposed 

rule and subject to the requirements of 

the proposed rule. 

2. ANSI/OPEI B71.9 

In March 2012, OPEI published the 

ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2012, American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles, which is a 

voluntary standard applicable to ROVs 

and UTVs. OPEI member companies 

include Club Car, Deere and Co., Excel 

Industries, Honda, Intimidator, 

Jacobsen, Kawasaki, Kioti, Kubota, 

Mahindra, MTD, Polaris, Toro, Yanmar, 

and Yamaha. Work on ANSI/OPEI B71.9 

was started in 2008 and completed with 

the publication of ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2012 in March 2012. 

The most recent edition of the OPEI 

standard was published in 2016; it 

provides a definition of ‘‘multipurpose 

off-highway utility vehicles 

(MOHUVs),’’ which is very similar to 

the ROHVA definition of ‘‘ROVs.’’ The 

OPEI definition of ‘‘MOHUV’’ requires a 

minimum top speed in excess of 25 

mph. The OPEI definition of ‘‘MOHUV’’ 

requires a minimum cargo load of 350 

lbs. and limits GVWR to 4,000 lbs. The 

standard specifies requirements for 

service brakes, parking brakes or 

mechanisms, and vehicle controls. 

Lighting equipment, spark arresters, and 

warning labels are also covered by the 

standard. MOHUVs can be ROVs (those 

vehicles with top speeds greater than 30 

mph) or UTVs (those vehicles with top 

speeds of less than 30 mph). 

The ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2016 standard 

does not have requirements to guard 

against the debris penetration risks. The 

vehicles defined by the ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2016 standard are included in the 

definition of ‘‘ROVs’’ and ‘‘UTVs’’ in the 

proposed rule and subject to the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

G. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

The Commission considered four 

alternatives to the proposed rule: (1) 

conduct marketing campaigns and 

recalls instead of promulgating a final 

rule; (2) rely on voluntary standards 

development; (3) limit ROV and UTV 

speed to a maximum of 10 miles per 

hour, and (4) implement a small batch 

exemption. The Commission is not 

adopting these alternatives, for the 

following reasons: 

1. Conduct Marketing Campaigns and 

Recalls Instead of Promulgating a Final 

Rule 

The Commission could issue news 

releases or utilize other information and 

marketing techniques to warn 

consumers about debris penetration 

hazards associated with ROVs and 

UTVs instead of issuing a mandatory 

rule. With this alternative, most vehicles 

would comply with one of the two 

voluntary ROV standards, and ROV and 

UTV manufacturers would incur no 

costs to modify or test their vehicles to 

comply with the proposed rule. 

However, neither voluntary standard 

includes a performance standard 

requirement to prevent debris 

penetration into the occupant area. 

Information and marketing campaigns 

are unlikely to reduce the number of 

injuries and societal costs associated 

with ROV/UTV debris penetration 

hazard. ROV/UTV users, aware of the 

debris penetration hazard, may modify 

their behavior, drive more alertly, 

reduce driving speed, and avoid debris, 

when possible. However, given that 

encountering debris in an off-highway 

environment is largely unavoidable, and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43721 

that debris penetration is possible at 

speeds as low as 2 mph, information 

and marketing campaigns are unlikely 

to substantially reduce risk of injury. 

Recalls only apply to an individual 

manufacturer and product, do not 

extend to similar products, and occur 

only after consumers have purchased 

and used such products and have been 

exposed to and potentially injured or 

killed by the hazard. Additionally, 

recalls can only address products that 

are already on the market and cannot 

prevent unsafe products from entering 

the market. 

Therefore, much of the estimated 

$18.02 million annualized societal costs 

would continue to be incurred by 

consumers in the form of deaths and 

injuries. In addition, this alternative 

would require either additional funding 

from Congress out of the Federal 

Treasury, or reallocation of CPSC’s 

appropriations, such that other safetyrelated activities that benefit the public 

are not undertaken. Both options entail 

additional costs to society. For this 

reason, the Commission is not adopting 

this alternative. 

2. Rely on Voluntary Standards 

Development 

The Commission could direct staff to 

work with voluntary standards 

development organizations to address 

the hazard. This alternative would allow 

ROHVA and OPEI member firms to 

determine collectively the degree, 

manner, and timing of debris 

penetration hazard mitigation, which 

could delay or reduce costs incurred by 

these firms to address the hazard. 

ROHVA and OPEI member firms 

supplied approximately 95 percent of 

the ROVs and UTVs sold in the United 

States in 2019. Non-member firms may 

choose not to comply with ROHVA and 

OPEI voluntary standards, and 

therefore, incur no associated costs. 

However, staff has been discussing 

debris penetration hazards with ROHVA 

and OPEI since 2018, without them 

making progress on standard 

development to adequately address this 

hazard pattern. Staff will continue to 

work with ROHVA and OPEI on 

voluntary standards, but do not know if, 

or when, a standard will be developed 

to adequately address this hazard. Until 

such voluntary standards are developed, 

staff expects the number and societal 

costs of injuries and fatalities associated 

with debris penetration hazards to 

remain at or near current levels on a 

per-vehicle basis. Therefore, the 

Commission is not adopting this 

alternative. 

3. Limiting ROV and UTV Speed to a 

Maximum of 10 Miles per Hour 

In making their recommendation 

regarding this alternative, CPSC staff 

weighed both quantifiable factors and 

unquantifiable factors. If the 

Commission promulgated a rule limiting 

ROV and UTV speed to a maximum of 

10 miles per hour, staff expects benefits, 

in the form of reduced societal costs, to 

be substantially less than that of the 

proposed rule, as testing conducted by 

SEA, Ltd., indicated many ROVs and 

UTVs are subject to debris penetration 

into the occupant area at speeds less 

than 10 mile per hour. Therefore, 

although staff would expect costs to 

manufacturers to be less, quantifiable 

net benefits would be less, as well. In 

addition, setting the maximum speed at 

10 mph could have a negative impact on 

consumer acceptance of the requirement 

and result in costs, including time, 

inconvenience, and reduced consumer 

satisfaction, leading to substantial lost 

consumer surplus and utility of the 

product. Considering both the 

quantifiable and unquantifiable costs 

and benefits, staff determined that the 

net benefit of this alternative is less than 

that of the proposed rule. Therefore, the 

Commission is not adopting this 

alternative. 

4. Small Batch Exemption 

The Commission could exclude firms 

that produce or import small numbers of 

ROVs and/or UTVs from the proposed 

rule’s performance requirements. In this 

case, most small businesses would not 

suffer adverse economic impacts. Small 

manufacturers supplied approximately 

1.3 percent of ROVs and UTVs sold in 

the United States in 2019. Small 

distributers of foreign-manufactured 

ROVs and UTVs accounted for 2.4 

percent of U.S. sales in 2019. Combined, 

small businesses comprised 

approximately 3.7 percent of the 2019 

U.S. ROV and UTV market. The 

Commission is not aware of any fatal or 

nonfatal debris penetration-related 

injuries associated with ROVs and UTVs 

manufactured or imported by small 

firms. At the same time, however, the 

Commission is unaware of any 

engineering differences between 

vehicles manufactured by small 

manufacturers versus large ones, and 

there are no data to suggest that the risk 

of injury posed by vehicles 

manufactured or supplied by small 

businesses is any different than the risk 

posed by vehicles manufactured or 

supplied by large firms. Based on this, 

the Commission is not adopting a small 

batch exemption. 

IX. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

Whenever an agency publishes an 

NPR, Section 603 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, 

requires agencies to prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), 

unless the head of the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The IRFA, or 

a summary of it, must be published in 

the Federal Register with the proposed 

rule. Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, 

each IRFA must address: 

(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. 

The IRFA must also describe any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that would accomplish the stated 

objectives and that minimize any 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

A. Reason for Agency Action 

As described above, the intent of this 

rulemaking is to reduce deaths and 

injuries resulting from the debris 

penetration into the occupant area of 

ROVs and UTVs. 

B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

The Commission proposes this rule to 

reduce the risk of death and injury 

associated with debris penetration into 

the occupant area of ROVs and UTVs. 

The rule is promulgated under the 

authority 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 

and UTVs. ROV and UTV manufacturers 

may be classified in the North American 

Industrial Classification (NAICS) 

category 336999 (All Other 

Transportation Equipment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43722 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

72Staff made these determinations using 

information from Dun & Bradstreet and 

ReferenceUSAGov. 

73The 1 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). 

74Testing may be performed by the manufacturer 

by third party engineering consulting or testing 

firms. 

Manufacturing), or possibly, 336112 

(Light Truck and Utility Vehicle 

Manufacturing). The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standard for 

these NAICS classifications are 1,000 

employees and 1,500 employees, 

respectively. Of the 35 identified ROV 

and UTV manufacturers, the 

Commission identified seven U.S. ROV 

and UTV manufacturers (20 percent of 

manufacturers) with fewer than 1,500 

employees, which, therefore, meet the 

SBA threshold for small business. 

Importers of ROVs and UTVs could be 

wholesale or retail distributers. ROV 

and UTV wholesalers may be classified 

in NAICS categories 423110 

(Automobile and Other Motor Vehicle 

Merchant Wholesalers) or 441228 

(Motorcycle, ATV, and All Other Motor 

Vehicle Dealers). The SBA size standard 

for NAICS classification 423110 is 250 

employees. The SBA size standard for 

NAICS classification 441228 is $35 

million. Of the 48 identified 

distributers/brands, of which 26 might 

be foreign importers, the Commission 

identified 19 firms (39.6 percent of 

distributer/brands) distributing foreignmanufactured (primarily Chinese) ROVs 

and UTVs in 2019, that could be 

considered small businesses.72

D. Compliance, Reporting, and RecordKeeping Requirements of Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would establish a 

performance requirement for ROVs and 

UTVs and a test procedure that 

suppliers would have to meet to sell in 

the United States. 

In 2021, the Commission contracted 

SEA to conduct testing related to the 

ROV and UTV debris penetration 

hazard. SEA tested a small, nonrepresentative sample of ROV and UTV 

models with, and without, after-market 

guards. None of the models met the 

performance requirements of the 

proposed rule when operating without 

aftermarket guards. Therefore, the 

Commission expects most small (and 

large) ROV and UTV manufacturers 

would incur costs associated with 

bringing their vehicles into compliance 

with the proposed rule, as well as costs 

related to testing and issuing a general 

certificate of conformity (GCC). 

In accordance with Section 14 of the 

CPSA, manufacturers would have to 

issue a GCC for each ROV and UTV 

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. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

At the time of this document’s 

publication, no other federal rules 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

proposed rule. 

F. Potential Impact on Small Entities 

One purpose of the IRFA is to 

evaluate the impact of a regulatory 

action on small entities and to 

determine whether that impact is 

economically significant. Although the 

SBA allows considerable flexibility in 

determining ‘‘economically significant,’’ 

CPSC typically uses 1 percent of gross 

revenue as the threshold for 

determining ‘‘economically significant.’’ 

When CPSC staff cannot demonstrate 

that the impact is lower than 1 percent 

of gross revenue, staff prepares an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis.73

1. Impact on Small Manufacturers 

The preliminary regulatory analysis in 

Section VIII of this preamble discusses 

costs more fully. Based on that analysis, 

to achieve compliance with the 

proposed rule’s performance 

requirements, ROV and UTV suppliers 

would incur costs from redesigning, 

retooling, and testing. Staff estimated 

this cost to be $51,050 per model in the 

first year.74 This figure includes $9,361 

in testing costs per model. Staff 

estimated the additional production cost 

for labor and material to be $29.23 per 

vehicle produced in the first year. Staff 

does not anticipate new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements from this 

rule. 

Staff identified seven ROV and UTV 

manufacturers that meet SBA size 

standards for small businesses. Staff 

applied both the per-model and pervehicle costs to each manufacturer’s 

number of models and unit sales in 

2019. Staff found the initial cost to 

comply with the proposed rule exceeds 

1 percent of reported annual revenue for 

five of the seven manufacturers 

identified as small businesses. For these 

five ROV and UTV manufacturers, the 

economic impact of the proposed rule is 

expected to be significant. 

2. Impact on Small Importers 

Staff identified 14 possible importers 

of ROVs and UTVs from foreign 

suppliers that would be considered 

small businesses based on SBA size 

standards. Staff identified an additional 

five importers for which a size 

determination could not be made, but 

that are likely small based on the 

number of models and units sold. A 

small importer would be impacted 

adversely by the proposed rule if its 

foreign supplier withdrew from the U.S. 

market, rather than incur the cost of 

compliance. Importers would also be 

impacted adversely if a foreign 

manufacturer failed to provide a GCC 

and had to perform its own testing for 

compliance. If sales of ROVs and UTVs 

are a substantial source of the importer’s 

business, and the importer cannot find 

an alternative supplier of ROVs and 

UTVs, the economic impact on these 

firms might be significant. However, the 

U.S. ROV and UTV market has grown at 

an annual rate of 13.5 percent since 

1998; accordingly, it is unlikely that 

foreign manufacturers would exit such a 

fast-growing market. ROV and UTV 

importers also import other products, 

such as scooters, motorcycles, and other 

powersport equipment. For these firms, 

any decline in ROV and UTV sales and 

revenue may be partially or fully offset 

by increasing sales and revenues 

derived from these other products. 

Small importers would be responsible 

for issuing a GCC certifying that their 

ROVs and UTVs comply with the rule’s 

requirements. However, importers may 

issue GCCs based upon certifications 

provided by or testing performed by 

their suppliers. The impact on small 

importers whose suppliers provide 

GCCs should not be significant. If a 

small importer’s supplier does not 

provide the GCC or testing reports, then 

the importer would have to certify each 

model for conformity based on a 

reasonable testing program. Importers 

would likely contract with an 

engineering consulting or testing firm to 

conduct the certification tests. As 

discussed in the regulatory analysis, 

staff estimated certification testing to be 

$9,361 per model. This would exceed 1 

percent of the revenue for 13 of the 

estimated 19 identified small importers, 

assuming these firms continue to import 

the same mix of products as in the preregulatory environment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43723 

G. Alternatives for Reducing the 

Adverse Impact on Small Businesses 

The Commission considered several 

alternatives to the proposed rule. These 

include: (1) conducting marketing 

campaigns and recalls instead of 

promulgating a final rule; (2) relying on 

voluntary standards development; (3) 

limiting ROV and UTV speed to a 

maximum of 10 miles per hour, and (4) 

implementing a small batch exemption. 

The Commission is not adopting these 

alternatives for the reasons stated above. 

H. Conclusion 

The Commission identified seven 

manufacturers that meet the SBA 

criteria to be considered small firms. For 

five of these firms, the estimated cost 

from the proposed rule exceeds 1 per 

percent of annual revenue. The 

Commission assesses that the proposed 

rule could have a significant economic 

impact on these five firms. 

The Commission estimated that there 

are 19 importers of foreign 

manufactured ROVs and UTVs that 

meet the SBA criteria to be considered 

small. A small importer whose supplier 

exits the market, or does not provide the 

importer a GCC, could experience a 

significant adverse economic impact. 

However, given the fast-growing market, 

the Commission does not anticipate 

foreign manufacturers will exit the U.S. 

market, and further, the Commission 

assumes that foreign manufacturers 

would provide certifications that small 

importers could rely on, so that these 

foreign manufacturers could preserve 

their sales. Given that assumption, the 

Commission assesses no significant 

economic impact on the importers of 

ROVs and UTVs. 

In summary, the proposed rule could 

have a significant adverse economic 

impact on five of the seven identified 

small manufacturers, but it is unlikely 

to have a significant direct impact on 

the 19 small importers of ROVs and 

UTVs. 

The Commission welcomes public 

comments on this IRFA. Small 

businesses that believe they would be 

affected by the proposed rule are 

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. 

X. Environmental Considerations 

Generally, the Commission’s 

regulations are considered to have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment, and environmental 

assessments and impact statements are 

not usually required. See 16 CFR 

1021.5(a). The proposed rule is not 

expected to have an adverse impact on 

the environment and is considered to 

fall within the ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 

1021.5(c). 

XI. Preemption 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996), directs 

agencies to specify the preemptive effect 

of a rule in the regulation. 61 FR 4729 

(Feb. 7, 1996). The proposed regulation 

for ROVs and UTVs is issued 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 to 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). 

States or political subdivisions of a 

state may apply for an exemption from 

preemption regarding a consumer 

product safety standard, and the 

Commission may issue a rule granting 

the exemption if it finds that the state 

or local standard: (1) provides a 

significantly higher degree of protection 

from the risk of injury or illness than the 

CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly 

burden interstate commerce. Id. 2075(c). 

Thus, the proposed rule for ROVs and 

UTVs, if finalized, would preempt nonidentical state or local requirements for 

ROVs and UTVs designed to protect 

against the same risk of injury, i.e., 

debris penetration, from ROVs and 

UTVs. 

XII. Certification 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires 

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 CPSCenforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a). A final rule on ROV and UTV 

debris penetration would subject ROVs 

and UTVs to this requirement. 

XIII. Effective Date 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) generally requires that the 

effective date of a rule be at least 30 

days after publication of a final rule. 5 

U.S.C. 553(d). Section 9(g)(1) of the 

CPSA states that a consumer product 

safety rule shall specify the date such 

rule is to take effect, and that the 

effective date must be at least 30 days 

after promulgation but cannot exceed 

180 days from the date a rule is 

promulgated, unless the Commission 

finds, for good cause shown, that a later 

effective date is in the public interest 

and publishes its reasons for such 

finding. 

If finalized, the Commission proposes 

an effective date of 120 days after 

publication of the final rule. The 

Commission concludes that ROV/UTV 

models that do not comply with the 

resistance to debris penetration 

requirements can be modified, with 

design changes to the floorboards and/ 

or augmentation of floorboard guards, in 

less than 4 person-months (at the most) 

and concludes that these ROV/UTV 

models can be tested for compliance in 

1 day. Therefore, the Commission 

concludes that 120 days is a reasonable 

period for manufacturers to modify 

vehicles, if necessary; conduct required 

tests; and analyze test results to ensure 

compliance with the recommended 

resistance to debris penetration 

requirements. 

XIV. Proposed Findings 

The CPSA requires the Commission to 

make certain findings when issuing a 

consumer product safety standard. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(f). This section discusses 

preliminary support for those findings. 

A. Degree and Nature of the Risk of 

Injury 

The risk of injury involves debris 

penetration through the floorboards of 

ROVs and UTVs. Debris, usually a tree 

branch, can puncture through the 

floorboard and enter the occupant area 

of the vehicle, posing a risk of laceration 

or impalement to the driver and/or 

passengers, which can cause severe 

injury or death. 

Between 2009 and 2021, there were a 

total of 107 incidents found in CPSC 

databases involving debris penetration 

associated with ROVs and UTVs. There 

were 6 reported fatalities and 22 

reported injuries related to the known 

debris penetration incidents. 

Additionally, there were approximately 

630 reports of debris cracking and/or 

breaking through floorboards and 10 

injuries associated with 3 ROV debris 

penetration recalls. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43724 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

B. Number of Consumer Products 

Subject to the Rule 

Except for the year 2009, the annual 

sales of ROVs and UTVs to the United 

States have increased steadily from an 

estimated 35,041 units in 1998 to 

429,135 units in 2019. In 2019, there 

were an estimated 2.34 million ROVs 

and UTVs in use in the United States. 

C. Need of the Public for the Products 

and Probable Effect of Utility, Cost, and 

Availability of the Product 

The effect of the rule will be limited 

to redesigning the floorboards of the 

vehicles; thus, the rule is unlikely to 

have an effect on the utility of ROVs and 

UTVs. 

The effect of the rule on cost and 

availability of ROVs and UTVs is 

expected to be minimal. In 2019, the 

average manufacturer’s suggested retail 

prices (MSRP) of ROVs and UTVs 

ranged from about $4,599 to $53,700. 

When weighted by sales volume, the 

mean MSRP is $13,182 for ROVs and 

UTVs, which equates to $14,302 in 2021 

dollars. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis estimates a per-unit cost to 

ROVs and UTVs of the rule to be $10.68 

(undiscounted per unit costs of 

redesigning floorboard for ROVs and 

UTVs) to $18.71 (undiscounted per unit 

cost of floorboard guard fix for ROVs 

and UTVs.) Because this per-unit cost 

resulting from the rule is a very small 

percentage of the overall retail price of 

a ROV or UTV, the rule would have 

only a minimal effect on the cost or 

availability of ROVs or UTVs. 

D. Other Means To Achieve the 

Objective of the Proposed Rule, While 

Minimizing Adverse Effects on 

Competition and Manufacturing 

The proposed requirement of the rule 

achieves the objective of reducing debris 

penetration hazards associated with 

ROVs and UTVs while minimizing the 

effect on competition and 

manufacturing. Because the proposed 

rule implements a performance 

requirement, manufacturers may choose 

how best to comply with it. This 

facilitates, through innovation and 

competition, the rollout of consumerdriven, cost-effective designs, and helps 

minimize potential adverse effects on 

consumer choice, and on manufacturing 

and commercial practices. 

Manufacturers may develop ways to 

comply with the performance 

requirement that are either less costly 

than what the preliminary regulatory 

analysis estimated, or bring more value 

to the consumer, or both. 

In addition, as described in Section 

XIV.C of this preamble, the per-unit cost 

resulting from the rule is a very small 

percentage of the overall retail price of 

an ROV or UTV. With such a relatively 

low impact, it is unlikely that ROV or 

UTV companies would withdraw from 

the market or that the number of ROV 

or UTV models will be affected. The 

Commission preliminarily finds that the 

proposed rule minimizes impact on 

competition, marketing, and commercial 

practices. 

E. Unreasonable Risk 

The Commission is aware of 107 

debris penetration incidents from its 

NEISS and CPSRMS databases. There 

were 6 fatalities, 3 of which involved 

debris penetration into the chest. There 

were 22 injuries caused by floorboard 

debris penetration, some of the injuries 

sustained were severe. 

There were 3 Commission recalls of 

ROVs due to debris penetration hazards, 

which collectively involved 

approximately 55,000 vehicles. There 

were approximately 630 manufacturerreported incidents of debris cracking or 

breaking through floorboards and 10 

injuries associated with these recalls. 

ROVs have maximum speed 

capabilities greater than 30 mph, and 

UTVs have maximum speed capabilities 

between 25 and 30 mph. These vehicles 

are intended to be driven off-road, 

including wooded areas or trails, where 

tree branches and sticks are 

commonplace. CPSC incident data 

shows that debris penetration is 

occurring at speeds less than 10 mph. 

CPSC testing shows that debris 

penetration can occur at speeds as low 

as 2.5 mph on standard OEM ROV and 

UTV floorboards. In addition, these 

incidents often occur rapidly and 

without notice, so that there is little 

time for the user to react. 

Given the potentially severe and 

unexpected nature of this hazard when 

using the vehicle as intended, the 

Commission preliminarily finds that 

this rule is necessary to prevent an 

unreasonable risk of injury. 

F. Public Interest 

The proposed rule is intended to 

address an unreasonable risk of injury 

from debris penetration into ROVs and 

UTVs. As explained in this preamble, 

adherence to the requirements of the 

proposed rule would reduce deaths and 

injuries from ROV and UTV debris 

penetration incidents in the future; thus, 

the rule is in the public interest. 

G. Voluntary Standards 

There are two voluntary standards for 

ROVs and UTVs: 

• ANSI/ROHVA 1–2016 Recreational 

Off-Highway Vehicles; 

• ANSI/OPEI B71.9–2016—American 

National Standard for Multipurpose OffHighway Utility Vehicles. 

Neither standard has requirements to 

address debris penetration. For this 

reason, the Commission preliminarily 

concludes that the voluntary standards 

will not adequately address the 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with debris penetration in ROVs and 

UTVs. 

H. Relationship of Benefits to Costs 

The benefits expected from the 

proposed rule bear a reasonable 

relationship to its cost. The proposed 

rule is intended to reduce the 

impalement and laceration risks of a 

tree branch penetrating the ROV/UTV 

floor, and thereby, reduce the societal 

costs of the resulting injuries and 

deaths. This reduction in societal costs 

amounts to $15.47 million per year in 

projected benefits. The quantifiable 

benefits of the proposed rule are 

estimated at $12.08 per ROV/UTV. The 

costs associated with the proposed 

requirements to prevent debris 

penetration are expected to be between 

$9.26 and $15.53 million per year. On 

a per-unit basis, the Commission 

estimates the total costs of the proposed 

rule to be between $7.23 to $12.13 per 

ROV/UTV in current dollars. 

I. Least-Burdensome Requirement That 

Would Adequately Reduce the Risk of 

Injury 

As described in Section IX.G of this 

preamble, the Commission considered 

less burdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule addressing debris 

penetration in ROVs and UTVs and 

concluded preliminarily that none of 

these alternatives would adequately 

reduce the risk of injury. 

XV. Promulgation of a Final Rule 

Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires 

the Commission to promulgate a final 

consumer product safety rule within 60 

days of publishing a proposed rule. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the 

Commission must withdraw the 

proposed rule if it determines that the 

rule is not reasonably necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with the 

product or is not in the public interest. 

Id. However, the Commission can 

extend the 60-day period, for good cause 

shown, if it publishes the reasons for 

doing so in the Federal Register. Id. 

The Commission finds that there is 

good cause to extend the 60-day period 

for this rulemaking. Under both the 

Administrative Procedure Act and the 

CPSA, the Commission must provide an 

opportunity for interested parties to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43725 

submit written comments on a proposed 

rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). 

The Commission is providing 60 days 

for interested parties to submit written 

comments. A shorter comment period 

may limit the quality and utility of 

information CPSC receives in 

comments, particularly for areas where 

it seeks data and other detailed 

information that may take time for 

commenters to compile. Additionally, 

the CPSA requires the Commission to 

provide interested parties with an 

opportunity to make oral presentations 

of data, views, or arguments. 15 U.S.C. 

2058. This requires time for the 

Commission to arrange a public meeting 

for this purpose, and provide notice to 

interested parties in advance of that 

meeting. After receiving written and 

oral comments, CPSC staff must have 

time to review and evaluate those 

comments. 

These factors make it impractical for 

the Commission to issue a final rule 

within 60 days of this proposed rule. 

Moreover, issuing a final rule within 60 

days of the NPR may limit commenters’ 

ability to provide useful input on the 

rule, and CPSC’s ability to evaluate and 

take that information into consideration 

in developing a final rule. Accordingly, 

the Commission finds that there is good 

cause to extend the 60-day period for 

promulgating the final rule after 

publication of the proposed rule. 

XVI. Request for Comments 

We invite all interested persons to 

submit comments on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comments on the 

following: 

• Information regarding any analysis 

and/or tests done on penetration of the 

occupant area of ROVs/UTVs; 

• Information regarding any analysis 

on the shape, composition, material 

properties, etc., of objects that have 

penetrated occupant area of ROVs/ 

UTVs; 

• Information on the speed of the 

vehicle and the energy associated with 

penetration of the occupant area of 

ROVs/UTVs; 

• The preliminary regulatory analysis 

assumes manufacturers would choose 

between two compliance options 

‘‘redesigned floorboards’’ or ‘‘floorboard 

guards;’’ but in practice, manufacturers 

may choose either of these two solutions 

or may choose a different solution that 

proves more cost-effective. We request 

information on the plausibility and 

likelihood of the options considered, 

and other solutions not included in the 

preliminary regulatory analysis. 

• Information regarding any potential 

costs or benefits that were not included 

the preliminary regulatory analysis; 

• Detailed information regarding cost 

estimates for either of the compliance 

options in the proposed rule. 

• Information regarding the number 

of small businesses impacted by the 

proposed rule and the magnitude of the 

impacts of the proposed rule. 

• Comments on the definitions in 

§ 1421.2 of the proposed rule. 

• Comments on the testing 

procedures and protocol of the proposed 

rule, and potential alternatives. 

• Comments regarding the 

appropriateness of the 120-day effective 

date, and a quantification of how a 120- 

day effective date would affect the 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule. 

• Comments regarding the 

appropriateness of a 30-day effective 

date, and a quantification of how a 30- 

day effective date would affect the 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule. 

• Comments regarding the 

appropriateness of any other period 

commenters may alternatively 

recommend, and a quantification of how 

such effective date(s) would affect the 

benefits and costs of the proposed rule. 

• In estimating the number of debris 

penetration incidents, injuries, and 

deaths, how should CPSC incorporate 

the number of known debris penetration 

incidents from OHV recall data that 

differ from the debris penetration 

incidents available in NEISS and 

CPSRMS data? 

• Are there other sources of data that 

could allow CPSC to generate a more 

robust national estimate of incidents, 

injuries, or deaths associated with OHV 

debris penetration? 

• Given the data cited in the analysis 

above and any other relevant sources, is 

it possible to make reliable estimates of 

the number of incidents, injuries, and 

deaths associated with OHV debris 

penetration on a national scale? If not, 

what are plausible assumptions 

concerning these figures? What is a 

reasonable quantification of the benefits 

tied to avoiding those incidents? 

• Are there benefits to the proposed 

rule arising from the avoidance of 

damage to OHVs, and elimination of 

associated repair costs? If so, what is a 

reasonable quantification of those 

benefits? 

XVII. Notice of Opportunity for Oral 

Presentation 

Section 9 of the CPSA requires the 

Commission to provide interested 

parties ‘‘an opportunity for oral 

presentation of data, views, or 

arguments.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The 

Commission must keep a transcript of 

such oral presentations. Id. Any person 

interested in making an oral 

presentation must contact the 

Commission, as described under the 

DATES and ADDRESSES section of this 

notice. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1421 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Recreation and recreation areas, 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 1421 to read as follows: 

PART 1421—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

ROV AND UTV DEBRIS PENETRATION 

HAZARDS 

Sec. 

1421.1 Scope, purpose and effective date. 

1421.2 Definitions. 

1421.3 Requirement. 

1421.4 Test procedures. 

1421.5 Prohibited stockpiling. 

1421.6 Findings. 

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

and 5 U.S.C. 553. 

§ 1421.1 Scope, purpose and effective 

date. 

(a) This part 1421, a consumer 

product safety standard, establishes 

requirements for recreational offhighway vehicles (ROVs) and utility 

terrain or utility task vehicles (UTVs), as 

defined in § 1421.2, to address debris 

penetration hazards. 

(b) Any ROV or UTV manufactured or 

imported after [date that is 120 days 

after publication of a final rule] shall 

comply with the requirements stated in 

§ 1421.3. 

§ 1421.2 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 1421. 

(a) Recreational off-highway vehicle 

(ROV) means a motorized vehicle 

designed or intended for off-highway 

use with the following features: four or 

more wheels with tires designed for offhighway use, non-straddle-seating for 

one or more occupants, a steering wheel 

for steering controls, foot controls for 

throttle and braking, and a maximum 

vehicle speed greater than 30 miles per 

hour (mph). 

(b) Utility terrain or utility task 

vehicle (UTV) means a motorized 

vehicle designed or intended for offhighway use with the following 

features: four or more wheels with tires 

designed for off-highway use, nonstraddle seating for one or more 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
43726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

occupants, a steering wheel for steering 

controls, foot controls for throttle and 

braking, and a maximum vehicle speed 

typically between 25 and 30 mph. 

§ 1421.3 Requirements. 

Upon testing to the test procedure 

described in § 1421.4, the test ROV/UTV 

floorboard and/or floorboard guard shall 

not allow any breach of the test dowel 

into the occupant area, although 

deformations and/or deflections of the 

floorboard and/or floorboard guard are 

allowable. Examples of breach include 

cracks, holes, tears, seam gaps, or any 

other openings that allow any part of the 

test dowel to enter the occupant area. 

§ 1421.4 Test procedures. 

(a) Load Condition. 

(1) Weight. The required load 

condition for a two-seat model is 430 

lbs, representing a driver and a front 

seat passenger, each equivalent to a 95th 

percentile male (215 lbs). For four-seat 

models, the load condition shall be 860 

lbs, representing the driver and three 

passengers. For six-seat models, the load 

condition shall be 1290 lbs, representing 

the driver and five passengers. 

Note 1 to paragraph (a)(1). Typical gross 

vehicle weights of fully loaded test vehicles 

or simulated vehicle sleds exceed 2000 lbs. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(b) Test Vehicle or Simulated Vehicle 

Sled Conditions. 

(1) The fully loaded test vehicle shall 

be fitted with the test floorboard and/or 

floorboard guard(s), as offered for sale. 

(2) If a simulated vehicle sled will be 

used, where a ROV/UTV front metal 

frame is fitted with the test floorboard 

and/or floorboard guard(s), the 

simulated vehicle sled must be able to 

translate on a linear track that can 

propel the simulated vehicle sled to at 

least 10 mph. 

(c) Test Speed. 

(1) Test Vehicle or simulated vehicle 

sled speed, in miles per hour (mph) 

shall be measured at the moment of 

impact. 

(2) The vehicle speed or simulated 

vehicle sled speed at the moment of 

impact shall be at least 10 mph. 

(d) Test Location. The test dowel shall 

be positioned in such a way that the test 

dowel will strike the wheel-well area. 

The target of the test dowel cannot be 

any component other than the 

floorboard or floorboard guard surface. 

The target shall be at the point on the 

floorboard or floorboard guard most 

likely to produce the most adverse 

results, such as a seam, crease, catch 

point, or bend. 

(e) Test Equipment. (1) A 2-inch 

diameter oak dowel positioned at angle 

between 12° to 25° from horizontal 

(indicated as X° in Figure 1) shall be 

installed on a dowel holder that can 

pivot about its transverse axis. The 

length of the dowel shall be between 39 

inches to 65 inches. 

(2) The tip of dowel shall be tapered, 

such that the tip surface diameter is 1 

inch, and the tip cone length is 1 inch. 

See Figure 2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.029</GPH>

Figure 1 - Illustration of Debris Penetrator Test Dowel Orientation 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43727 

(3) The dowel holder shall be 

constructed of a rigid material, such that 

the dowel holder does not fracture 

during the impact test. 

Note to section (e)(3). To minimize damage 

to test equipment, a vehicle or simulated 

vehicle sled braking system and/or energy 

absorption foam blocks located 2 feet past the 

debris penetrator dowel holder is 

recommended. 

(4) The braking system shall only 

activate after the vehicle or simulated 

vehicle sled collides completely with 

the debris penetrator dowel. 

(f) Test Conditions. If a test vehicle is 

used, the test surface must be dry 

asphalt or dry concrete that is free of 

contaminants. Sufficient track length 

shall be available to allow the test 

vehicle or simulated vehicle sled to 

reach 10 mph. The test surface must be 

flat and have a grade slope of 1.7% (1°) 

or less. Ambient temperature shall be 

greater than 0°C (32 °F). 

(g) Test Procedure. The debris 

penetrator test dowel shall be aligned 

with the target site of the floorboard or 

floorboard guard. A fully loaded, fully 

instrumented test vehicle or simulated 

vehicle sled shall be propelled in a 

straight-line path to collide with the 

debris penetrator test dowel, where the 

test vehicle or simulated vehicle sled 

speed shall be at least 10 mph at the 

moment of impact. For each vehicle 

model, a minimum of two test trials of 

one chosen test method shall be 

conducted. 

Note 2 to paragraph (g): Rationale for Test 

Conditions. The required ambient 

temperature of 0°C (32 °F) or greater, 

maximum allowable flat course slope grade 

of 1.7% (1°) or less, flat dry asphalt or dry 

concrete conditions, and the 95th percentile 

male weight are consistent with the lateral 

stability requirements of ANSI/OPEI B71.9– 

2016 and ANSI/ROHVA–1–2016. They 

simulate real use and allow for repeatable 

test results. 

§ 1421.5 Prohibited stockpiling. 

(a) Base period. The base period for 

ROVs and UTVs is the calendar month 

with the median manufacturing or 

import volume within the last 13 

months immediately preceding the 

month of promulgation of the final rule. 

(b) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and 

importers of ROVs and UTVs shall not 

manufacture or import ROVs or UTVs 

that do not comply with the 

requirements of this part between [date 

of promulgation of the rule] and 

[effective date of the rule] at a monthly 

rate that is greater than 105 percent of 

the monthly rate at which they 

manufactured or imported ROVs and 

UTVs during the base period. 

§ 1421.6 Findings. 

(a) General. 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 presented 

in this section. 

(b) Degree and nature of the risk of 

injury. (1) The risk of injury involves 

debris penetration through the 

floorboards of ROVs and UTVs. Debris, 

usually a fallen tree branch, can 

puncture through the floorboard and 

enter the occupant area of the vehicle, 

posing a risk of laceration or 

impalement to the driver and/or 

passengers, creating a risk of severe 

injury or death. 

(2) Between 2009 and 2021, there 

were a total of 107 incidents found in 

CPSC databases involving debris 

penetration associated with ROVs and 

UTVs. There were six reported fatalities 

and 22 reported injuries related to the 

known debris penetration incidents. 

Additionally, there were approximately 

630 manufacturer reports of debris 

cracking or breaking through 

floorboards and 10 injuries associated 

with three ROV debris penetration 

recalls. 

(c) Number of consumer products 

subject to the rule. Except for the year 

2009, the annual sales of ROVs and 

UTVs to the United States have 

increased steadily from an estimated 

35,041 units in 1998 to 429,135 units in 

2019. In 2019, there were an estimated 

2.34 million ROVs and UTVs in use in 

the United States. 

(d) The need of the public for the 

product and the effects of the rule on 

the utility, cost and availability. The 

effect of the rule will be limited to 

redesigning the floorboards of the 

vehicles, so it is unlikely to have an 

effect on the utility of ROVs and UTVs. 

The effect of the rule on cost and 

availability of ROVs and UTVs is 

expected to be minimal. In 2019, the 

average manufacturer’s suggested retail 

prices (MSRP) of ROVs and UTVs 

ranged from about $4,599 to $53,700. 

When weighted by sales volume, the 

mean MSRP is $13,182 for ROVs and 

UTVs, which equates to $14,302 in 2021 

dollars. The preliminary regulatory 

analysis estimates a per-unit cost to 

ROVs and UTVs of the rule to be $10.68 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP21JY22.030</GPH>

j 

2.inches 1inch 

l 

Figure 2 - Illustration of Debris Penetrator Test Dowel Tip Taper 
43728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(undiscounted per unit costs of 

redesigning floorboard for ROVs and 

UTVs) to $18.71 (undiscounted per unit 

cost of floorboard guard fix for ROVs 

and UTVs.) Because this per-unit cost 

resulting from the rule is a very small 

percentage of the overall retail price of 

a ROV or UTV, the rule would have 

only a minimal effect on the cost or 

availability of ROVs or UTVs. 

(e) Other means to achieve the 

objective of the rule, while minimizing 

the impact on competition and 

manufacturing. The rule achieves the 

objective of reducing debris penetration 

hazards associated with ROVs and 

UTVs while minimizing the effect on 

competition and manufacturing. 

Because the proposed rule implements 

a performance requirement, 

manufacturers may choose how best to 

comply with it. This facilitates 

innovation, competition, consumer 

choice, and the possibility of costeffective options, and helps minimize 

adverse effects on competition, 

manufacturing, and commercial 

practices. In addition, as described in 

paragraph (d) of this section, the perunit cost resulting from the rule is a 

very small percentage of the overall 

retail price of an ROV or UTV. With 

such a relatively low impact, it is 

unlikely that ROV or UTV companies 

would withdraw from the market or that 

the number of ROV or UTV models will 

be affected. The Commission 

preliminarily finds that the proposed 

rule minimizes impact on competition, 

marketing, and commercial practices. 

(f) Unreasonable risk. (1) Debris 

penetration involves debris (usually a 

tree branch or stick) penetrating an ROV 

or UTV, usually the floorboard of the 

underside of an ROV or UTV. When 

such penetration occurs, the branch or 

debris can penetrate far enough into the 

vehicle to strike the occupant or 

passengers. The Commission is aware of 

107 debris penetration incidents from 

its NEISS and CPSRMS databases. There 

were six fatalities, three of which 

involved debris penetration into the 

chest. There were 22 injuries caused by 

floorboard debris penetration, some of 

them severe. 

(2) There were three Commission 

recalls of ROVs due to debris 

penetration hazards, which collectively 

involved approximately 55,000 vehicles. 

There were approximately 630 

manufacturer-reported incidents 

involving debris cracking or breaking 

through the floorboards and 10 injuries 

associated with these recalls. 

(3) ROVs have maximum speed 

capabilities greater than 30 mph, and 

UTVs typically have maximum speed 

capabilities between 25 and 30 mph. 

These vehicles are intended to be driven 

off-road, including wooded areas or 

trails, where tree branches and sticks are 

commonplace. CPSC incident data 

shows that debris penetration is 

occurring at speeds less than 10 mph. 

CPSC testing shows that debris 

penetration can occur at speeds as low 

as 2.5 mph on standard OEM ROV and 

UTV floorboards. In addition, these 

incidents often occur rapidly and 

without notice, so that there is little 

time for the user to react. 

Voluntary standards for ROVs and 

UTVs do not contain requirements 

intended to address floorboard debris 

penetration in the vehicles. 

(4) Given the potentially severe and 

unexpected nature of this hazard when 

using the vehicle as intended, the 

Commission finds that this rule is 

reasonably necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury. 

(g) Public interest. The proposed rule 

is intended to address an unreasonable 

risk of injury from debris penetration 

into ROVs and UTVs. Adherence to the 

requirements of the proposed rule 

would reduce deaths and injuries from 

ROV and UTV debris penetration 

incidents in the future; thus, the rule is 

in the public interest. 

(h) Voluntary standards. There are 

two voluntary standards for ROVs and 

UTVs: ANSI/ROHVA 1–2016, American 

National Standard for Recreational OffHighway Vehicles, and ANSI/OPEI 

B71.9–2016, American National 

Standard for Multipurpose Off-Highway 

Utility Vehicles. Neither standard has 

requirements to address debris 

penetration. For this reason, the 

Commission concludes that the 

voluntary standards will not adequately 

address the unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with debris penetration in 

ROVs and UTVs. 

(i) Relationship of benefits to costs. 

This rule is intended to reduce the 

impalement and laceration risks of a 

tree branch penetrating the ROV/UTV 

floor, and therefore, provide projected 

benefits of $15.47 million per year by 

reducing the societal costs of debris 

penetration injuries and deaths. The 

costs associated with the proposed 

requirements to prevent debris 

penetration are expected to be between 

$9.26 and $15.53 million per year. The 

Commission finds that the benefits 

expected from the rule bear a reasonable 

relationship to its costs. 

(j) Least burdensome requirement that 

would adequately reduce the risk of 

injury. The Commission considered 

several alternatives to the proposed rule. 

However, the Commission finds that 

these alternatives would not adequately 

address the unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with debris penetration in 

ROVs and UTVs. 

(1) Conduct Marketing Campaigns 

Instead of Promulgating a Final Rule. 

The Commission considered conducting 

marketing campaigns and recalls instead 

of promulgating a rule to address the 

debris penetration hazard associated 

with ROVs and UTVs. However, even 

though an information and marketing 

campaign may make ROV and UTV 

users more aware of the debris 

penetration hazard, a simple 

modification of consumer behavior 

would be unlikely to address the risk of 

injury. Encountering debris in an offhighway environment, where these 

vehicles are intended to be driven, is 

largely unavoidable, and debris 

penetration is possible at speeds as low 

as 2 mph. 

(2) Recalls. The Commission 

considered recalls to address the risk of 

debris penetration associated with ROVs 

and UTVs. Recalls, however, only apply 

to an individual manufacturer and 

product, do not extend to similar 

products, and occur only after 

consumers have purchased and used 

such products and have been exposed to 

and potentially injured or killed by the 

hazard. Additionally, recalls can only 

address products that are already on the 

market and cannot prevent unsafe 

products from entering the market. With 

either a marketing campaign or use of 

recalls, much of the estimated $18.02 

million annualized societal costs would 

continue to be incurred by consumers in 

the form of deaths and injuries. 

Therefore, the Commission concludes 

that marketing campaigns and recalls, 

without a mandatory rule, are unlikely 

to reduce the risk of injury associated 

with debris penetration. 

(3) Rely on Voluntary Standards 

Development. The Commission 

considered directing staff to work with 

voluntary standards development 

organizations to address the hazard. 

However, staff has been discussing 

debris penetration hazards with ROHVA 

and OPEI since 2018, and there has been 

inadequate progress on standard 

development to address the risk. 

Although staff will continue to work 

with ROHVA and OPEI on the voluntary 

standards, it is not clear if or when a 

standard will be developed to 

adequately address the risk of injury. 

Until a voluntary standard is developed, 

the number and societal costs of injuries 

and fatalities associated with debris 

penetration are likely to remain at or 

near current levels. Therefore, the 

Commission concludes that rulemaking 

is necessary. 

(4) Limit ROV and UTV Speeds to 

Maximum of 10 Miles per Hour. The 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules 43729 

Commission considered limiting the 

maximum speed of ROVs and UTVs to 

10 miles per hour. Although costs to 

manufacturers would be expected to be 

less under this approach, the 

quantifiable net benefits would be less 

as well. In addition, setting the 

maximum speed at 10 mph could have 

an adverse impact on the utility of the 

vehicles and on consumer acceptance of 

the requirement. Therefore, the 

Commission is not adopting this 

approach. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–15355 Filed 7–20–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3